Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : did you notice the cam sensor size in k550 & w610 is 3.8mm!
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> did you notice the cam sensor size in k550 & w610 is 3.8mm!
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2007-02-12 22:11:20, ~DC:UK~ wrote:
Nokia seem to be pulling off the 5mp picture quality in the N95 quite nicely. I'll bet SE's equivilent 5mp camera phone will look virtually like the the K800i but with the 5mp size.
I still say the best camera SE ever put in a phone quality-wise was the S700i. Some of the daylight pictures were beyond awesome for that time and I think most S700i owners would agree.
loll um.. ithe nokia n95 pics aren't good at all.. which goes to show you that the megapixel race is just a number and not represetning quality
--
Posted: 2007-02-16 01:28:15
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-14 15:49:56, synagence wrote:
The megapixel race is just like the CPU Mhz race .... pointless
Thats just right but what sonyericsson done here is like to cheat her
costumers when they think they buy a cybershot cam phone which suppouse to be the top technology in the 2MP camera series & that while a 2 years phone phone from the same company is mutch better.
--
Posted: 2007-02-16 08:58:50
Edit :
Quote
All I can say is just try to take pict in a not ideal condition ie: in a shade/darker environment and all the gremlins (noise) will show. Don't just view the result on the tiny mobile LCD. Print it 4R (4x6") and compare. I think 3.2-4mp is still acceptable even in digicam class and relatively can be quite noise free unlike 5+mp. Then, try those new 8mp compact digicam and you will be suprised that even your 3.2mp k800 can give better result.
Also I can show you that my old Nikon CP950 (a 2mp third generation digicam release in 1997) can outperform pics taken by 3.2mp K800 or 5mp Pentax digicam (release in 2005).
There is a way to offset this noise is by using real flash. K800 has real flash so it may outperform a 2mp phone that only have leds. Put the real flash accessories on your 2mp K750 and don't be suprise if it can match k800 printed in 4R size paper.
From my experience 2mp is good to 5R prints and 3.2mp is good up to 8R prints. Bigger prints need bigger MP but there is a way to increase mp by using special software. It won't match dSLR picture but it may give better result than 8mp digicam with small sensor. On the other hand you can beat noise from higher mp camera by using noise ninja (noise removal software) but it will affect sharpness a bit.
I think SE may be forced to release 5mp mobile just to keep up with Nokia. But you will see that even that may not outperform k800 pics in certain condition. I just hope they put a better and more powerfull flash with that sensor.
I also think SE has competitive edge compare with the like of Nokia or Motorola. Part of them (Sony) have camera division established and recently get KM (formerly Minolta) dSLR division. That is a great know how advantage compare to Nokia/Motorola. Lens alone can't make your pics good but it is definately a good factor.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2007-02-16 09:27 ]
--
Posted: 2007-02-16 09:47:01
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-16 01:20:28, max_wedge wrote:
It comes down to the commitment of a manufacturer to quality equipment. I would rather have megapixels AND quality. And if you ever try and blow up a 5MP picture to poster size, tell me again if you think 5MP is enough...
It is all about physic law. The smaller the sensor pitch (1x1 pixel), the noisier the pics will get. Off course that happen in the same technology level. I don't doubt that as time goes by we may have better noise performance from smaller sensor (like 25mp from phone that is as good as K800 pics) but as of to date even a 10mp CCD dSLR sensor (designed last year) can't beat 6mp CCD dSLR sensor (designed 3-4 years ago). And guess who make both sensors? It is Sony.
As I can say, there is a way to get bigger mp without putting that in the sensor itself. Here are two examples:
http://www.benvista.com/main/[....]roducts§ion=photozoompro_1 and
http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2
Also I doubt you can be sattisfied printing a poster out of any mobile phone (be it the 10mp samsung phone). This kind of pics should be taken by appropriate tool like this
http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P%2045.aspx and in studio condition (lots of light from AC strobe)
--
Posted: 2007-02-16 10:14:25
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-16 10:14:25, hanugro wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-02-16 01:20:28, max_wedge wrote:
It comes down to the commitment of a manufacturer to quality equipment. I would rather have megapixels AND quality. And if you ever try and blow up a 5MP picture to poster size, tell me again if you think 5MP is enough...
It is all about physic law. The smaller the sensor pitch (1x1 pixel), the noisier the pics will get. Off course that happen in the same technology level. I don't doubt that as time goes by we may have better noise performance from smaller sensor (like 25mp from phone that is as good as K800 pics) but as of to date even a 10mp CCD dSLR sensor (designed last year) can't beat 6mp CCD dSLR sensor (designed 3-4 years ago). And guess who make both sensors? It is Sony.
As I can say, there is a way to get bigger mp without putting that in the sensor itself. Here are two examples:
http://www.benvista.com/main/[....]ourproducts§ion=photozoompro_1 and
http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2
Also I doubt you can be sattisfied printing a poster out of any mobile phone (be it the 10mp samsung phone). This kind of pics should be taken by appropriate tool like this
http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P%2045.aspx and in studio condition (lots of light from AC strobe)
As may be, but the fact remains, that TO-DATE, the Sony Ericsson CMOS camera phones are each better than the previous model with regard to not only megapixels, but noise level also. There is far less noise in the K800 sensor than the K750.
If camera phones had 10MP sensors, then your point would carry, but the fact is camera phone technology will always be behind DSLR, therefore there will always be capacity for sensors to improve in both megapixels and noise levels as models are upgraded.
--
Posted: 2007-02-21 07:07:18
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-11 22:46:04, max_wedge wrote:
dude, the sensor size means sfa.
A fellow countryman of yours
doesn't seem to agree with you. (Scroll down to "High prosumer versus low pro...")
--
Posted: 2007-02-21 11:03:41
Edit :
Quote
Picture quality on any Digital camera is based on the following factors:
1) Lens Size/Quality/Quantity: A bad quality lens will ruin a picture, causing pin cushioning, uneven lines, and chromatic aberrations. Even more so for small lenses, as aberrations are more pronounced. Aberrations have less effect with larger lenses. Also more lenses in series (as in Optical zooms) also affect image quality, by either reducing light, or compounding aberrations.
2) Sensor resolution: does the sensor manage to capture 4, 8 or 16 bits of light intensity information, and how well does it resolve it
3) Sensor Filter quality: Does the sensor filter block Ultra Violet/Infra Red properly? Does it also have good quality Red/Green/Blue filters over its RGB Sensors?
4) Light availability: How much photons actually enter the sensor. The more photos, the better (until you get to the point where the sensor is full)
5) Sensor size: The larger the sensor, the more individual photons that can be captured across it's area. Also larger sensors (with larger apertures) give narrower depth of field, which can be useful in some situations, and a pain in others. However, a larger sensor size does increase the focal distance (length of the lens).
6) Number of pixels: increases image resolution, allowing capture of greater detail.
7) Individual Photocell size: This is the sensor size divided by the number of pixels in the sensor. The larger the photocell the more photons that can be captured, providing either better sensitivity, or better sensor resolution.
Image electronics: This is a subjective point.
9) Lens Cover: Having a lens cover is vital for protecting the lens. With such small lenses, any scratch or aberration will be so much more visible. Secondly, with electronic shutters in most cheap cameras, the "sensor" is always visible, and can get "burned out" by long periods of intense light (such as leaving your phone upside down on a table in the sunlight for long periods with the cover open).
10) noise: Noise is caused by two adjacent pixels returning different values for effectively the same "colour". This can be caused by a faulty or sub par sensor, low sensor resolution (a 4 bit sensor will have bigger "jumps" between different intensity values than a 16 bit sensor), or simply poor manufacture.
The red herring is the whole CMOS vs CCD thing. In theory, CMOS should actually be better than CCD in many ways: Lower Power consumption, better colour resolution, simpler to manufacture, etc. However, until recently, CMOS Sensors were not manufactured particularly well. CCD is a mature technology, that has been around for some time, and therefore in many reviews it was seen that CCD produce superior quality pictures to CMOS. This changed with Canon's release of the EOS D30 SLR Camera. This camera had a CMOS chip that was manufactured well, and completely shocked the industry in that it provided better quality, lower noise images than the top CCD based SLRs at the time. Even now, years after, Canon's CMOS Sensors are still up there in the quality stakes.
As you can see, there are compromises all over. Increasing the number of megapixels, whilst keeping the sensor size constant, reduces individual Photocell Size, which in turn has a negative effect on the sensor resolution as less photons can be captured. Also there would be an increase in noise. as sensitivity needs to be boosted.
Increasing the sensor size to match the increased MP would result in larger lenses, and lens depth which would be inappropriate for a camera phone. It would also decrease depth of field, which may be great for well focused, professionally done portrait shots, but poor for normal "point and shoot" photos that Camera Phones are typically used for.
For normal 6x4 photos, it is totally unnecessary to have more than 3.2 Megapixels (the extra resolution is wasted). 3.2 Megapixel images can scale up to 7x5 easily. Even a good 2MP camera will produce satisfactory 6x4 pictures (I know I have printed some excellent 6x4 prints from my old Nikon 2MP camera)
Rather than Increasing Megapixels on a camera phone, effort should be made to improve the performance of the Lens, sensor resolution, Sensor quality, focussing capability and electronics. However, these things dont count on the majority public who view size matters, and buy the largest megapixels they can get they hands on.
But even in the megapixel race, there can be some improvements. IF there is such a need to provide a 5MP camera phone there should be an option to provide 3.2MP or lower processing. This doesn't mean taking a picture and processing at 5MP and then scaling down the final image to 3.2MP, as that would take a poor quality 5MP shot, and turn it into a poor quality 3MP shot, which is what current digital cameras do.
Instead the "scaling" should be done before processing. The electronics should combine adjacent results form the raw sensors using a clever pre-processing, creating a smaller, but deeper raw image, before processing it into a picture, and converting it to JPG. This means that a 5MP camera can be made to behave as a true 3.2MP or smaller camera. You have the choice of high MP and lower quality, or low MP and higher quality.
I do this all the time with my Canon EOS camera. I take pictures at 8MP raw (no processing done on the camera), then using my computer I process the raw image using a software I am developing which combines the raw RGB pixels using a jitter overlay process whilst applying brightness/contrast and other processing options which are better helped curing the combine process, to produce a significantly better quality image, wiht greater depth, and less noise, albeit at 3.2MP. I can then save it at JPG or tiff, depending on my needs.
But until such technology exists on a camera phone, I would be very wary of getting a 5MP camera phone, as it would not be usefull.
--
Posted: 2007-02-21 13:39:45
Edit :
Quote
the one thing everyone is forgetting - technology does not remain constant. It is improving all the time. Once CCD was easily better than cmos, now cmos is taking over.
Likewise with sensor pitch, new methods are being discovered all the time to reduce the affect of lowered sensitivity due to smallness and closeness of pixels to one another.
As this guys says "Yes, this large a sensor size difference has that has inescapable consequences for both real resolution and noise. The smaller the sensor, the lousier it'll be in both categories, all other things being equal."
http://www.dansdata.com/danletters064.htm
The key words are ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. The fact is from one model to another things are not equal. Technology is moving forward year by year. While a 5MP camera phone two years ago would have unacceptable noise, that is not so with todays technology.
I agree partially about the pointlessness of the megapixel race, however I think 5-6MP is a good point to aim for with camera phones rather than the 3MP that people are claiming.
--
Posted: 2007-02-21 23:18:35
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-21 07:07:18, max_wedge wrote:
There is far less noise in the K800 sensor than the K750.
Don't forget that K800 is AF and K750 is free focus. K750 is forced to use bigger f number to maximised DOF (depth of field). Bigger f number means smaller opening of lens and the sensor has to use higher ISO number to compensate and hence more noise.
My 1997 Nikon 2mp CoolPix950 digicam can outperform k800 3.2 mp in noise department. Don't count sharpness, color fidelity, etc. It uses 1/1.8" sensors! And yes my KM 5D dSLR is much better with 6mp but the sensor size area might be 20x bigger than K800 making each pixel (1x1) area of dSLR is almost 10x bigger than that of K800.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2007-02-23 13:15 ]
--
Posted: 2007-02-23 13:42:13
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-02-23 13:42:13, hanugro wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-02-21 07:07:18, max_wedge wrote:
There is far less noise in the K800 sensor than the K750.
Don't forget that K800 is AF and K750 is free focus. K750 is forced to use bigger f number to maximised DOF (depth of field). Bigger f number means smaller opening of lens and the sensor has to use higher ISO number to compensate and hence more noise.
My 1997 Nikon 2mp CoolPix950 digicam can outperform k800 3.2 mp in noise department. Don't count sharpness, color fidelity, etc. It uses 1/1.8" sensors! And yes my KM 5D dSLR is much better with 6mp but the sensor size area might be 20x bigger than K800 making each pixel (1x1) area of dSLR is almost 10x bigger than that of K800.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2007-02-23 13:15 ]
actually K750 IS autofocus. The fact remains that each SE camera phone is better than the last on noise performance. The argument that smaller chips result in more noise is relevant at the upper end of the megapixel range (5-6MP cameras and above, but not at the 3MP range. Once Camera phones hit 6-7MP, this technology will have advanced a bit more and camera phones will still remain free from the sensor size/noise ratio trade-off.
--
Posted: 2007-02-26 00:01:13
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
