News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Manufacturer Discussion > Nokia > Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion Bookmark topic

As previously said, and in all other posts !

You wrote... wrote... and wrote and could not prove that any cell phone, smartphone or camera phone image and video quality is superior to 808 PUREVIEW !

Image quality and superior video images and the 808 PUREVIEW only select videos from a DSLR !

In more... All cameras point and shoot, smartphones, mobile phones and SOME DSRL is lower !!!

And it made history to his BELOVED SONY has ever in the history of mobile phones !

P.S: NOKIA NSERIES N8 video quality is superior to IPHONE 4... IPHONE 4S And GALAXY S II !
Because it uses the entire area of the sensor and the optical assembly to record your videos (28 mm), unlike IPHONE 4... IPHONE 4S And GALAXY S II using only the center sensor and lens (40 mm)... out the audio quality of the video, which is stereo and has an audio codec with a higher bit rate !!!

P.S (2): Confinement definitely my participation in this topic, because the level of fanaticism and lack of photographic knowledge is too high !

In a moment will say that SONY XPERIA P and SONY XPERIA S, has image quality and video quality superior to NSERIES N8 (PRINCE OF CAMERAPHONES) And 808 PUREVIEW (KING OF CAMERAPHONES) !!!


"RASEC OR RAZEC...
FACTS AGAINST REAL AND NUMBERS... NO ARGUMENTS"

SO SIMPLE !!!
--
Posted: 2012-07-21 08:26:49
Edit : Quote




Is there a need to prove? I said in my post that I agree that 808PV camera is the best among mobile phones, and there you are spilling more nonsense while trying to avoid reeflotz's dispute because it obviously makes you the one who knows nothing about photography.



This discussion is getting too far, I can list 20 or more devices that can records better videos than pureview anytime anyday besides DSLRs. and yes they may not be smartphones in particular, not that you're talking about them as well based on the above quote aren't you? but anyway your sentence is just as cryptic as ever so I can't give you a proper answer.



Any proofs for the DSLR part? just a while ago you said A850 was surpassed by 808 and I gave you a sample image taken by that camera at ISO800 while showing you as well a noisy 100% crop of a 808PV taken in nightscene both without flash and you accused Eldar and Imaging-resource.com of whatever you can find against them. yet you failed to give me a proper response and explanation to justify your claims and yeah just because the Sony RX100 - a point and shoot camera with larger sensor, larger aperture priority, better optics, full manual mode, better lowlight performance, faster AF, faster shot-to-shot, real loss less Zoom at 20MP and superior video recording bitrate didn't have a 41MP and pixel binning you skipped on it and claimed 808 surpassed all P&S including it... that makes you a more of a fanboy than us, seriously



You seriously should apply for a job in journalism, as your posts are always filled with sensationalism, no offense but those companies needed people like you



Thanks for this info. but when and where in my post had I included iPhone 4? besides who cares for a little higher bitrate audio when the video bitrate as well as the resolution itself is a miss? and before you could include 808 here I just have to remind you we're talking about N8 vs 4s/SIII just as the quote says above. by the way Aren't we talking about video quality here?

but anyway check this out:

http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_4s-review-665p6.php

http://www.gsmarena.com/vidcm[....]12&idPhone2=3252&idPhone3=3621



I don't get it to be honest, I know one thing for sure though, what I said were all facts and I have proofs to back them



Oh so you managed to spell my username right, do I need to thank you for this wonderful milestone?



^^ Me, randomuser, Sugarkane, bonovox, reeflotz, exaflare, mriley's post are, yet you kept ignoring our points



Yes, you shot yourself on the foot and thanks for the input, everyone knows what the real facts are, no one said 808's camera is crap nor insecure about Nokia having the best cameraphone available, and no one's crying nor jealous over the fact that 808's camera is better than SIII/4s/Xperia S, and no one's sad that the only area where those phones can't beat 808PV was the camera. got it?
--
Posted: 2012-07-21 09:38:36
Edit : Quote


Oh Dear!
Guarhalos or whatever your username is, we don't need this crap here OKAY???? It is extremely annoying to even SEE your post let alone TRYING to read it. And then it takes a week or more to grasp what you actually mean !!
So please don't start an argument again. Nokia 808 pureview is the best camera phone in the world we all agree. Be happy now!

Gosh

--
Posted: 2012-07-21 10:51:09
Edit : Quote


The 808 is not about specs, but about usability. Its also probably the most converged device ever.. one size doesn't fit all.

The sensor is a developed in collaboration by both, Nokia and Toshiba.. that is why you will never see that sensor being used by any other oem.. even Toshiba.. same thing happened with the N8 sensor.

I love mine, very stable, quick, and does everything I need a smartphone to do.

The camera is simply amazing, its not about one aspect (like detail, or noise, or whatever) its the overall range of effectiveness/flexibility that it offers...its in a league of its own.

The built quality is top notch as well.. Just yesterday I noticed that they've put a rubber seal around the screen.. I've never seen that before.



Overall, use one, and it will turn your opinion of it upside down. The more I use it, the more I understand why they are asking that kind of money for it.

Credit where credit is due, and this time Nokia is due..
--
Posted: 2012-07-21 20:10:07
Edit : Quote


808 Pure View







As expected this 808 is not as good (at all) as my GS3, symbian belle is very complete but not "modern" or user friendly/easy to use compared to android ICS, surfing the web apps ect...

Screen is sometimes too dim, sometimes a bit pink when it bright and you cannot turn of the light sensor of the screen. Resolution too low, colors and contrast are good.

Camera seems very good. The pictures seem to be made with a N8 but better.

I continue to discover...
--
Posted: 2012-07-21 23:24:27
Edit : Quote


808 PV -> Pureview 8mp mode exposure -0.3 vivid colours

Real size : http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=59039

Galaxy S3 -> auto mode 8mp exposure -0.5

Real size : http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=59038

What do you thing ?

--
Posted: 2012-07-23 19:42:06
Edit : Quote


Finaly photo in vivid mode, but it does not look vivid, people already said 808 PW has washed out colors, i'm not sure it is something that can be tolerated in this price range, in spite of details and sharpness, it does not goes one without other. I'm not into tech specs, don't understand why is it made this way, i just look final result.
Ten for I9300, nothing for 808.

--
Posted: 2012-07-23 20:43:32
Edit : Quote


Haha, really? Colors are just a matter of proper settings, eventually they can be easly corrected with software, while quality is something that can't be improved. 808 is a clear winner here, that's all.
--
Posted: 2012-07-23 22:20:25
Edit : Quote


Well, I actually prefer the photo taken with the Galaxy S3, colours are brighter, contrast is much better and the white balance is correct. However the detail in the Pureview photo is much better - even though it looks washed out (wrong white balance/ dirty lens/ wrong exposure?) even on vivid setting it looks washed out and lacks the punch that the Galaxy s3 has. The difference between these two photos is mainly contrast in my opinion.
Every camera has some kind of in-camera "post processing" that decides the level of contrast to use, saturation, sharpness etc. I bet if you increased the contrast of the Pureview's photo in photoshop then it would end up looking better than that of the Galaxy s3 (which is clearly over-sharpened to make it appear more detailed)

You can't reliably judge from these two pictures but if i had to choose which camera-phone to take with me, it would be the Galaxy S3, because you know they will look punch straight from the phone without needing to bump up colour saturation or contrast in photoshop (which i would never bother with).

The fact of the matter is that it's very difficult to reliably compare the quality of two camera-phones, even if the two photos are taken just seconds apart in the exact same lighting conditions. The quality each camera can make isn't consistent, if you play around with the settings you can make a much nicer (/poorer) result.

Take these two photos for example, it appears they're taken by completely different phones, but they were both taken with my old Elm just seconds apart: first photo set on auto, second on daylight setting with decreased EV.



This is why i would choose the Galaxy S3, you just dont need 40+ megapixels in a camera-phone. Maybe you would if you were taking landscape shots that need a high res sensor, but for the average photo its the in- camera processing that determines the quality of the photo.

TLDR:
Not worth sacrificing the compact size of the Galaxy S3 with the brick of the Pureview when it can't produce photos on auto mode that have a good punch. Same overall results can be acheived with galaxy s3 if you know what you're doing and know how to use light effectively. That is what determines whether a photo is decent, not the camera itself (most of the time)


--
Posted: 2012-07-23 23:33:35
Edit : Quote


Not been on here for a while and this is my last post cos I hate this forum now. @Guaralhos no you talk out your backside. No camera phone competes with any DSLR. You seriously need an eye test. The Pureview to me is over rated seen some pics recently taken by davidsic who is normally a good photographer. But I found the images a touch blurry. Bye

_________________
Material things don't matter,but Rock n Roll does!!!!

Sony Xperia U
--
Posted: 2012-07-24 01:02:00
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index