>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion
Bookmark topic
On 2012-10-01 10:33:28, admad wrote:
but PureView 808 manages so much better with same exposure and ISO. I guess it means 808 has also a pretty much powerful xenon flash. Would be cool to see how Lumia 920 would perform here
[ This Message was edited by: admad on 2012-10-01 09:33 ]
The xenon on the 808 has 2x more power compared to the N8 + PureView tech .. it makes for a pretty big difference.
Look at this thing .. two capacitors.. proper!
The lumia 920 .. we have to wait, but I doubt it can beat the 808 in those conditions.
On 2012-10-02 00:56:59, false_morel wrote:
I'm literally stunned by the 808's flash performance!! This is mind blowing!!
It hits better white balance thsn the Canon which went on the bluish side, typical mistake for some cameras with Xenon.
808 also delivered better detail and noise levels! Unbelievable!
Its not just the powerful xenon flash, its the combination with the jpeg pureview algorithm, which further clean up the noise (evident from my low light shots against the iphone 5/N8) and it helps out the Xenon. Its a pretty efficient system for such a small package. Like I said.. the tech in the 808 is gold
I didn't do the flash test.. so unfortunately I can't test them further, but the 808 does very well hand held.. I mean, like any other camera, anything undr 1/40 becomes rather difficult.
Also, 2.7 seconds exposure time confirmed:
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=62045[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-10-02 05:48 ]
--
Posted: 2012-10-02 02:18:58
Edit :
Quote
More Highlighted Technichal Specifications Photographic 808 PureView PRO:
• Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle Optics 26 mm
• F-Number: f/2.3984375
• Focal Length: 8.02mm
• Focus Range: 15 Cm – Infinity
• Construction Lens: 5 Elements, 1 Group. All Lens Surfaces Are Aspherical (One High - Index, Low - Dispersion Glass Mould Lens / Mechanical Shutter With Neutral Density Filter)
•
Sensor: Cmos FSI (1/1.2”)
•
Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)
•
Total Pixel Are Used: 7728 x 5368 – 41.4 MP
• Effective Pixels Resolution: 7728 x 4354 For (16:9) / 7152 x 5368 For (4:3)
More Highlighted Technichal Specifications Photographic Lumia 920 PureView LITE:
• Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle Optics 26 mm
• Optical Image Stabiliser Barrel Shift type
• Stabiliser Performance Up To 3EV (8x Longer Shutter Speeds)
• F-Number: f/2.0
• Focal Length: 3.73mm
• Focus Range: 8 Cm – Infinity
• Construction Lens: 5 Elements, 1 Group. All Lens Surfaces Are Aspherical (Mechanical Shutter)
•
Sensor: Cmos BSI (1/3”)
•
Pixel Size: 1.4 Microns
•
Total Pixel Are Used: 3553 x 2448 – 8.7 MP
• Effective Pixels Resolution: 3552 x 1998 For 16:9 / 3264 x 2448 For 4:3.
Looking Well All The Details Technicians Of 2 Appliances And All The Images Captured By Both, You Still Discuss Who Will Be Best And The Worst ???
Simply Ridiculous And Mainly Unnecessary !
808 PureView PRO Will Better That The Lumia 920 PureView LITE In Any Type Of Scene Or Luminosity ! 
P.S (1): Lumia 920 PureView LITE Even Will Better That
NSeries N8 !!!
P.S (2): Lumia 920 PureView LITE Even Account With a
Flash Really !!!
[ This Message was edited by: Guarulhos on 2012-10-02 07:51 ]
--
Posted: 2012-10-02 08:45:58
Edit :
Quote
Belle FP2 update now officially rolling out for the 808 Pureview.
--
Posted: 2012-10-02 09:50:09
Edit :
Quote
On 2012-10-02 08:45:58, Guarulhos wrote:
• Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)
Brilliant.
--
Posted: 2012-10-02 23:41:38
Edit :
Quote
On 2012-10-02 08:45:58, Guarulhos wrote:
• Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)
This is not accurate information!
Brief clarification: Putting first the Pureview tech aside, the native effective pixels of a sensor remain constant. That is, if a camera has a 16MP of 4 microcs pixel size, shooting at 8MP will not mean that the native pixels (photosites) of the sensor got twice as big! The sensor will still capture a 16MP image and the camera will downsample to 8MP.
Now with Pureview it's totally different since it's not a simple downsampling that's taking place, but much more complicated algortithms using the information from 4 pixels to make a totally new one, called super pixel!
Super refers to information held in that pixel and not its size obviosuly.
One could argue that this technique could lead to results as if the sensor had 4 microns, but not quite excplicitely as you stated in the specs sheet!! There is a significant difference to that!
Looking Well All The Details Technicians Of 2 Appliances And All The Images Captured By Both, You Still Discuss Who Will Be Best And The Worst ???
Simply Ridiculous And Mainly Unnecessary !
Each of the 808 and 920 excells at different areas. The 920 will outdo the 808 in its respective areas, and the 808 will outdo the 920 in the rest of the situations.
It's not difficult to comprehend really.
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2012-10-02 23:06 ]
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 00:05:38
Edit :
Quote
Fact is, you are not supposed to be getting that kind of performance and quality out of 1.4 micron pixels.. so whatever they/we want to call it, it works, and the pixels behave like they are bigger, then they actually are
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 01:55:24
Edit :
Quote
True. The noise performance you get from the 808 is not the performance you expect from a 1.4 micron photosite sensor!! No question about it.
But not on par or better than an actual 4 to 5 micron DSLR sensor!
And as far as detail goes, you're still getting 5 MP at the end. **5MP is where the PureView technology delivers its best with the 808 as explained by Nokia**
Now for printing standard sized images and web uses, 5MP is more than enough. But comparing this to the detail of 14 to 16 MP with even better noise performance, it's quite a difference.
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 03:54:27
Edit :
Quote
On 2012-10-03 03:54:27, false_morel wrote:
But not on par or better than an actual 4 to 5 micron DSLR sensor!
oh, ya.. no contest. There is no way to beat a physical ~5.0 micron pixel.. especially when it comes DR, then the 808s real pixel size shows up
the PV tech can't compensate for that...
From my own experience, the 808's best balance is @ 8Mpix PV mode @ 95% jpeg compression and +2 sharpness from the settings. If you want crazy colors, vivid mode + maxed out saturation is required, if you want natural/real looking images, you leave those two alone.
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 04:43:15
Edit :
Quote
NOKIA CONVERSATIONS, DPREVIEW, ALL ABOUT SYMBIAN, PUREVIEWCLUB Are Reliable Sources, And Just In Which There I Took The Spite Of The Information 808 PUREVIEW PRO And 920 PUREVIEW LITE !
P.S: Who Has More Knowledge And Credibility... You Or Them ? 
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 06:37:50
Edit :
Quote
On 2012-10-03 04:43:15, cu015170 wrote:
If you want crazy colors, vivid mode + maxed out saturation is required
I have that as my C1 in my creative mode.
--
Posted: 2012-10-03 07:29:03
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
