Manufacturer Discussion : Nokia : Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
Bookmark topic
Have to note that with the above crops of the two compressions, I have the higher compression at the right side in one and the on the left in the other. Should have paid more attention to align them.
Anyway, to restate the goal of all this: Showing that the difference between 1020 and 808 lies only in the processing. And not in the potential of the hardware. If anything, testing has showed that the 1020 is capable of better resolution and noise levels.
To me, the way I see it, under same conditions (no flash, same WB, same exposure parameters with fast enough SS for the 808 to handle), in some scenes the 808 would give more pleasing results while in others the 1020.
That's why Nokia's next to-do task is implementing effective picture control settings on the Lumias..
And I would like to see still effective these settings are on the 808.
On 2013-10-10 21:37:04, cu015170 wrote:
the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.
Well the compression topic is actually more complicated than it seems.
There are different scales to begin with. And I don't know what scale Nokia uses.
And while most scales go from 0/1 to 99/100 each scales refers to different compression values and never to percentages of anything btw..
It is a wrong conception that these numbers are percentages. The difference between 85 and 95 compression ratios on the 808 is not a 10% difference in compression.
Adobe use a scale of their own. There is a standard scale but not used by everyone. And there are other scales.
Adobe themselves even use different graphical scales on different applications of their while referring to same set of values!
Photoshop uses a scale of 12 steps while Lightroom (which I use to export JPEGs out of RAW) uses a scale from 0 to 100. But both are the same! Adobe use 98, 94, 91, 87, 83 down to around 50... And when I choose 90 on Lightroom for instance, it actually means 94. 85 means 91.
And a real value of 94 means different ratio to another 94 from other application.
What is remains the same is of course the ratio itself. 2:1 means halving the RAW data in size. 8:1 (mostly used) means dividing by 8.. A 24 MB RAW photo would become 3 MB.. 16:1 means 1.5 MB..
Obviously from the files sizes of the 808, it is one stop. Most probably going from 8:1 to 16:1.. But I find it weird that the differences between these two ratios is that apparent in the quality. Usually it shouldn't.
However, the content does play a significant difference. A landscape full of detail is a much different thing to a blue sky with one bird in the middle! Even the size of the JPEG at same compression would vastly differ..
If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.
You have to show us this.
Same exact scene with same exposure, first with all slides set to zero, then with sharpness set +5, then with only saturation set to +5, and one with only contrast set to +5, and one with all and choosing the vivid colors..
Five photos would do. Or six with one setting the saturation to +5 and vivid colors while keeping sharpness and contrast untouched.
This would be one hell of a show.
--
Posted: 2013-10-10 22:19:46
Edit :
Quote
All @ 95%, normal color mode
-5 sharpness
0 sharpness
+5 sharpness
vivid color mode
+5 saturation aka 1020 color mode
--
Posted: 2013-10-12 01:06:09
Edit :
Quote
So these are four crops, a couple at each area. First two for sharpness with the -5 at the right, 0 at the middle. And two for color, with a standard one at the right, vivid at the middle, and the +5 saturation at the right.
Regarding sharpness, the difference is subtle at best! One has to look at the two extremes to notice a difference. And still at +5, nothing like the sharpness the 1020 delivers.
As to color, the vivid version is still dead. Not even standard still in the neutral domain. Setting the saturation to plus 5 obviously boosts the saturation but does nothing to the hue, luminance, tint, or vibrance which is manipulated saturation at select parts of image.
No way to get anywhere close what the Lumia 1020 outputs. And vice-versa from the 1020 to 808 as well.
I had these settings before on the N8, and it seems Nokia did little to adjust the effectiveness of these settings on the 808.. They stand there almost useless. Even the WB settings on both the Lumias and 808 are not that useful. Nokia could also deliver here manual control over image temperature in Kelvin same as any decent stand-alone camera does.
With Post-processing using some decent PC apps one could achieve some effective changes. But still, offering internal processing varieties is different. Or of course offer the option to shoot in RAW.
Meanwhile, as far the comparison between 808 and 1020 goes, I stand by my position. I see no phone performing better than the other in terms of IQ in all situations. And with certain updates the 1020 has more potential to be better at everything.
--
Posted: 2013-10-12 05:23:10
Edit :
Quote
^ we can agree to disagree.. maybe when you get a 1020 you can show us some actual shots that are better than the 808
Here is an interesting article on the oversampling differences between the two
http://allaboutwindowsphone.c[....]a_1020_and_its_oversamplin.php
808 is the cleaner image, as always
The 808 is on the bottom
--
Posted: 2013-10-13 22:22:23
Edit :
Quote
@cu015170
I honestly can't believe you're still playing along... IMO its quite clear false either just likes to argue for no good reason or has no idea what he is talking about. Or maybe a bit of both. Either way, there is no point in going back and forth as EVER picture you post, he will down-play in one way or another. Im not saying 1020 doesn't produce good images, Im just saying it's possible there's an agenda of sorts at work here. And I'm also not disputing the fact that there may even be some people out there that simply like the "look" of 1020 images better and thats fine too... But it seems to me it's like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa isn't real (sooner or later, they get it).
Just my .02
--
Posted: 2013-10-13 23:41:54
Edit :
Quote
Cu015170... If I were you not lost more of your time with this guy !
You can show on the "
theory" that the 808 PureView is better (best lenses, bigger and better image sensor, bigger and better flash and better postprocessing)... You can show on the "
practice" that the 808 PureView is better (more detailed images, with colors more real and lower noise)... He will continue to say that Lumia 1020 is better
My friend let him continue with his crazy theories and his fanciful view, we and most people know that the 808 is and will remain the world's best cameraphone !
P.S: The funny thing is that he never put his hands on a 808 and not even in a 1020
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-13 22:45 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-13 23:42:35
Edit :
Quote
Sonysta, you and I were basically typing the same thing at the same time!!!
*mine just happen to post 1st! hahaha
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2013-10-13 22:45 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-13 23:44:42
Edit :
Quote
@Sonysta think you need to get out more and get a life. Jesus the 808 ain't that amazing
and it doesn't matter if someone hasn't used one it's down to people using their eyes and seeing the difference.
--
Posted: 2013-10-14 00:18:00
Edit :
Quote
^ err... its pretty amazing actually
On 2013-10-13 23:41:54, mlife wrote:
@cu015170
I honestly can't believe you're still playing along... IMO its quite clear false either just likes to argue for no good reason or has no idea what he is talking about. Or maybe a bit of both. Either way, there is no point in going back and forth as EVER picture you post, he will down-play in one way or another. Im not saying 1020 doesn't produce good images, Im just saying it's possible there's an agenda of sorts at work here. And I'm also not disputing the fact that there may even be some people out there that simply like the "look" of 1020 images better and thats fine too...
Just my .02
hah... well I tried to present my case as best as I could, and I generally enjoy a good/constructive discussion, but you are right, this doesn't seem to be what we have going on here.
Regardless, its always nice to have a reference point for different settings on the 808 and how much effect they have on the actual image quality, so.. not a complete waste of time I suppose
On 2013-10-13 23:41:54, mlife wrote:
But it seems to me it's like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa isn't real (sooner or later, they get it).
On 2013-10-13 23:42:35, Sonysta wrote:
P.S: The funny thing is that he never put his hands on a 808 and not even in a 1020
To be fair, I don't have a 1020 either.. but I did go to the store 3 times and took at least 30 pictures so that I can compare, and like I stated over a month ago, the 808 has the better camera based on what I've seen.
Now, with updates, personal experience with the camera, etc,. you might be able to get close to the 808, but I don't that they can make up for the inferior imaging hardware. We will have to wait and see, but I wouldn't recommend investing into a 1020 at this point.
And like mlife mentioned in his post, its perfectly normal for people to actually like the images from the 1020 better than the ones from the 808. They are more lively overall.. they have a bit more punch to them, which could be pleasing to the eye in many cases.
What I love about the 808 is the fact that it produces such a clean/neutral image, which gives you a chance to do whatever you want with it, if you so desire. I believe that the 808 really is geared towards photographers, where the 1020 is more of a mass market type of deal.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-13 23:23 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-14 00:22:59
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-14 00:18:00, Bonovox wrote:
@Sonysta think you need to get out more and get a life. Jesus the 808 ain't that amazing
and it doesn't matter if someone hasn't used one it's down to people using their eyes and seeing the difference.
And you could look and stay with a woman and stop living your life according of my comments, photos and thoughts !
P.S: First of all I'm sorry, but
I like women... Second, I said ... Me forget... I do not want no conversation with you !
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-13 23:31 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-14 00:30:23
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
