Everything Android

[TriniXaeno]

beautifully said awesome.

Samsung already "trying" as evident with the zoom. They...or someone on the android camp....will get it right eventually. Sooo many manufacturers making these phones that it is only a matter of time.

Also, as awesome alluded....the cameras on current gen ain't nothing to sneeze at. My Galaxy Note 2 camera is fit for purpose for 90% of the pictures I take. As is.

In fact, it is too high fidelity. I always have to reduce res for the actual photo to be put into practical use (on digital photo frames, uploading to facebook, emailing to friends / customers....etc....)

I still want the technology to get better though, to deal with the remaining 10% of times when you need the low lighting or proper optical zoom.

As for the 1080p, yes the screen is too small to appreciate the difference between 720p and 1080p on a phone / tablet.

In fact, it is too small to notice from a proper viewing distance all the way up to a 32" TV. Let alone a measly 4.9" screen.

However, the higher resolution plays a part in non movie watching scenarios. Like your browser. That pixel real estate is very valuable there. You might need a pair of binoculars to read the text though, lol

Still, I welcome the 1080p. Should come in handy when mirroring the phone's UI on a big screen TV.

Right now the UI looks horrid because it is so low res.



1080p coming to the Galaxy Note. Boom bang.

[MessiaaH]

Wyatt, 10 years from now when you watching your old pictures with the family on your super high res 8k screen. You'd wish your photos were taken with a better camera. For right now you mite be ok, but come 10 years later when you reliving those memories, the quality you take at now, will matter a whole lot.

That aside, the 1020 high MP count is not just about resolution, is about enabling a small slim device to employ lossless zoom, and ability to reframe your photos infinite times without loosing quality.

Shoot first zoom later tech. Very useful.

As well as simultaneous oversampled 5mp shots, producing very high quality images but still small in size for the purposes of fb and the like.

Nokia thought of everything lol.

[Spazosaurus]

Of course, picture taking prowess is a very nice to have in a smartphone, seeing as it is the one thing (for me at least) that 99% of the time is within arm's reach, however, the value attached to above average capability in this department varies wildly between individuals. For me, this is quite low.

Funny you should mention pics for the future. The other day I was looking at some pics I took with my Sony w810i back in 2006 and was amazed at how good they looked on my 1080p display, full screen. Mind you this was a lowly 2 MP camera...a spec that exists now only as a "secondary" camera on devices we use today...

Not saying I wont ever buy a phone with a top of the line camera but it definitely has to check all the right boxes in all the other departments BEFORE cam is looked at. Sadly, any such device is going to have some compromises, not least of which is price so i'll probably never buy a phone with a top of the line camera lol.

[TriniXaeno]

Exactly

There is definitely diminishing returns past a certain resolution in cameras.

I would prefer a 5mp phone camera with brilliant low light performance, 12x optical zoom, optical image stabilization and  powerful flash over an 8 mp with 3x digital zoom, horrible low light performance and penchant for taking blurry images. lol

Luckily we will soon have our cake and eat it too if Nokia keeps pushing the envelope. High res and killer features. boom bang.

5 MP = 2592 x 1944 pixels
High Quality: 10 x 13 inches
Acceptable Quality: 13 x 19 inches

4 MP = 2272 x 1704 pixels
High Quality: 9 x 12 inches
Acceptable Quality: 12 x 16 inches

3 MP = 2048 x 1536 pixels
High Quality: 8 x 10 inches
Acceptable Quality: 10 x 13 inches

2 MP = 1600 x 1200 pixels
High Quality: 4 x 6 inches, 5 x 7 inches
Acceptable Quality: 8 x 10 inches

Less than 2 MP
Only suitable for on-screen viewing or wallet-size prints.

Notice, 2MP was already suitable for on-screen viewing (facebook, digital photo frames, etc....)

5MP is overkill, let alone the 8mp found in my galaxy note 2. That explains why I always have to resize the bloody pictures for practical use.

Truth be told, camera technology is way ahead of current display tech. In about 10 years, we will finally have 8k  screens that display all the pixels in current day 12MP. Even the emerging 4K screens can't do that.

That is bad news for cameras but great news for camera phones. They have a very real ceiling to work.

I think by Christmas 2014 android makers will close the gap Nokia has created in the market.

Rest assured

(Attached is a native pic from the Note 2. not bad for a phone eh)

[MessiaaH]

Alyuh men don't understand photography.

If you did, you will very well know, that a good 2mp Real Camera from 10 years ago, will outperform any modern smartphone today (sans 1020). So my point about viewing images in the future, have nothing to do with megapixels.

I don't claim to be an expert in photography. But I know MegaPixels is just a number. There has been the megapixel wars before, and the industry didn't take long to realize, megapixels don't matter, is the lense, yUh optics, and how you use what u have is what matters. 1020 have a 41mp camera, a MP count that not even found on high end expensive DSLR, but yet still a DSLR will wipe d floor with a 1020. What makes the 1020 brilliant, is not the fact that d photos have a high resolution, is how they use that resolution. The main advantage is, you are able to have the advantage of lossless zoom. Which is d same as having optical zoom, without all d bulk and contraption. And the quality of the carl zies lens is bess too.

So @ capt. Yes, the pictures u take with a  real camera ah while back, will infact look good on yUh big TV. But photos taken with smartphones for me right now, looks like crap, rel crap, compared to a real camera, on my current screen / tv whatever. Muchless for super TVs in the future.

That image you post there wyatt, looks horrible to my eyes. It full of blur, and noise. It have a reason a proper DSLR runs you anywhere from 1-2000$, my partner have lense that cost 600$ and he have a couple. So d man whole camera setup cost like 5 grand US! lolol.

Camera photography is simple physics, and the industry has figured out optics donkey years ago. What we have not figured out yet, is how to extract such quality, from smaller form factors, (smartphones). Which is where Nokia's 41MP PureView technology comes in. And that tech has only JUST! start to compete, with cheap 200$ point and shoots....

So if right now, smartphone pics looks horrible to my eyes, muchless in the future. It mite be acceptable to alyuh men, but to me, them photos is crap lol.

So again, is not about how much Mp yUh have and what resolution u going to view it at, 1080p or Facebook or whatever. Is about how you use said MP, Is about taking Sharp High Quality Pictures, with good lighting, white balance, detail, color saturation, lossless zoom, etc etc etc.

[TriniXaeno]

You are making our points for us.

1) The megapixel is already at the point of diminishing returns. All agreed

2) our current typical viewing of pix takes place on low res mediums. (Facebook, 1080p tvs, 1024 photo frames, 720p tablets and phones) all agreed

3) Nokia tech is will soon finds its way into other android smartphones at which point their cameras will dramatically improve and offer better low light performance and zoom. Gg no re point amd shoot cameras.

It is this third point I think you may contend.

Also.... as a side note to point number 2, that paria image looks perfect on my phone and on my tv when viewed from the couch.

[MessiaaH]

Well I sit down about 3 feet from my surface screen and it looks horrible, I dare not zoom into it to see more lol.

Also, Low Res Medium will soon be a thing of the past.

And yes, I do contend point #3

Fact is guys, why settle for less? What nokia doing, (as pointed out by wyatt), is a good thing for everyone. Even if you don't care about photography much. Wont it be nice for every smart phone to be able to take high quality pictures, that u can share on the same social media etc, and it looks way better, than current smartphones?

Some (capt) mite not be willing to pay for it, but we all know, technology prices does drop like dog.
This time next year, that 1020 going to be going on amazon for 300$ Fully Unlocked. U telling me at that price u wont want that photo experience on yUh smartphone? I bought my Lumia 920 for 750$ US Unlocked, 6 months after I see d thing drop to 500$, d price I hadda sell that for now it shameful lol.

But i'll never settle for the status quo, when I KNOW better is yet to come. I not settling for "good enough"
Even when I get that 1020, I know a DSLR will eat it for breakfast, even if u talking small facebook sharing, or viewing on your couch 30 feet away, a DSLR photo will look MUCH better. So even when I get 1020, I will still be looking forward to Purview 3, Pureview 4, Pureivew 5, etc etc etc. And each iteration, I'm sure these same arguments will crop up. But at the end of the day, I will have better and better and better looking casual stash of pictures. Getting closer and closer to the quality of a DSLR. (And yes, I believe there is a point where the smartphone will cap out on how close it can get to a DSLR, but we no where near that cap yet.)

[TriniXaeno]

Well I know exactly where the problem lies with you Messiaah, after seeing the cost of your gaming rig. lol

What we are willing to pay for a particular price/performance ratio is completely different to yours.

You put a ton of value on the ultra high end. Extreme.

It shows in your audio equipment, it shows in your display screens, it shows in your gaming rig.

Those pictures and videos my phone takes ARE good enough for ME. They look fantastic on facebook, etc... In fact, they are better than I would expect from a phone and thus I am very impressed with them. lol

Obviously your eyes and ears accustomed to a whole different level of fidelity given the equipment in the Messiaah household. lol

Sure I would love better quality....but not willing to pay more than US$500 for a phone. So I'll happily wait for the Nokia-esque tech to be reverse engineered and packed into a cheap android in 2014.

[MessiaaH]

Cant argue with that, point taken.

Also like I said, time next year, that 1020 go be cheap, give it a 14-15 months, u getting that for gunta price on amazon/ebay.

But i'll continue to disagree with the reverse engineering part. I honestly think it will take the competition at least 2.5 maybe 3 years to catch up. It all depends on how much they willing to invest. Imaging has always been Nokia's forte.

The question is, does Samsung NEED! to compete?
They already have the market, and I don't see the 1020 eating into that anytime soon.
So the competition could very well say..."Why Bother?, our cameras are "Good enough" for the masses.

When nokia market share start looking concerning, then they go be trying to play catch up. Which will be 3 years down d road, and nokia's lead and experience in imaging go be even further cemented. We'll see how it turns out, but that's my prediction.

[Arcmanov]

...and therein lies the rub.

For most of us (including me) current smartphone cameras good enough for about 90% of what we use it for.

Do I want better optics?   Hell yes...but not if it makes the phone itself so ridiculously expensive that I have to traffick Colombian hoes to afford it.

Gimme my OS and connectivity improvements before you waste precious R&D time on cameras yes.  Just make it 'good enough'.
I still have my lil 12MP Sony cam for the hardcore photography.





Samsung Galaxy Note 2 | Omega v17 | SwiftKey | Tapatalk 4 Beta

[MessiaaH]

Yea Arcman, but why you, wyatt, and capt keep talking bout exorbitant prices?

Yuh could sware the 1020 cost ah grand to produce. And I point out that by next year the phone go be 300$ bones.
The 1020 technology launched at standard price for a smartphone. D same price a flagship Galaxy/Iphone/Windows Phone launches for, that's d price d 1020 launch at. Actually even less. The off contract price is 650. I pay 750 for d 920.

So price is not the issue here.
If nokia, a company that was on the brink of shutting down, could produce such high end optics, and still sell it for standard price. Ah mean, seriously, you think this tech going to cost some insane price to aquire? No, it's not.

The argument here shouldn't be price, it should be Eco-System. It would be more accurate to say you not willing to give up android for a better camera. But if the same camera technology does come to android, it not going to cost any more than you already paying for a smartphone now.

I think Samsung and Apple making MOREEEE than enough money, to guarantee that, if nokia could do it, who is them?

But we come right back to the same 2 questions. Do they have the technical expertise to pull it off? and do they even Care to compete?

[TriniXaeno]

Messiaah, you living in a different financial world.

I bought a Nexus before, that was around US$350.00 - $400.

The current Nexus is about that.

I paid US$500 for my Galaxy Note II (and that was pushing it. Would have preferred the Nexus 4 at US$350 if the google store sold phones to Trinidadians, stupid region blocking shenanigans)

You talking, quite literally a Nokia 1020 launch price of twice what I would pay for a smartphone.

[MessiaaH]

Nobody say you have to buy it at launch wyatt....

I'm sure u did not buy the note 2 at launch.

Wait ah few months, you getting them phone for same, even less, than you paying now.

The only phone that does remain relatively expensive after launch is the Iphone.
Android and WP devices price does drop quick.

I Just checked. Galaxy Note 2 launched for 730-750 Unlocked......
Yet you own one.

Correction, it launch at USD800~ unlocked. Ouch!


I really don't understand the price argument alyuh making.

[TriniXaeno]

You missing the point bro. I did not pay US$800 for mine and never will (for any smartphone)

I got the Note 2 three months after launch from a friend who had two phones and wanted to sell one.

She gave it to me for a ridiculously low price at the time.

Sure, when phones with the superior camera technology fall into the $350 - 450 price range, I will get one.

That is not in dispute here at all. Christmas 2014 we snappin' photos like pros from our phones.

[MessiaaH]

^^ Cool.

And I can guarantee you by this time next yea, the 1020 will infact be in that 350~450$ price range.
Android men go have to suffer though, no pureview for alyuh

(I now see leaked rumors of a Nokia Note 2 competitor at 6" rocking 1080p display, Quad, and PureView launching by chirstmas..........mite have to hold off on that 1020 oui, nokia on ah rampage.)

[Spazosaurus]

The 2MP device I mentioned messiah was a cellphone made my sony eh, not a standalone camera. The pics that thing was able to take was amazing in its time and looks good to me after years has passed and tech has evolved.

But messiah's got a point guys. The 1020 is rumoured to  debut at a $700us unlocked price, not "night and day" different from Android flagships like the galaxy S4 sell at right now. (A Galaxy S4 sells unlocked for $630 us).

Also pay attention to some trade-offs on the hardware side of things. Two similarly priced phones, one with a camera on steroids with other hardware (cpu, screen) that invokes a "meh" by today's standards and the other with a great screen and screaming CPU/GPU but with only a "decent" camera by comparison.

Given that analysis i'd venture to say that strictly on the hardware side of things, both offer about the same amount of "tech value" at a similar price...and that's great. A decision on which flagship to buy; windows or android would be made more on the merits of the individual platform and less on the price as its not that much different.

Now that said, after being spoilt by the nexus at the $350 price point, paying anything above $400us for a device with killer specs is absolute madness in my book. Man, microsoft need to take a page out of Google playbook. Work it out like so:

1) Subsidize a handset like the Lumia 920 to compete with Nexus pricing ($250us is ideal)

2) Make it available worldwide

3) ??

4) Profit!!!

[MessiaaH]

^^ Agreed,

Cheaper is always a good thing.
And i'll add that it costs nokia a lot more money to produce the build quality found in a lumia, than it cost's Samsung to make them cheap plastic thing.

Come later in the year, when Lumias with the same Screen and CPU as Samsung devices come out, all the hardware advantage will be in Nokia's cort, and I know they flagship with 1080p/Quad/Pureview 3, will cost the same price as any other flagship out there. The market seem to settle at 700-800$ for an unlocked flagship device, (unless yUh name apple and charging man 850. So I don't see nokia crossing that threshold even when they get the same guts as Sammy.

So at that time choice will boil strictly down to OS. Because nokia would effectively have the all round most advance hardware on the market (Even though WP don't need it.).

[Spazosaurus]

Interesting times ahead indeed.

Google, ah want a 6" nexus phone for Christmas please. Make it so.

[MessiaaH]

Look nokia own they ^^

http://wmpoweruser.com/nokias-upcoming-6-inch-phablet-production-device-images-leaked/

Good times ahead. What will be interesting to see is if this new Unicorn device, (1020 and up) will be able to gain WP any serious traction atal. It will be a shame if it doesn't, because it wont be Nokia's fault, it go be Microsoft's, and it will really be a shame to see Nokia suffer for Microsoft sticking.

[Spazosaurus]

Problem with your pic there. But I seeing this one floating around depicting the 6" beast.






Nokia really bringing the fight to the android oem camp boy. The more they push, the better for us oui.