Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#11

Post by kryten »

jcarney wrote: post #4
kryten wrote: post #3

megapixels are pretty meaningless. A decent bottom end DSLR (Nikon D3100 for example) will run rings around it simply because of the sensor size and optics.

Which is why the phone generates a 8MP picture with the extra information from the 41M and reducing noise. http://c699379.r79.cf3.rackcdn.com/Nokia%20808%20Pureview%20... Perhaps read the whitepaper before knocking it down as meaningless? http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/849564/data/2/-/Download1.pdf If you're comparing a phone camera with a DSLR, that's already saying something. Here's a review of the technology by a…

I know the details and understand pixel oversampling etc. In the real world they produce acceptable photos for the type of device but it is nothing special and definitely over-marketed.

I used an 808 for a week when they came out. Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. Not what they were promoting.

Whilst I compare this to a DSLR, a cheaper compact can do a better job of being a camera.

Personally I drag a DSLR around everywhere with me but that's because I started doing that sort of stuff before we had mobile phones and have developed an appreciation of quality prints.

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#12

Post by benjamincburns »

kryten wrote: post #3

megapixels are pretty meaningless. A decent bottom end DSLR (Nikon D3100 for example) will run rings around it simply because of the sensor size and optics.

From a "this is a traditional camera" standpoint, megapixel specs aren't completely meaningless, but they're certainly not the be-all, end-all.

However from a "what can I do with this thing as a sensor?" standpoint, more spatial resolution is in fact more power. Take a look at light field mapping [1] and the Lytro camera [2]. The technique uses an array of micro lenses placed over a traditional image sensor to capture many small low resolution images from many slightly different vantage points. Then a deconvolution algorithm is used as sort of a reverse ray tracing algorithm to actually map out the way light is bouncing around the scene. As a result you can generate many many different images of the scene in post processing, with whatever focus characteristics you want.

In this case the optics are relatively cheap compared to traditional camera optics, but the hardware to handle the deconvolution isn't.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_photography 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro

Edit: To your original point however, in theory oversampling can be used to make up for crappy optics using techniques similar to light field mapping. Some mobile image sensors have a microlens array similar to that used in light field photography (OmniVision comes to mind). However in practice this requires that your crappy optics be consistent in how they're crappy, which presents other challenges.

I'm with you, though. When someone builds a cell phone camera with 120dB of dynamic range I'll get excited.

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#13

Post by benjamincburns »

kryten wrote: post #11
jcarney wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the phone generates a 8MP picture with the extra information from the 41M and reducing noise. http://c699379.r79.cf3.rackcdn.com/Nokia%20808%20Pureview%20... Perhaps read the whitepaper before knocking it down as meaningless? http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/849564/data/2/-/Download1.pdf If you're comparing a phone camera with a DSLR, that's already saying something. Here's a review of the technology by a…

I know the details and understand pixel oversampling etc. In the real world they produce acceptable photos for the type of device but it is nothing special and definitely over-marketed. I used an 808 for a week when they came out. Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. Not what they were promoting. Whilst I compare this to a DSLR, a cheaper compact can do a better job…

> Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens.

With the exception of maybe the distortion I'd chalk that up to crappy dynamic nonlinear exposure heuristics trying to boost dynamic range. For an example, take a look at the "HDR mode" in this guy's datasheet: http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/mt9v034c12stc/

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#14

Post by kryten »

benjamincburns wrote: post #13
kryten wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the details and understand pixel oversampling etc. In the real world they produce acceptable photos for the type of device but it is nothing special and definitely over-marketed. I used an 808 for a week when they came out. Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. Not what they were promoting. Whilst I compare this to a DSLR, a cheaper compact can do a better job…

> Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. With the exception of maybe the distortion I'd chalk that up to crappy dynamic nonlinear exposure heuristics trying to boost dynamic range. For an example, take a look at the "HDR mode" in this guy's datasheet: http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/mt9v034c12stc/

To be honest I think exposure was the software as you could reliably underexpose it and get the result you wanted.

Colours, probably dynamic range as you state. Looking at the curves for a pure white photo suggests range of blue was a little tight which is what made it look like out of date Kodak ektachrome on a good day. That may be software again bit I'm suspicious as the sensor on my D3100 doesn't exhibit that problem. Perhaps its better quality control.

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#15

Post by benjamincburns »

kryten wrote: post #14
benjamincburns wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. With the exception of maybe the distortion I'd chalk that up to crappy dynamic nonlinear exposure heuristics trying to boost dynamic range. For an example, take a look at the "HDR mode" in this guy's datasheet: http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/mt9v034c12stc/

To be honest I think exposure was the software as you could reliably underexpose it and get the result you wanted. Colours, probably dynamic range as you state. Looking at the curves for a pure white photo suggests range of blue was a little tight which is what made it look like out of date Kodak ektachrome on a good day. That may be software again bit I'm suspicious as the sensor on my D3100 doesn't exhibit that pro…

Blue curves being off says they probably did a poor job on the transmittance of their blue filter material. There is also a trend toward oversaturation in cheap consumer cameras. Makes the consumer say "oh, it's so colorful!"

With cheap sensors the name of the game is always "get it close, and find a way to hack it so most people won't know."

Re: This is Nokia's Lumia 1020, a 41-megapixel Windows Phone camera

#16

Post by msh »

kryten wrote: post #11
jcarney wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the phone generates a 8MP picture with the extra information from the 41M and reducing noise. http://c699379.r79.cf3.rackcdn.com/Nokia%20808%20Pureview%20... Perhaps read the whitepaper before knocking it down as meaningless? http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/849564/data/2/-/Download1.pdf If you're comparing a phone camera with a DSLR, that's already saying something. Here's a review of the technology by a…

I know the details and understand pixel oversampling etc. In the real world they produce acceptable photos for the type of device but it is nothing special and definitely over-marketed. I used an 808 for a week when they came out. Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. Not what they were promoting. Whilst I compare this to a DSLR, a cheaper compact can do a better job…

But you can't have a dslr in your pocket. This might be the best pocket able camera ever.
Post reply on HN