Funny that people ignore the fake facetime video's of iphone because it's from apple, and keep bashing microsoft because it's microsoft.
Fake advertisements, it's nothing new, EVERYBODY does that. Think real
Nokia faked the still photos too
51–60 of 124 posts
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard[0] that ‘big’ camera makes like Canon or Nikon regularly advertise their products using photos made with completely different equipment. It would be more surprising if Nokia used actual photos made with Lumia in promotion materials, I guess. [0] http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm : “For those of us in the press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos of the D3. The…
Let's be careful about what we're talking about here. If the pictures are of the actual camera and are about showing the physical product then they're no doubt often shot in a studio with a proper studio camera. That's (probably) what Ken is talking about and there is nothing underhand about that. If on the other hand the pictures are about showing what kind of results the camera can produce then I very much doubt th…
But Nokia are talking about the kind of results you will get from the phone right. So it can just be a simulation of the result.
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotcha. Definitely didn't doubt the article; just wondering what you meant. Thanks!
Also the article is most likely wrong about calling these artifacts purely diffraction-related, creating diffraction images that big and visible would require too small focal ratio, which is unlikely for night conditions, because they increase exposure time which is already too long. These are just a consequence of internal back-reflections inside the lens optics which manifest itself on extreme contrast parts of ima…
i don't understand what you are saying here. astronomical images don't look exactly like that - they have fewer "spikes" - but they are similar. the spikes are either from diffraction caused by the secondary mirror support (which light passes through in a reflecting telescope) or readout artifacts in the CCD, particularly when it saturates (although that looks quite different - a single vertical line, often).
i agree that the spikes (in astronomy images) don't come from blade edges in a diaphragm aperture, but they are still diffraction spikes (from the secondary support) and "everyone" (as far as i know / remember) refers to them as such.
you can see the secondary support in the top right image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope - the four radial "things" that hold the cylinder in the "end" of the telescope (on the right).
so what are you referring to with "internal back reflections" and how does that give spikes (rather than ghosts)?
[above from (past) personal experience as an optical astronomer on research telescopes - i am not sure if you are confused, or if there's some kind of problem i never understood. perhaps you work on a system where this is an issue?]
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one actually marked "taken on a prototype" looks legit - tonnes of ISO noise.
The comparisons do make you wonder if they fiddled with the lighting artificially though, some of the differences are surprisingly drastic.
I doubt it. The camera seems to have HDRI. That, a looong exposure time, and a tripod can do amazing things.
Plus, it's compared to a photo they took with "a competitor's phone". Even I can take an amazingly crap photo with my camera-phone, it's not hard.
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comparisons do make you wonder if they fiddled with the lighting artificially though, some of the differences are surprisingly drastic.
I doubt it. The camera seems to have HDRI. That, a looong exposure time, and a tripod can do amazing things. Plus, it's compared to a photo they took with "a competitor's phone". Even I can take an amazingly crap photo with my camera-phone, it's not hard.
Ah, yeah I guess HDR would do it, slanted comparison nonetheless.
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#56No way... Fake pictures in ads? Who would have thought!
How Apple advertises their camera in iPhone: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1127246/Screenshots/sb53.png
You can say what you want about Apple, but they did it right. Unretouched photos. Full-res available for download.
Source: http://www.apple.com/iphone/built-in-apps/camera.html
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#57Here is an apology from Nokia: http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/06/an-apology-is-due/ Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6...
>Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920
OIS in Lumia 920 can not be turned off, it's different phone. In presentation they showed photo of special device holding both phones for producing comparation videos.
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the article is most likely wrong about calling these artifacts purely diffraction-related, creating diffraction images that big and visible would require too small focal ratio, which is unlikely for night conditions, because they increase exposure time which is already too long. These are just a consequence of internal back-reflections inside the lens optics which manifest itself on extreme contrast parts of ima…
i don't understand what you are saying here. astronomical images don't look exactly like that - they have fewer "spikes" - but they are similar. the spikes are either from diffraction caused by the secondary mirror support (which light passes through in a reflecting telescope) or readout artifacts in the CCD, particularly when it saturates (although that looks quite different - a single vertical line, often). i agree…
I am speaking about astronomical images not in general, but those taken with the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM lens. They are almost always taken with the diaphragm wide open, and contain same kind of spikes -> spikes are not from diffraction.
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#59Why so much hate on Nokia?
Because from love to hate there is only one step. When you trust someone or something you don't want to be taken advantage of.
A friend of mine loved his Nokia's phones. He always bought Nokia for 10 years during his teenage years because they were very good phones. He had good memories of those times.
He wished he could buy Nokia again, get super enthusiastic with the videos and now he discovers that he has been fooled. F*ck them!!
Re: Nokia faked the still photos too
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it is very easy to edit and fake EXIF and metadata. Adding EXIF data fields to demo pictures does not increase the credibility.
All right. How about hiring the best photographer-artist and letting people sign up and co-create photo's with them? Everything will auto-upload to the cloud in the artist's album live. No cheating there and I'd sure go for an experience like that.
This is a great idea actually. Take your mobile phone and let's shoot with us.