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

Nokia faked the still photos too

sefsar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#71

Post by mtgx »

M4v3R wrote: post #56
kleiba wrote: post #4

No 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

Kudos to Apple for using real pictures, but this also made me realize how I hope phone cameras become much better and soon, because that pictures looks quite blurry to me. But at least they are showing people exactly what they can buy, instead of some fake or heavily retouched image that won't be reproduced in real life by 99.9% of the iPhone users.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#72

Post by antonyme »

What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product.

Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#73

Post by cmelbye »

mtgx wrote: post #71
M4v3R wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Kudos to Apple for using real pictures, but this also made me realize how I hope phone cameras become much better and soon, because that pictures looks quite blurry to me. But at least they are showing people exactly what they can buy, instead of some fake or heavily retouched image that won't be reproduced in real life by 99.9% of the iPhone users.

Blurry? Are we looking at the same pictures?

http://images.apple.com/iphone/includes/camera-gallery/IMG_1...

That fur looks pretty sharp to me.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#74

Post by gvb »

vowelless wrote: post #38

Here 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...

Interesting future tense in the apology: "[W]e produced a video that simulates what we will be able to deliver with OIS." (emphasis mine).

When will they be able to deliver?

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#75

Post by sltkr »

goblin89 wrote: post #44
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a picture IN ad, it's also picture OF what's advertised, and that, at least in some parts of the world, is required by law to be real.

I guess it depends on the amount of ‘real’. Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps. There's a need for more complex regulations here.

You raise valid points, but taking a photo with a professional DSLR camera instead of the phone camera you are advertising goes way beyond post-processing.

> Well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.

Sure, but there is a standard procedure to get a photo out of your camera and onto your Facebook page, and that's pretty much the standard amount of processing necessary. I'm more interested to see what the photo would look like if I made it with their camera, than what a professional photographer with a DSLR and a Photoshop license can do with it.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#76

Post by manaskarekar »

antonyme wrote: post #72

What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product. Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.

I think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team.

Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one.

One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact.

What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad, everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.'

Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department and how they make it look so good.

http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#77

Post by manaskarekar »

jswanson wrote: post #64
vowelless wrote: post #38

Here 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...

Even the apology for being vague and somewhat underhanded is somewhat.. underhanded. Here is the video shown at the press conference shot using a Lumia 920. On the right is a Lumia 920 prototype with OIS. On the left is a smartphone without OIS. The difference is apparent. Notice they specify 'a smartphone'. The wording shifts the focus from the camera to OIS, and then they must have used a completely different phone…

It could have been an older Nokia Lumia, but they wouldn't want to admit that publicly.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#78

Post by veemjeem »

mtgx wrote: post #71
M4v3R wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Kudos to Apple for using real pictures, but this also made me realize how I hope phone cameras become much better and soon, because that pictures looks quite blurry to me. But at least they are showing people exactly what they can buy, instead of some fake or heavily retouched image that won't be reproduced in real life by 99.9% of the iPhone users.

Maybe you have a crappy monitor, but the picture looks quite sharp from here.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#79

Post by ajanuary »

manaskarekar wrote: post #76
antonyme wrote: post #72

What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product. Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.

I think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team. Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one. One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact. What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an a…

In most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#80

Post by VMG »

jonah wrote: post #42
coob wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there's no implying or warning, just outright lying about this being a sample image.

Agreed. They should have small disclaimer text at the bottom. And that's what everyone should be up in arms about, not that they faked it in the first place. I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.

Also these images are nothing like the images the camera would take. That is like advertising a totally different car than the one you are selling.
Post reply on HN