Smartphone lenses

[Guest DaveW]

See:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23954377

[Black Pearl]

Its been all over the Tech Blogs for ages - wonder if the concept it will win over the Galaxy Zoom?

[Guest DaveW]

Trouble is it is then becomes pretty well as large as a compact camera and probably not as good?

 

I wonder how the new I-Phone camera next Tuesday will compare?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2409657/Iphone-5S-Apple-announce-launch-date-September-10th-variety-colors.html

Edited September 5, 2013 by DaveW

[Black Pearl]

It has the sensor from the Galaxy Camera not the Galaxy S4 Phone so its just as good a quality as the majority of compacts (the ones with a few less pixels are better but they're few and far between these days) and the size is remarkable considering what it has packed inside. Pricy as its a first to market but give it a few rivals and model releases and what you're looking at is finally end of current compact cameras.

 

[fuzzyedges]

Its getting closer to an idea I put forward ages ago

A good optical lens with the operating system in a mobile phone

Just clip your phone to the lens and look what you get

[Black Pearl]

Virtually all of the current Samsung range of cameras (Compact - Galaxy - NX) are 'Smart' in some way and they keep pushing the market with new ideas. 

 

Go them I say, the likes of Nikon and Canon are starting to have huge lumps of the revenue pinched by brands that innovate and try new concepts instead of trotting out the same old thing year after year with a few extra pixels bunged in. 

[fuzzyedges]

brands that innovate and try new concepts instead of trotting out the same old thing year after year with a few extra pixels bunged in.

 

But are they better? or just a bit more conveniant and quirky

More thats pinched from the bread and butter end more the cost of high end goes up

[Guest DaveW]

It looks as if the Go Pro could replace them all. According to Bloomberg TV the Go Pro is cheap and virtually indestructible being able to be used underwater also:-

 

http://gizmodo.com/5959046/gopro-hero-3-black-edition-review-one-badass-fixer-upper

 

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/gopro-hero3-black-edition-1105704/review

[Guest DaveW]

Apples new camera, right hand side of link, video review:-

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/business

Edited September 11, 2013 by DaveW

[Black Pearl]

Larger aperture f2.2 lens - larger sensor (same pixels so larger pixels) - dual tone flash - 10 frames per second continuous shooting  - 120fps slow motion 720 video - image stabiliser ---- I'd be tempted to try for an early upgrade simply for the camera but a friend is getting one on launch day so I'll give it a proper test before I part with cash.

[ChrisLumix]

Larger aperture f2.2 lens - larger sensor (same pixels so larger pixels) - dual tone flash - 10 frames per second continuous shooting  - 120fps slow motion 720 video - image stabiliser ---- I'd be tempted to try for an early upgrade simply for the camera but a friend is getting one on launch day so I'll give it a proper test before I part with cash.

 

There are STILL people out there who think the more MP the better! It's like going to buy a bookcase and the assistant tells you "Oh, you should buy THIS one - it's got 7 shelves"; without knowing the width, height and depth of the shelves, it's pretty meaningless.

[colinb]

so you have your expensive smart phone and you stick a probably not too cheap lens on the end and start taking pictures. Most people I know always complain about forever having to charge the battery on their phone. We makes me wonder how long would your battery last / how many pictures compared to a small compact or even a dslr?

 

Whilst these ideas are very clever I can't help think it's all a bit bulky for most people especially with the smaller mirror-less cameras and Sony's transparent mirror technology?

[Guest DaveW]

Maybe they will come with a mains adapter Colin to get over the battery problem, a 100ft cable reel with a plug on the end!

 

Transparent (pellicle) mirrors are not new, the Canon Pellix had one decades ago, but it was Topcon who introduced it in 1963. The reason it did not take on at the time is the permanent semi-silvered mirror reduced the exposure by 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop since part of the incoming light was permanently diverted to the viewfinder.  Unlike the case where the normal reflex mirror flips out of the way on taking allowing 100% of the light through the lens to reach the film/sensor.

 

"The semi-transparent fixed mirror in the Pellix, for the first time successfully used in a 35mm SLR camera, lets about two-thirds (66%) of the light from the lens pass directly through to the film, while the rest is reflected to the viewfinder.

 

The object of this arrangement - apart from accomplishing TTL metering, is for a simpler construction, a less noisy operation, and to get rid of the finder blackout during exposure. That is a favourable proposition, but the design has its flaws; the obvious one being loss of light, about one half stop (- 0.5 EV) in the exposure through the semi-transparent mirror, and about one and three-fourth stop (- 1.7 EV) dimmer finder compared to using a fully reflecting mirror. A more serious problem however, is that the image forming light rays has to pass through the stationary pellicle mirror - in itself an obstruction, but over time the mirror surfaces also become soiled; it scatters the light and therefore degrades the projected image that forms the image on the film. If this occurs, or the fragile mirror is damaged in any way it has to be replaced."

 

"The fixed pellicle mirror reduced the amount of light reaching the film. In the case of the Pellix, it was by one-third of a stop. Therefore an f/1.2 lens was like an f/1.4 lens and an f/1.4 acted like f/1.7."

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/pellix/

 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/how-to/tech-explained/529216/the-pellicle-mirror

 

There have been some doubts cast that Sony will continue with a pellicle mirror anyway:-

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/29/sonys-revolutionary-pellicle-mirror-slt-technology-may-be-going-away/

 

The only sensible way these days to add more megapixels to cameras is to increase the size of the sensor, which is why top end manufacturers are now moving from the APS-C sized sensored DSLR's to full frame or 35mm film sized sensors in order to increase megapixels but use larger pixel sites to reduce image noise.

 

Really the manufacturers need to come up with a sensible pixel site size limit where increased image noise does not wipe out the theoretical extra gains in resolution and stick to it. But then as they always say "Extra megapixels sell cameras", even if images from the new camera are often worse than from previous lower pixeled models. "Noise reduction" does not reduce noise, it only covers it up by blurring or softening the picture and hence the noises visibility also, so reducing the images resolution in order to mask the problem. Therefore after noise reduction you may achieve no higher resolution with the higher megapixelled camera than you did with the previous lower megapixelled one where so much noise reduction was not needed.

 

The reason these small over pixelled sensored cameras often sell well to the man or woman in the street is most of the buyers think any photo where you can just distinguish it is auntie Ethel is a good picture! In fact pictures taken with digital cameras by casual users are probably now in a different league to what they used to obtain on film, maybe because they can now use them like machine guns and just pick the best image, not having to pay for expensive film and developing anymore so limiting the number of shots taken?

Edited September 12, 2013 by DaveW

[ChrisLumix]

You're so right - "Xtra MP sell cameras". Yet it's the law of diminishing returns : it was true for the first years of digicams, but it's become progressively less so for the reasons you cited.

 

Pro-level DSLRs need to forget the MP equation altogether. After all, you can now shoot at resolutions that produce poster sized prints unthinkable in the days of 35mm, when the ability to create 10x8 prints without loss of quality was the yardstick. WE DON'T NEED MORE RESOLUTION!!

 

On the other hand, it still needs someone to convince the 'general public'. If one of the major brands brought out a camera with REDUCED MP but of such a quality that made the results unarguably stunning, and then that camera sold like hot cakes, it would convert the masses at a stroke and the MP argument would be over. 

[Guest DaveW]

How many general users print pictures out these days anyway? Most are reproduced on screens such as you are now looking at which have the resolution of around a 3-4 megapixel camera, therefore unless you crop drastically most of those extra camera megapixels resolution are lost. Instead of increasing camera megapixels we ought to be pushing screen manufacturers to increase screen resolution to do justice to the cameras we already have.

 

Trouble is if that happened you would see just how poor the image quality was with small sensored high megapixeled phone cameras. They are good enough at present because our viewing screens and the methods we use for viewing them such as the screens on smart phones are comparatively poor.

 

Like Fuji, arithmetic is not my strongpoint, but if I have correctly understood megapixel displays the best LG smartphone display (2560 x 1440), If this megapixel calculator is correct, only equals 3.7 Megapixels if you view the camera picture on the smartphone screen. I think the new I-Phone screen is 1136 X 640 pixels? Feel free to correct me if I have got screen megapixel displays wrong? It is higher resolution prints that will show up any shortcomings of the high megapixelled small sensored cameras, not the screens most now usually view them on.

 

http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=2560&height=1440

 

http://www.zdnet.com/lg-display-announces-highest-resolution-smartphone-screen-7000019689/http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/19868/20130911/iphone-5s-vs-samsung-galaxy-s4-htc.htm

Edited September 12, 2013 by DaveW

[ChrisLumix]

How many general users print pictures out these days anyway? Most are reproduced on screens such as you are now looking at which have the resolution of around a 3-4 megapixel camera, therefore unless you crop drastically most of those extra camera megapixels resolution are lost. Instead of increasing camera megapixels we ought to be pushing screen manufacturers to increase screen resolution to do justice to the cameras we already have.

 

Trouble is if that happened you would see just how poor the image quality was with small sensored high megapixeled phone cameras. They are good enough at present because our viewing screens and the methods we use for viewing them such as the screens on smart phones are comparatively poor.

 

Like Fuji, arithmetic is not my strongpoint, but if I have correctly understood megapixel displays the best LG smartphone display (2560 x 1440), If this megapixel calculator is correct, only equals 3.7 Megapixels if you view the camera picture on the smartphone screen. I think the new I-Phone screen is 1136 X 640 pixels? Feel free to correct me if I have got screen megapixel displays wrong? It is higher resolution prints that will show up any shortcomings of the high megapixelled small sensored cameras, not the screens most now usually view them on.

 

http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=2560&height=1440

 

http://www.zdnet.com/lg-display-announces-highest-resolution-smartphone-screen-7000019689/http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/19868/20130911/iphone-5s-vs-samsung-galaxy-s4-htc.htm

 

I think the magic figure is "pixels per inch", not the absolute resolutions you've quoted? Most displays have used 72 ppi forever but Apple's Retina display on the MacBook Pro 15" is 220 PPI. That's still a long way short of the kind of theoretical resolutions offered by large sensor DSLRs. If not printed, but viewed on a Retina display (which in theory the eye cannot see individual pixels on), then most of that resolution is - as you've said - wasted. But even on a good printer, anything more than 300 dpi is of only marginal detectability as far as the eye is concerned.

[Black Pearl]

My 21.5" iMac with a 1920x1080 Full HD screen is 102ppi

The new MBP with Retina screens run 220ppi - 15" & 227ppi - 13" 

The latest iPads are 264ppi

An iPhone 5 is 326ppi

 

On my iMac I can distinguish the pixels fairly easily the others though are essentially visible pixel free - certainly with the iPad and iPhone you simply can't make out the pixels no matter how close you look at the screens.

Put an iPad 1st or 2nd generation beside a 3 or 4 and the difference is astonishing.

 

An interesting comparison - your Full HD TV at home (possibly up to 60") has the same number of pixels as the 5 inch screen Galaxy S4

[ChrisLumix]

My 21.5" iMac with a 1920x1080 Full HD screen is 102ppi

The new MBP with Retina screens run 220ppi - 15" & 227ppi - 13" 

The latest iPads are 264ppi

An iPhone 5 is 326ppi

 

On my iMac I can distinguish the pixels fairly easily the others though are essentially visible pixel free - certainly with the iPad and iPhone you simply can't make out the pixels no matter how close you look at the screens.

Put an iPad 1st or 2nd generation beside a 3 or 4 and the difference is astonishing.

 

An interesting comparison - your Full HD TV at home (possibly up to 60") has the same number of pixels as the 5 inch screen Galaxy S4

 

I have the same iMac (2011) but in SysPrefs (Displays) it just says 1920x1080. Where did you get the 102ppi figure from? It's not in System Profiler either.

[Guest DaveW]

The following link says for the Mac 21.5 display:-

 

"Another space-saving trick is that scourge of do-it-yourselfers: the LCD panel is fused to the glass that covers it, necessitating the replacement of both elements if one or the other breaks. This does put the LCD closer to the surface of the glass, an approach that is also being used in the iPhone 5 and a few other recent Apple products to increase the clarity of the screen."

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/12/review-21-5-inch-2012-imac-takes-two-steps-forward-one-step-back/

 

This link seems to agree with BP on 102 PPI:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density

 

It also says:-

 

"A display device has a limited number of pixels it can display, and a limited space over which to display them. On a small portable computer or cell phone, a higher pixel density is desirable, as these devices are designed to be viewed up close."