Database Develop

[Q] Ultrapixels

Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?

knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.

kkcheong said:
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.

danw_oz said:
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for the exaggeration. I just trying to get the point across about megapixel Vs photosites.

UltraPixel ?
kkcheong said:
Sorry for the exaggeration. I just trying to get the point across about megapixel Vs photosites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another marketing Gimmick .Make fools of intelligent .
As Said in India " It's easy to make fool of intelligent rather an idiot "

knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In answer to your question, HTC are trying to be different (Marketing move to gain lots of interest).
The pixels that gather the light are larger (Ultra), allowing more light to be captured. Meaning the camera should be amazing in low light compared to most other phone cameras.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...in-htc-one-explained-1132205?src=rss&attr=all.
My Canon G3 point and shoot camera was only 4Mp, the photo's from this camera are stunning, great lens and sensor, 4Mp is the optimal balance (quality/noise) for this image sensor size.
more megapixels really only gives you benifit from printing larger prints, or allowing a high quality crop of a shot. How many people print about A3 type size? not many and certainly from a phone.

TheMask007 said:
Another marketing Gimmick .Make fools of intelligent .
As Said in India " It's easy to make fool of intelligent rather an idiot "
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true. Higher megapixel is gimmick. Reducing megapixel and increase photosites is not gimmick. Its science.

Thanks for that in depth explanation.
danw_oz said:
The pixels that gather the light are larger (Ultra), allowing more light to be captured. Meaning the camera should be amazing in low light compared to most other phone cameras.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I thought that the only way to gather more light is to have a lower aperture. Well with this, it's a good move to capture low light images with more details (less depth of field). This makes it perfect for concerts.
danw_oz said:
more megapixels really only gives you benifit from printing larger prints, or allowing a high quality crop of a shot. How many people print about A3 type size? not many and certainly from a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, it also reduces files sizes. This is good for phones with non expandable memory. I always choose the option to have a smaller MP as these pics are only to be viewed on a laptop. If I wanted to do prints, I'd take my dSLR to shoot pics.
Here is another explanation on the ultrapixel
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/02/htc-zoe-camera/

I agree with what HTC says
More megapixels crammed into a sensor of the same size, ie 8, 13 mp in a sensor of the same size, will make the pixels themselves smaller. Less light is captured, more noise produced.
Reduce the amount of pixels and suddenly there are bigger pixels and more light can be captured. I think it will be good for the camera, as a cropped 2mp picture from a DSLR is waaaaay better than a 8mp picture from my incredible s or a one x.
Think of a wire grid fence, if you have more wires there will be more holes, but less light will be able to come through
Dunno how they will market it though. Makes it seem like the old nokias with 2mp cam are the best lol

knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing. It's meaningless guff.
The HTC One has a slightly (VERY slightly) larger image sensor, and halves the number of pixels to roughly double photodiode area. That (should) mean much better low-light sensitivity and noise, but much worse resolution. (Still plenty for a typical consumer print, though.)
It simply trades off resolution for low light / noise performance. And the "Ultrapixel" doesn't exist. There have been numerous cameras in the past with the exact same pixel size as the HTC One, including camera phones. Few of them have been available for a few years, or made with current tech, but that's beside the point.
"Ultrapixel" is just a marketing brandname meant to give you the warm fuzzies and make you forget about megapixels.
kkcheong said:
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complete and utter rubbish. The smallest pixel of any SLR belong to, if I'm not mistaken, the Nikon D3200. It has nearly double the pixel size of the HTC One's camera. And even a cheap consumer DSLR lens is in a different league to a smartphone lens, especially at the center of the image frame.
It is utterly unrealistic to expect even remotely similar per-pixel image quality from a DSLR and the HTC One, even for the central four megapixel crop.

Well the 4mp nothing at all
Even got 41mp also useless if don't have good camera lens
MP just the image resolution only
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium

XeactorZ said:
Well the 4mp nothing at all
Even got 41mp also useless if don't have good camera lens
MP just the image resolution only
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://s1297.beta.photobucket.com/user/ivicask/media/HTC_ONE_NEXUS_4_COMPARE_zps973ef748.jpg.html
I made compare HTC ONE 4.3M cam and Nexus 8M,
as you can see in this zoomed in picture in Nexus does have more pixels, but HTC ONE has more details and colors.
Here is full original image taken from ONE S
http://mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMAG0031.jpg
Also Camera sample
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ez_HaOhtxnA
So in short, best phone camera so far if you ask me!

HTC marketing is getting ridiculously stupid, and HTC fanboys are following suit. The megapixel race is not a LIE. In bold, because HTc marketing material likes to make it bold. Megapixels is not the only factor in determining image quality, but it is an important one. But HTC wants you to believe it doesn't matter, AT ALL. So damn stupid. If it doesn't matter, then go reduce an image to a 32x32 icon. Beautiful isn't it! Looks exactly the same as the original! So stupid. HTC is just making a compromise between larger pixel sizes and resolution. The images will be worse in outdoor shots since it doesn't have as good a resolution, but indoor and low light shots will look better since it can gather more light. The question is, how much better? So far from what I can tell, the video and picture samples at the HTC event, which is indoors in low light, are not that impressive. It's definitely gonna be worse in bright outdoor use.

danw_oz said:
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I accidentally thanked you.oops. I don't know what DSLR is, but I'm quite sure that htcs new image sense will be quite beyond par for pretty everyone except your absolute perfect photographic self. Also, since you're such a good photog, such an unimpeachable artist,...please share where this work cod be viewed critically. I know artists would love to see it.
Thanks
From my Evo LTE, yup.

katamari201 said:
HTC marketing is getting ridiculously stupid, and HTC fanboys are following suit. The megapixel race is not a LIE. In bold, because HTc marketing material likes to make it bold. Megapixels is not the only factor in determining image quality, but it is an important one. But HTC wants you to believe it doesn't matter, AT ALL. So damn stupid. If it doesn't matter, then go reduce an image to a 32x32 icon. Beautiful isn't it! Looks exactly the same as the original! So stupid. HTC is just making a compromise between larger pixel sizes and resolution. The images will be worse in outdoor shots since it doesn't have as good a resolution, but indoor and low light shots will look better since it can gather more light. The question is, how much better? So far from what I can tell, the video and picture samples at the HTC event, which is indoors in low light, are not that impressive. It's definitely gonna be worse in bright outdoor use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, how many megapixels do you think you need?
To answer that question, think about what you're viewing the picture on. A PC monitor? What's the resolution of that? Unlikely to be much higher than 2560x1440; that's 3.6MP - any more than that and the extra detail is wasted.
Or maybe you're thinking of printing the photo? 300 dots per inch is plenty of resolution for a colour photo. So, to produce a 7" by 5" print, you only need about 3MP in the image. Even if you want to print out a picture filling an A4 page, you still only need around 8 or 9MP. Are you really going to be printing out your photos larger than an A4 page? And if you are, are you going to be viewing them from less than 12 inches away? (If the viewing distance is greater than that, you don't need 300dpi).
What's more, adding additional MP isn't free. The smaller the pixels get, the more the detector suffers from noise (and removing the noise from the image means you effectively lose the extra resolution), and the more the low-light performance suffers.
And finally, with the kind of aperture sizes and the quality of the lenses you're dealing with, you're unlikely to be able to resolve anywhere near 8MP worth of real detail anyway.
The camera on the HTC One isn't exactly revolutionary, but I think HTC should be congratulated for a move in the right direction: away from a design whose sole purpose is to include a big number for marketing purposes, and towards actually producing a better quality image.

i agree with shasarak, i used to work as photographer, and with our 5mp it was enough for pictured used in public advertising (5 meters * 3 meters)

Yeah pretty much what shasarak said. Thank god HTC had some bloody sense to not load it with more needless MPs as a marketing gimmick.

scottspa74 said:
I accidentally thanked you.oops. I don't know what DSLR is, but I'm quite sure that htcs new image sense will be quite beyond par for pretty everyone except your absolute perfect photographic self. Also, since you're such a good photog, such an unimpeachable artist,...please share where this work cod be viewed critically. I know artists would love to see it.
Thanks
From my Evo LTE, yup.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DSLR stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera, if you are up to it you can read the section 2.6 Larger sensor sizes and better image quality
I don't really understand what you are asking or in fact even trying to say, but if I have it right http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan-wilson/ Is my photography site, Thanks.

Nokia's pure view ends up producing a 5mp picture only thing is that it puts the quality of a 41mp(resolution) in to a smaller frame so when u zoom in u don't loose picture quality.....HTC one does sumthing similar but zooming in will reduce quality [email protected] the end pictures are clear enough to see every detail in the full frame no need to zoom in, its a good tech for those who understand....as for the iPhone's wonderful camera(like it or not) its just a perfect cocktail of very good lenses(which in a way let in lots of light, main reason y it looks bluish and not purplish) plus good apature and good sensors......megapixels =size , good lens+apature+sensore = great picture quality.
Sent from my Desire Z using xda premium

Thx for explanation.
Finally someone with knowledge and sound reasoning. People really need to cool down while in discussion. At the end of the day, it will be just another phone and it will not wake up next day and go to work for you. :good:
Shasarak said:
Well, how many megapixels do you think you need?
To answer that question, think about what you're viewing the picture on. A PC monitor? What's the resolution of that? Unlikely to be much higher than 2560x1440; that's 3.6MP - any more than that and the extra detail is wasted.
Or maybe you're thinking of printing the photo? 300 dots per inch is plenty of resolution for a colour photo. So, to produce a 7" by 5" print, you only need about 3MP in the image. Even if you want to print out a picture filling an A4 page, you still only need around 8 or 9MP. Are you really going to be printing out your photos larger than an A4 page? And if you are, are you going to be viewing them from less than 12 inches away? (If the viewing distance is greater than that, you don't need 300dpi).
What's more, adding additional MP isn't free. The smaller the pixels get, the more the detector suffers from noise (and removing the noise from the image means you effectively lose the extra resolution), and the more the low-light performance suffers.
And finally, with the kind of aperture sizes and the quality of the lenses you're dealing with, you're unlikely to be able to resolve anywhere near 8MP worth of real detail anyway.
The camera on the HTC One isn't exactly revolutionary, but I think HTC should be congratulated for a move in the right direction: away from a design whose sole purpose is to include a big number for marketing purposes, and towards actually producing a better quality image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Missing OIS Feature?

Anyone notice that optical image stabilization is missing in the specifications? I just did a quick search and found several sources saying its digital stabilization. A little bummed about that. Thoughts anyone? :crying:

From the videos, its pretty stable with digital stabilization compared to other smartphones no?
Sent from my One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

expertzero1 said:
From the videos, its pretty stable with digital stabilization compared to other smartphones no?
Sent from my One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, can't wait for a couple full blown reviews. If anything, hopefully they will bundle the qx10 for preorders in the US too. I hear the qx10 has the optical stabilization. I'm just worried about the low light blurriness. I had the 1020 and it was fantastic.

Smartphone makers try to close the image quality gap between their phones and actual camera.
However, to be honest, I do not rely to much to phone camera.
Their lens can't and sensors can't compare to actual camera even point and shot one, not saying SLR cameras.
Anyway, a phone without a camera is also something should be in history.

It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.

katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, what is your problem? It's only a phone with camera that can rival with the best currently available when it comes to pure picture quality. It bests S4 in low light shots and rivals 1020, in daylight photos you can clearly see more details compared to S4 (which by many is considered to have the best camera on android). What is true is that Sony still needs to improve their algorithm but even as it is now it can produce exceptional photos even in full 20mpix resolution.
Stop acting like a baby!!

Wishmaster89 said:
Dude, what is your problem? It's only a phone with camera that can rival with the best currently available when it comes to pure picture quality. It bests S4 in low light shots and rivals 1020, in daylight photos you can clearly see more details compared to S4 (which by many is considered to have the best camera on android). What is true is that Sony still needs to improve their algorithm but even as it is now it can produce exceptional photos even in full 20mpix resolution.
Stop acting like a baby!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that we all just wanted them to do it right you know? They went out to make a great camera phone and it feels like they stopped 5% away from the finish line. Still, will probably be a great phone and a great camera.

systoxity said:
I think that we all just wanted them to do it right you know? They went out to make a great camera phone and it feels like they stopped 5% away from the finish line. Still, will probably be a great phone and a great camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There'a a difference between disappointment and senseless bashing and that is what I was criticizing.
I agree that it is a shame that they weren't able to include OIS or sensor shift but I think that it could have been currently impossible with such a big sensor and bigger lens than other manufacturers. It is a shame but it's not something that automatically makes it worse than G2 or note 3/S4, on the contrary I still think that it'll end up doing better pictures than both of them.

Sony SteadyShot
It's not all down hill guys, the Z1 has Sony's SteadyShot technology in it, it just appears to only work in video mode which imo is best place, I suppose there will be more clarification once it's out......http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-z1/features/#camera

katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sound completely mental.

OIS.. will increase quality for low light shot without question...because of ISO..dont know the ISO range.. any one knows?

jos_031 said:
OIS.. will increase quality for low light shot without question...because of ISO..dont know the ISO range.. any one knows?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
6400 it says on the Sony site I linked it 2 posts back.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're just trolling. I've been checking on the photo samples from the Z1 for the past couple days cause I'm considering getting one. I've been waiting for HTC to announce the One Max, but the lack of doing so at the IFA completely made me give up on them and push me toward getting a Z1 instead. At first I noticed the photos had a lot of noise from the Z1 photo samples, but it seems like the noise was taken cared of via software update. The lack of OIS doesn't exactly affect the quality of the photos so far from what I see. The photo samples from the Z1 look more natural than 1020's which had a yellow tint to it. The photos were so defined when comparing the HTC One under low light condition and HTC One is only a bit behind on 1020 under low light condition.

Really, i think at this point we all just need to get our hands on one and give it a shot. The sample photos floating around on the internet certainly haven't been flattering but that could be due to any number of variables. Any word on US release yet?

Exposure is basically the AMOUNT OF LIGHT (controlled by the aperture) that is captured over a SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME (controlled by the shutter speed).
A HIGH aperture number (fstop) = LESS light being recorded on your digital sensor while a LOW aperture number = MORE light being recorded on your digital sensor. apertures are called fstops
Shutter speed: it is the amount of time your shutter stays open when you click the button
The longer your shutter stays open the more motion it will have time to record. The shorter the time your shutter remains open, the more motion it will freeze. But at low light you need more exposure
ISO rating along with the shutter speed and aperture setting are the three elements that determine the final exposure of the photographic image.
The ISO rating, which ranges in value from 25 to 6400 (or beyond), indicates the specific light sensitivity. The lower the number, the less sensitive to light the film stock or image sensor is. Conversely, a higher number indicates a higher sensitivity to light, thereby allowing that film or image sensor to work better in low light conditions.
the lower ISO rating also meant that the photosensitive grains of salt on the film acetate were very fine, thus producing a smoother, cleaner image. A higher ISO had larger, jagged grains of salt, thus producing “rougher” or grainier images.
Lower ISO ratings produce color-accurate, smooth and aesthetically appealing images… and this requires ideal lighting conditions. However, there are some subjects that you want to photograph in low light conditions. Or, you may want to stop fast-moving objects. In both situations, you need higher ISOs to capture those images with an acceptable exposure.with the higher ISOs, you can use faster shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur and/or camera shake. In the event that you want to use motion blur creatively, then decreasing the ISO is simple, and you can then decrease the shutter speed to achieve the desired motion blur and still have smooth, noise-less images.
The size of the digital camera’s image sensor dictates what ISO setting provides the least amount of digital noise. One must understand that image sensor size is not the same thing as pixel count. Image sensor size is the actual physical dimensions of the sensor, for most of the history of digital photography the image sensor has been smaller than a 35mm film frame. On point and shoot cameras, the sensor was quite small, and on most DSLR cameras, the image sensor has been the size of APC film (23x15mm). Smaller image sensors produce much more digital noise at higher ISOs (like 800) mainly because the high pixel count means that more pixels are being packed into a smaller area, thus producing more grain at all but the lowest ISO.
Whenever you shoot in low light or use a long lens, or if you simply aren't holding a camera steady, you risk introducing camera shake into your images. This manifests itself as a blurring of details, and unlike other image quality issues it's not something that can be fixed in post-processing.
The three main image stabilisation systems on offer:
Manufacturers have different names for lens-based stabilisation, but they all largely work in the same way.
ISO based
All but the cheapest compacts offer image stabilisation, and the easiest solution from the manufacturer's point of view is one based on sensitivity. This adds nothing to the manufacturing of a camera as it's simply the ISO which needs to be adjusted, easily handled by the camera's firmware.
As this is the most basic form of image stabilisation, and as other types are preferable, manufacturers often call it 'digital' image stabilisation in press releases and throughout specification lists.
With this type of image stabilisation, the camera looks at the focal length and shutter speed being used, and decides whether the two will create a sharp enough image. If it deems them to be inadequate the camera's sensitivity will be raised, which in turn increases the shutter speed, but the resulting signal will need to be amplified to a greater extent.
So, a camera could choose to raise an image that would be otherwise captured at 1/20sec to 1/80sec, but it would need to raise the sensitivity twofold. So, from ISO 100 this would rise to ISO 400, from ISO 200 to ISO 800 and so on.
The image is still captured sharply as a more appropriate shutter speed has been used, but this process gives rise to noise which is typical with images captured at higher sensitivities. For this reason other systems are preferable in more expensive cameras and lenses. In many compacts, this method is often complemented by sensor-based stabilisation.
Sensor based
Sensor-based stabilisation also uses information such as focal length and shutter speed on which to base its calculations, but instead of adjusting the sensitivity the camera physically moves the sensor.
The sensor will typically be mounted on a platform, which will move to compensate for any movement when the camera senses it is necessary.
Minolta first introduced the feature in its DiMAGE A1 camera back in 2003, and, after merging with Konica, incorporated it into the 7D DSLR.
Sony continued the feature when it took over Konica Minolta's imaging business, and was soon joined by Pentax, Olympus and others. All three companies continue to use the system today, and it has since been adopted by other manufacturers for their own hybrid systems and compacts.
In the case of DSLRs and hybrids, this type of image stabilisation brings the significant advantage of allowing lenses to be made smaller, lighter and cheaper (as they do not need to incorporate any form of image stabilisation themselves), and is effective with virtually any mounted lens. This is particularly handy in the case of older lenses which predate image stabilisation technology, although it may be necessary to first input the focal length of the lens into the camera, depending on the lens, camera and the nature of communication between the two.
Lens based
Lens-based image stabilisation came just before digital cameras were made accessible, but the two have more or less evolved over a similar space of time.
Today, the technology is found in a range of optics manufactured by Canon and Nikon (particularly those targeted towards the professional), as well throughout the ranges from independent lens manufacturers Sigma and Tamron. Panasonic also uses the system in its lenses designed for the Micro Four Thirds system, as well as those found in its Lumix range of compacts.
Lens-based stabilisation systems typically work by shifting a lens group towards the rear of the lens on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis.
This is done with the help of two gyro sensors inside the lens, one for yaw and one for pitch. These notice the angle and speed of any movement, and this information is fed to a microprocessor which computes the necessary adjustments needed to be made by the lens group. By doing so, the light's angle of refraction is changed so that it hits the sensor in the right place.
Manufacturers of these systems claim that this type of stabilisation is the most effective as it can be tailored specifically to the objective in which it us used. And, as stabilisation takes place in the lens, the photographer is able to view the effect through the viewfinder.
Typically this activates once the shutter release has been half-depressed, although it is possible on different camera/lens combinations to set when the stabilisation begins, such as only at the moment of capture, for example. This has the additional benefit of conserving power, as, left on all the time, lens-based image stabilisation systems can eat up battery power fairly quickly.
One recent development in this area is Canon's Hybrid IS system, which offers two types of correction.
The first is via an angular velocity sensor which notices rotational shake, which is found in existing image-stabilised lenses.
Canon 100mmThe second - and what makes the Hybrid IS system different - is a separate sensor for noticing camera shift (linear) movements, such as when a camera moves up, down, left or right while remaining parallel to the subject. Canon claims that by incorporating both sensors camera shake is better corrected.
Now i guess everyone got importance of OIS feature..
And i tried the camera of xperia Z1.. the picture was blurry at full zoom. but noise was absent..I feel low noise is more important than full zoom blur...because the photo is excellent for normal usage

wow, thank you that was a great read.

16mp tele saving photos at a reduced 12.2mp

Has anyone else noticed when shooting with the telephoto lens at 2x the pixel 4 (I have the XL) is savings photos at a reduced 12.2mp? The sensor is supposed to be 16mp. Why are the images being saved at reduced quality? I've climbed through the settings to include developers' options with no way to save at full 16mp resolution. Am I missing something here?

stoneworrior said:
Has anyone else noticed when shooting with the telephoto lens at 2x the pixel 4 (I have the XL) is savings photos at a reduced 12.2mp? The sensor is supposed to be 16mp. Why are the images being saved at reduced quality? I've climbed through the settings to include developers' options with no way to save at full 16mp resolution. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is 16mp. But it's just using that sensor for the zoom amongst other things. But the image will still be 12.2mp. Kinda like Huawei's 40mp sensor giving you 10mp images. It's not a reduced quality, the images are still beautiful and we'll printable if that's your thing.

stoneworrior said:
Has anyone else noticed when shooting with the telephoto lens at 2x the pixel 4 (I have the XL) is savings photos at a reduced 12.2mp? The sensor is supposed to be 16mp. Why are the images being saved at reduced quality? I've climbed through the settings to include developers' options with no way to save at full 16mp resolution. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It only uses the centre 12MP of the sensor by design. When you digitally zoom in that is what happens on all sensors - you only use a small part of the whole sensor.

m+a+r+k said:
It only uses the center 12MP of the sensor by design. When you digitally zoom in, that is what happens on all sensors - you only use a small part of the whole sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been a photographer since the 80's learning on film and progressing to digital. I've owned the Canon 5D versions 1,2,3, and 4. The 1DX mark 1 and 2 and currently shoot with a Sony a9 and A7RIII. I understand crop fully; that's why I was asking if it's a 16mp sensor, and they are saving it at 12.2, then something is going on in the background. I was doing Google searches without getting any info on this. I was trying to figure out what Google was doing in the background. So basically, what your saying is the telephoto lens was going to crop in on a 12.2 mp sensor, so they went with a higher density 16mp sensor to ensure a quality photo in the end. Basically keep both the standard and telephoto quality uniformed, got it thanks ?

Photo details lower quality. Compared to 4xl

Pulled a sidegrade over from my 4xl to the 5. All was good until I started playing with the camera and images.
In almost every shot micro detail is worse than my pixel 4xl.
This can be seen in things like text or tree branches. The wide angle is even worse. Is this a software issue? Or the difference in dedicated processing chip?

My bet the reason is the lack of telephoto lense. (Which was replaced by the wide angle lense that most of people were asking for last year)
I mean if you are talking about doing zoom in the area of the photo where you put all the focus. Then, yes, definitely must be the telephoto lense.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

thesebastian said:
My bet the reason is the lack of telephoto lense. (Which was replaced by the wide angle lense that most of people were asking for last year)
I mean if you are talking about doing zoom in the area of the photo where you put all the focus. Then, yes, definitely must be the telephoto lense.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I'm talking about standard camera shots from the main sensor.
I have returned my 5 now but in side by side comparison the 4xl had more details preserved than the pixel 5 when looking up close.
For example I took a photo of a desk with a ruler on it from about 6ft away and the 4xl preserved the millimetres markings where as the 5 was blurred.
Another was longer distance shots of trees or anything that had finer branch like or line details and again the 4xl was cleaner and sharper than the 5.
On a screen side by side it's hard to tell. Untill you blow the picture up.

There's a lot of camera issues starting to pop up. Coming from 3XL I also noticed a bit of softness. I've also noticed that low light portrait photos and normal front facing photos in low light are not detailed at all .Slow mo resolution video is not up to what it's advertised too. Hopefully there is a camera update coming soon.

86rickard said:
Sorry, I'm talking about standard camera shots from the main sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I hope I'm not wrong with this. But that's exactly what I was talking about.
We can agree that the telephoto was improving photos with Zoom (like 3X Zoom) and in some other camera modes.
But I'm also thinking that the telephoto was slightly improving the normal 1X shots in the "focus area" of the photo. I believe some telephoto lense sample was added to the HDR+ shots.
I might be wrong but I think I read something about that.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Wrong thread, sorry!

Question Pixel 7 Closeup Photos

I have had trouble taking photos from close angles. Anthony closer than 6 inches is blurry and gives me a "move back to improve focus" message. I tried open camera as an alternative, but have the same blurry quality photo. I'm not looking for macro photos, but I do like taking closeup shots. Just wondered if anyone had noticed the same issue, and if you've found a work around for it.
I tried the same distance with my Galaxy S10+ as well as a Note 8, and they both handled the shots well. The second picture was taken by the Pixel, the 1st and 3rd taken by the S10+.

condor97 said:
I have had trouble taking photos from close angles. Anthony closer than 6 inches is blurry and gives me a "move back to improve focus" message. I tried open camera as an alternative, but have the same blurry quality photo. I'm not looking for macro photos, but I do like taking closeup shots. Just wondered if anyone had noticed the same issue, and if you've found a work around for it.
I tried the same distance with my Galaxy S10+ as well as a Note 8, and they both handled the shots well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no workaround. It's a common thing with new smartphone cameras. Step further, take a photo and then crop into your desired space.

SharifOthman said:
There's no workaround. It's a common thing with new smartphone cameras. Step further, take a photo and then crop into your desired space.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man. I guess I am going to have to wait and get a macro option in my next upgrade. Progress

condor97 said:
Thanks man. I guess I am going to have to wait and get a macro option in my next upgrade. Progress
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you really care about macro photography then you should get a phone with an autofocus macro lens, none of these useless 2 megapixel cameras that are being thrown in every phone these days. I'd rather use the main sensor than to use these awful sensors.

SharifOthman said:
If you really care about macro photography then you should get a phone with an autofocus macro lens, none of these useless 2 megapixel cameras that are being thrown in every phone these days. I'd rather use the main sensor than to use these awful sensors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you are right. I would pay for the exra feature if it didn't involve exra large phones with curved screens. But that is another topic....
I guess I don't look at closeup photos and macro photography as the same thing. The S10+ I took the above photo with has a 16mp and two 12mp cameras. They seem to perform fairly well in this range, but I know that I am not going to pick up the detail on the eyes of a bee with them (which is what I consider macro to be).

condor97 said:
Well you are right. I would pay for the exra feature if it didn't involve exra large phones with curved screens. But that is another topic....
I guess I don't look at closeup photos and macro photography as the same thing. The S10+ I took the above photo with has a 16mp and two 12mp cameras. They seem to perform fairly well in this range, but I know that I am not going to pick up the detail on the eyes of a bee with them (which is what I consider macro to be).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I fully understand what you mean. As for big phones, that's the exact reason why I chose the smaller Pixel 7, even if I'm missing the telephoto and the macro.

condor97 said:
Well you are right. I would pay for the exra feature if it didn't involve exra large phones with curved screens. But that is another topic....
I guess I don't look at closeup photos and macro photography as the same thing. The S10+ I took the above photo with has a 16mp and two 12mp cameras. They seem to perform fairly well in this range, but I know that I am not going to pick up the detail on the eyes of a bee with them (which is what I consider macro to be).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed also that the minimun focus distance is quite far away. Althought, I've been happy with the results of the 2x crop (before taking the picture). Just get the minimun focus distance, then hit the 2x and take the picture. That big sensor and Super Res Zoom does the rest. Results are quite ok IMO.

Finneri said:
I noticed also that the minimun focus distance is quite far away. Althought, I've been happy with the results of the 2x crop (before taking the picture). Just get the minimun focus distance, then hit the 2x and take the picture. That big sensor and Super Res Zoom does the rest. Results are quite ok IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good tip! Thanks!