LG V40, what would you want to see?

[flyingkytez]

To be fair, what you said did not support the conclusion that he reached 9 years ago before the first hundred thousand times it was explained that in photography in general, and especially on smartphones, megapixels is a number that's not even positively correlated with image quality, let alone the single driving factor of excellent camera performance.

If you could reframe your argument in a way that supports the conclusion that nothing except more MP can determine what the best camera is, then it may get read. But probably not.

No, you are right, it honestly does not matter about megapixels. It really is all about the actual hardware and camera software. However, for certain people (especially in certain professions), larger megapixels are needed to blow up images on a large screen... OR for cropping/zooming in (say, a candid photo of a celebrity from afar for a tabloid photo). Again, no way am I saying larger megapixels are superior cameras, but there are benifits. Explain why people would not be happy with a 5MP selfie and complain, but are happy with a 8MP selfie? Better resolution, 5MP might be too small, fine details are pixelated. The LG G5 and V20 has a 8MP wide angle, the complaint was that the resolution is too small, therefore resulting in a pixelated photo when you look closer, but if you're just looking at it on a small smartphone screen, you won't notice (but on a TV, yes you'll notice). Also, the Hubble space telescope only had less than 1 megapixel, WOW amazing right? Well, actually they had to create a mosaic and put together all the photos to form one big one. The upgrade to 16MP made it so much more convenient. Read about it below:


How many megapixels is the Hubble Space Telescope?

Hold on to your seat. The Hubble Space Telescope was developed in the 1970's to provide at least 15 years of service. The custom built Hubble WF/PC-1 cameras, had custom CCD chips with 800x800 pixels, or a total of 640,000 pixels. So the Hubble doesn't even have the equivalent of a 1 megapixel sensor!

In 1993 the cameras were replaced by the WF-PC-2 cameras that were designed to compensate for small optical flaws in the Hubble Telescope's reflector.

Despite this seemingly low resolution, the pictures from the Hubble have been pieced together to produce mosaics as large as 650 megapixels.

Recent (12/2005) news of a 16megapixel camera being tested on earth based telescopes is very exciting because it has the capability to image an entire galaxy in one picture, instead of requiring dozens of individual pictures to be spliced together. Increased sensitivity of the newest sensors will also help to improve the pictures.

Updated: The Wide Field Camera is one of the better ones and consists of two 2048 x 4096 pixel CCDs, which gives it about 16.8 megapixels.

In Chile, a new 3,200 megapixel telescope will be able to map the entire Galaxy, expected to be running by 2022.

Pixels don't matter? Or do they? You decide.

Again, not saying bigger is better overall, just that there's benifits of having it (also cons of having it too). I like to zoom/crop images a lot and take nature/outdoor photos, a smaller megapixel camera results in pixelated images when zoomed in. A Reddit user claimed that the Note 8 telephoto was fake, he concluded it was just mostly software trickery.. basically the software was just zooming in.. pixelation occurs with a smaller MP camera when zooming in (Note 8 telephoto was weak IMO). The LG V series opted for a 16MP because they wanted a focus on video recording, when you zoom in on a video, you need higher megapixels otherwise the video will be pixelated.

Calling me biased but you seem to be biased too BC you have probably a Samsung/Apple/Pixel/Moto/HTC which has a 12MP. No doubt their cameras are good (maybe better than LG), however LG cameras were designed for a different purpose rather than simply taking everyday photos/selfies and posting it on social media.

Again, I'll repeat again, I'm not saying megapixels are overall better, just that there's benifits such as less pixelation when zooming in. When Samsung went from their 16MP camera on the Galaxy S6 to the 12MP camera on the Galaxy S7, I immediately recognized a difference.. yeah cool the camera is faster and low light is better, but I can see with my naked eyes the difference. Some people won't and some people don't care, again they use their cameras for the basics such as for social media and non-commercial use.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

The colors are too warm, the contrast is higher, so the AMOLED screen can be confusing for a photo editor. Skin tones look warmer than real life, so it throws you off.

Completely false statement.

A perfectly calibrated LCD and a perfectly calibrated LED display at the same relative brightness look as close to identical as makes all odds. There should be no difference in relative temperature or saturation.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

No, you are right, it honestly does not matter about megapixels. It really is all about the actual hardware and camera software. However, for certain people (especially in certain professions), larger megapixels are needed to blow up images on a large screen... OR for cropping/zooming in (say, a candid photo of a celebrity from afar for a tabloid photo). Again, no way am I saying larger megapixels are superior cameras, but there are benifits. Explain why people would not be happy with a 5MP selfie and complain, but are happy with a 8MP selfie? Better resolution, 5MP might be too small, fine details are pixelated. The LG G5 and V20 has a 8MP wide angle, the complaint was that the resolution is too small, therefore resulting in a pixelated photo when you look closer, but if you're just looking at it on a small smartphone screen, you won't notice (but on a TV, yes you'll notice). Also, the Hubble space telescope only had less than 1 megapixel, WOW amazing right? Well, actually they had to create a mosaic and put together all the photos to form one big one. The upgrade to 16MP made it so much more convenient. Read about it below:


How many megapixels is the Hubble Space Telescope?

Hold on to your seat. The Hubble Space Telescope was developed in the 1970's to provide at least 15 years of service. The custom built Hubble WF/PC-1 cameras, had custom CCD chips with 800x800 pixels, or a total of 640,000 pixels. So the Hubble doesn't even have the equivalent of a 1 megapixel sensor!

In 1993 the cameras were replaced by the WF-PC-2 cameras that were designed to compensate for small optical flaws in the Hubble Telescope's reflector.

Despite this seemingly low resolution, the pictures from the Hubble have been pieced together to produce mosaics as large as 650 megapixels.

Recent (12/2005) news of a 16megapixel camera being tested on earth based telescopes is very exciting because it has the capability to image an entire galaxy in one picture, instead of requiring dozens of individual pictures to be spliced together. Increased sensitivity of the newest sensors will also help to improve the pictures.

Updated: The Wide Field Camera is one of the better ones and consists of two 2048 x 4096 pixel CCDs, which gives it about 16.8 megapixels.

In Chile, a new 3,200 megapixel telescope will be able to map the entire Galaxy, expected to be running by 2022.

Pixels don't matter? Or do they? You decide.

Again, not saying bigger is better overall, just that there's benifits of having it (also cons of having it too). I like to zoom/crop images a lot and take nature/outdoor photos, a smaller megapixel camera results in pixelated images when zoomed in. A Reddit user claimed that the Note 8 telephoto was fake, he concluded it was just mostly software trickery.. basically the software was just zooming in.. pixelation occurs with a smaller MP camera when zooming in (Note 8 telephoto was weak IMO). The LG V series opted for a 16MP because they wanted a focus on video recording, when you zoom in on a video, you need higher megapixels otherwise the video will be pixelated.

Calling me biased but you seem to be biased too BC you have probably a Samsung/Apple/Pixel/Moto/HTC which has a 12MP. No doubt their cameras are good (maybe better than LG), however LG cameras were designed for a different purpose rather than simply taking everyday photos/selfies and posting it on social media.

Again, I'll repeat again, I'm not saying megapixels are overall better, just that there's benifits such as less pixelation when zooming in. When Samsung went from their 16MP camera on the Galaxy S6 to the 12MP camera on the Galaxy S7, I immediately recognized a difference.. yeah cool the camera is faster and low light is better, but I can see with my naked eyes the difference. Some people won't and some people don't care, again they use their cameras for the basics such as for social media and non-commercial use.

The point is, if you rank the top 10 attributes of good mobile camera technology, the number of megapixels most likely isn't on that list.

 

[Mike Dee]

Completely false statement.

A perfectly calibrated LCD and a perfectly calibrated LED display at the same relative brightness look as close to identical as makes all odds. There should be no difference in relative temperature or saturation.

Exactly.... That's what calibrated means.

 

[flyingkytez]

Completely false statement.

A perfectly calibrated LCD and a perfectly calibrated LED display at the same relative brightness look as close to identical as makes all odds. There should be no difference in relative temperature or saturation.

Why does the skin look redder on an AMOLED? Or is it just your brain confused?

Also, why doesn't white look actually white (compared to LCD)? Serious question. I have yet to see an AMOLED screen with a white color that matches or is better than LCD. Or is it just your brain playing tricks on you like an optical illusion?

BTW Samsung is the only one that can get the colors as close as possible. The Pixel 2 XL looks very bad, extremely reddish screen... Only Samsung has the SUPER-AMOLED technology, they don't give that it to others, everyone else has the generic AMOLED which does not have the accurate colors and is easier to burn in. (The iPhone X has super-AMOLED, the only non-Samsung phone to have it. They probably paid extra for it, still colors look warm and skin looks reddish).

 

[flyingkytez]

The point is, if you rank the top 10 attributes of good mobile camera technology, the number of megapixels most likely isn't on that list.

I know that, that's why I said it doesn't mean it's better, just that there are some benifits, especially to certain people.

BTW Samsung's S9 slow-mo video look like junk, quality looks very pixelated. Cool feature though.

 

[flyingkytez]

Exactly.... That's what calibrated means.

Not all are calibrated. Pixel 2 looks very red, not sure what happened there, LG may have messed up.

 

[anony_mouse]

Not all are calibrated. Pixel 2 looks very red, not sure what happened there, LG may have messed up.

No, you're missing the point. If the screen is calibrated, colours will be accurate. If your Pixel 2 is "too red", it is not properly calibrated. That is possible - manufacturers often only do basic calibration on the production line, but I wouldn't expect it to be too far out. Maybe you should take your phone back to the shop where you bought it and get a repair or replacement?

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Why does the skin look redder on an AMOLED? Or is it just your brain confused?

Also, why doesn't white look actually white (compared to LCD)? Serious question. I have yet to see an AMOLED screen with a white color that matches or is better than LCD. Or is it just your brain playing tricks on you like an optical illusion?

No, you're missing the point. If the screen is calibrated, colours will be accurate. If your Pixel 2 is "too red", it is not properly calibrated. That is possible - manufacturers often only do basic calibration on the production line, but I wouldn't expect it to be too far out. Maybe you should take your phone back to the shop where you bought it and get a repair or replacement?

Not all are calibrated. Pixel 2 looks very red, not sure what happened there, LG may have messed up.

Not positive, but I think for white point you're talking about your subjective preference for a warmer or cooler display. As an example, the S8 and S9 devices have a white point that is calibrated too low, at 6150-6250K. Smartphones, like monitors used for photograph editing, are calibrated to D65, which is 6500K. This is slightly more blue than D63, which is used for cinema content in a dark theater.

Now, I don't know which display settings you use on LG phones, but you are almost definitely not looking at Samsung phones in "basic" mode, which is the sRGB color accurate mode that they have. Out of the box, they are set to a much heavier saturated mode that skews colors a lot. The LG V20 as an example, has a white point of about 9250K, which is WAY off of the perfect setting of 6500K. It also has an extremely large Delta-E on the sRGB calibration. The LG V30 brought their white point down to about, 7825K, which cut their error percentage in half. That's an LED display, right? It's only 20% deviated from perfect, while the LG V20's LCD was 42% deviated. If you're looking at the LG V20 and thinking, "this looks good" - then that just means you have a preference for inaccurate colors.

In general, numbers higher than 6500 are going to appear more blue and numbers lower are going to appear more red - but, they're also relative to each other - the Pixel 2 XL has a white point of about 6800, which is less than 5% deviation and it will look more red than the V30 and V20, but more blue than the Note 8, which has a white point of about 6475, which is less than .5% deviation and is one of the most perfect displays out on this metric. So if you are used to the overly cool (values significantly higher than 6500K) display, than the warmer displays, even if they're still cooler than perfect, are going to look off from that subjective standpoint.

The most important thing, is that even though these displays look "more red" (warmer) than what you are used to, that does not mean they are inaccurate - quite the contrary, every device I've just named is far more acculturate on the display temperature metric than every LG flagship made in recent years. Here's a chart to display the most recent Apple, Samsung and Google devices and how they rate on color temperature:



As you can see, compared to the industry standard - which is the same standard used for PC monitors used by professional photographers - the recent LG flagships are wildly inaccurate on color temperature. I threw in the Nexus 5X as well though, as it is produced by LG but calibrated Google's display preferences, not LG's. As you can see, the Nexus 5X was night and day better than anything LG does on its own - nearly 4 times more accurate on this metric. This supports the conclusion that this is an intentional decision being made by LG and not related to the type of display being used. The V30 and the Pixel 2 XL share display tech and are both made by LG - and the Pixel 2 XL is nearly 4 times more accurate on white point than the V30. This also supports the conclusion that LG is intentionally making their displays significantly cooler than the rest of the industry.

So to reiterate, LG is intentionally making their displays with an extremely cool color temperature that can have an immense impact on your perceptions when looking at (technically) better displays because almost all displays are going to look extremely warm compared to the wildly inaccurate temperatures of LG's display settings. This is the main reason that we use tools to measure these things, rather than eyeballing it.

 

[anony_mouse]

Not positive, but I think for white point you're talking about your subjective preference for a warmer or cooler display.

No! This is not about my subjective preference! I am talking about measuring and calibrating a display in an objective way so that white is white. Personal preference does not enter into it.

The rest of your post is interesting, although I would need to see where you got your numbers from before drawing any conclusions. Could you provide any information on the relationship between the colour temperature and the perceived error in delta-e's? Simply quoting an error of "42%" based on the value in Kelvin doesn't tell us how bad a display will look (although I suspect it will indeed look quite bad).

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

No! This is not about my subjective preference! I am talking about measuring and calibrating a display in an objective way so that white is white. Personal preference does not enter into it.

The rest of your post is interesting, although I would need to see where you got your numbers from before drawing any conclusions. Could you provide any information on the relationship between the colour temperature and the perceived error in delta-e's? Simply quoting an error of "42%" based on the value in Kelvin doesn't tell us how bad a display will look (although I suspect it will indeed look quite bad).

The part you quoted was referencing the other person I quoted, sorry if that was unclear.

The V30 has a color mode that is incredibly accurate, despite being a cooler than average display. It's in the same league as the iPhone 8, etc in terms of Delta-E on color accuracy. The V20 is wildly inaccurate. While I suspect that proper calibration of the white point may make color calibration easier, I'm not aware of any analog relationship between the two. Apple does focus on an accurate white point and individually calibrates each device display, so I think that having a more correct temperature eases that process.

 

[Mike Dee]

Not all are calibrated. Pixel 2 looks very red, not sure what happened there, LG may have messed up.

How many Pixels have you checked out?
You're the only one I know that had ever brought this up.

 

[Mike Dee]

No, you're missing the point. If the screen is calibrated, colours will be accurate. If your Pixel 2 is "too red", it is not properly calibrated. That is possible - manufacturers often only do basic calibration on the production line, but I wouldn't expect it to be too far out. Maybe you should take your phone back to the shop where you bought it and get a repair or replacement?

He doesn't own any of the phones he criticizes

 

[8livesleft]

Removable battery.

That's why I replaced my Galaxy S7 and got an LG G5.

I prefer to have a spare battery rather than have to bring a big fat external battery + cable or the charger. Or one of those stupid fat battery cases.

Seriously. Why bother making a phone nice and slim if you need to bring all that junk along? Such a stupid trend.

 

[Mike Dee]

Removable battery.

That's why I replaced my Galaxy S7 and got an LG G5.

I prefer to have a spare battery rather than have to bring a big fat external battery + cable or the charger. Or one of those stupid fat battery cases.

Seriously. Why bother making a phone nice and slim if you need to bring all that junk along? Such a stupid trend.

The battery life on a G5 sucks....used to carry to extra batteries so you still carry stuff around.

 

[8livesleft]

The battery life on a G5 sucks....used to carry to extra batteries so you still carry stuff around.

2 batteries? The only reasons you'd need that much juice is if:

1. You didn't clear cache data or do a factory reset after updates

2. You leave your apps, gps/data/bluetooth open all the time

3. Your batteries are shot

I also have a Galaxy S7 and the G5 has about the same battery life as that.

Still, even if you had to go to the desert, it's still easier to carry 2 wafer thin batteries than a battery pack + cable.

 

[flyingkytez]

He doesn't own any of the phones he criticizes

All the ones I've seen so far, especially the ones in the store. You have to put another phone next to it to see.

 

[flyingkytez]

2 batteries? The only reasons you'd need that much juice is if:

1. You didn't clear cache data or do a factory reset after updates

2. You leave your apps, gps/data/bluetooth open all the time

3. Your batteries are shot

I also have a Galaxy S7 and the G5 has about the same battery life as that.

Still, even if you had to go to the desert, it's still easier to carry 2 wafer thin batteries than a battery pack + cable.

Exactly, it's fast and easy, no need to carry a brick charger pack with you and keep it plugged in while charging (LG phones limit the performance when the phone is charging via cable). The G5 has a 2800mAh battery, don't forget that.. they needed room for the addon accessories, cool concept but poorly executed. I do admit the G5 (like the other LG phones) had really good standby time, but the overall battery size was pretty small.

 

[flyingkytez]

The battery life on a G5 sucks....used to carry to extra batteries so you still carry stuff around.

It had a 2800mAh battery.. standby time was good though, and it charged much faster than the Galaxy S7's micro USB charger 2.0 (plus it had USB C Quick Charge 3.0) so at the time, it was pretty good. It wasn't running Android 7.1 so the battery life was pretty weak, I'm sure they updated it to Android Nougat battery should be better with Doze mode and other battery saving features.

 

[flyingkytez]

Removable battery.

That's why I replaced my Galaxy S7 and got an LG G5.

I prefer to have a spare battery rather than have to bring a big fat external battery + cable or the charger. Or one of those stupid fat battery cases.

Seriously. Why bother making a phone nice and slim if you need to bring all that junk along? Such a stupid trend.

Nowadays I see people with headphone jack dongles and a battery pack attached to their phone, it looks inconvenient...