Note 3: My Note 1's camera was better then this....

[jim_h#AC]

The issue is whether or not a flagship measures up to what people expect from it in terms of camera quality, not whether it's better than or as God as a dedicated camera.

The discussion has also been about the quality of photos from smartphone cameras and not just whether one phone 'measures up' to another.

And it's not a supplement to a lot of people. To many. It is their camera. I'm one of those people and I don't care to own or get anymore equipment to carry around. Thank you.

As you say, it's a supplement to lots of people, but not all. I know plenty of people who prefer to carry around extra equipment in order to get decent photographs. Some, like you, prefer to do something else. Doesn't mean either opinion is invalid. Does it?

Yes, I keep up with sales of cameras. I'm a photographer

 

[anon24860]

True, but you can resize a 13MP image to 8MP and mask a ton of the noise in the image. Not sure many people want to resize their 8MP images to 4MP or whatnot, though. The higher pixel count coupled with better sensor does afford you some benefits over a lower MP image.

As for the iPhone, Apple's processing is too damn aggressive for me. I couldn't crop much because it softens too much especially in dubious lighting. Background details looked like a watercolor painting. The Note's images are more detailed. I get some fantastic crops out of this camera.

The iPhone's camera is faster, though. The face tracking and focus/shutter speeds on that phone are very impressive. I'd recommend it to any person who isn't a gadget geek but wants a good camera phone - over practically anything on the market these days except maybe a Lumia Icon or something similar.

The iOS/Windows Phone camera software is just more approachable for the average person than what Samsung/HTC puts on their phones. But, I requite a bit more flexibility due to the way I use my device and what I use it for.

Downsizing an image seems akin to getting rid of cockroaches by letting mice loose in the house. You just solve one problem with another.

Anytime you up or down-size an image, you are screw up the integrity of the image. Every process gets you further from the original. Some processes are an improvement; things like curve adjustments, sharpening, etc. Downsampling might also be benign or even an improvement over the original but a better approach would be to have an optimum number (and spacing and/or grid arrangement) from the get go. It's not hard to determine the sweet spot for each bit of real estate. The problem comes when that sweet spot is exceeded only for bragging rights. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't know any better and then they scream that the new device is worse than the previous one.

If they educated themselves, companies wouldn't screw them the way that they do. But that will never happen across the wide spectrum of consumers. They will always see "bigger is better".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[iN8ter]

Downsizing an image seems akin to getting rid of cockroaches by letting mice loose in the house. You just solve one problem with another.

Anytime you up or down-size an image, you are screw up the integrity of the image. Every process gets you further from the original. Some processes are an improvement; things like curve adjustments, sharpening, etc. Downsampling might also be benign or even an improvement over the original but a better approach would be to have an optimum number (and spacing and/or grid arrangement) from the get go. It's not hard to determine the sweet spot for each bit of real estate. The problem comes when that sweet spot is exceeded only for bragging rights. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't know any better and then they scream that the new device is worse than the previous one.

If they educated themselves, companies wouldn't screw them the way that they do. But that will never happen across the wide spectrum of consumers. They will always see "bigger is better".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

You save the original and export to PNG. There is no degradation unless you're clueless about working with images. Most consumer products allow you to go back to original if you make a mistake. Even Windows Photo Gallery allows that.

Downsizing is useful for getting a detailed image where you don't need the full 13 MP. like on a blog you may not need the original images at their original sizes.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

Who cares if the original can be saved if you can't use it? That's always the case unless you screw up and save the changes instead of saving save as and changing the file name.

Yes, downsizing is useful for saving to media that doesn't require the resolution that something over 8X10 requires. Heck, you can get good results at 8X10 at as little as 6 mp. Anything larger needs more mp but 13 mp far exceeds any reasonable requirement. Printing a smartphone photo at larger sizes is an exercise in futility, so I maintain that you never really need 13 mp. With quality cameras, sure. But phone cameras have too many limitations to make such sizes like putting lipstick on a pig. Besides, putting pictures on websites and printing snapshots is what 99% of people do. Even at 8 mp, Downsizing is going to be done anyway.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

In one respect, you are right about the image quality if you print at 300 dpi at a smaller print size or downsize to a website. But I maintain that the extra pixels are totally wasted because you can get the same results at a more reasonable pixel count.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Trees]

Surely the Note 3's camera is better than this? Polaroid SX-70 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia although this was a cool camera at that time in history.

 

[anon24860]

Surely the Note 3's camera is better than this? Polaroid SX-70 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia although this was a cool camera at that time in history.

Well, that camera had its own aesthetic. Just ask Warhol. Or David Hockney. Even Ansel Adams.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Trees]

Well, that camera had its own aesthetic. Just ask Warhol. Or David Hockney. Even Ansel Adams.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yes, I remember using it. That was a big transformation. Getting near instant photos vs. having to get a film roll processed.

 

[anon24860]

Yes, I remember using it. That was a big transformation. Getting near instant photos vs. having to get a film roll processed.

Well, there's the whole fingertip pre-Photoshop effects thing as well.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[iN8ter]

In one respect, you are right about the image quality if you print at 300 dpi at a smaller print size or downsize to a website. But I maintain that the extra pixels are totally wasted because you can get the same results at a more reasonable pixel count.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I'm not going to refuse the extra pixels when the camera does as well as it does.

An 8MP sensor would have been fine though I'd have preferred 10.6 16:9 with an 8MP 4:3 option instead if they were to put less MP on the sensor.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

I'm not going to refuse the extra pixels when the camera does as well as it does.

An 8MP sensor would have been fine though I'd have preferred 10.6 16:9 with an 8MP 4:3 option instead if they were to put less MP on the sensor.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

My point is, it's R&D and manufacturing money and effort that's wasted by bogus marketing.

Still, it looks like they are actually doing some advanced research into phone camera systems so there's hope for the future. They are probably bumping up against the limits at the current sensor size and are looking for ways around it without having to lose real estate of the rest of the phone. Fortunately, everyone else is in the same boat. Nokia seems to be the only one to throw caution to the wind and say, "Screw it, let's just put a big honking camera in our phones". The iPhone has taken a smarter approach than most, especially when you consider that it holds its own when stacked up against the Nokia. It might not be as good, but it's fairly close.

The biggest gains aren't going to be in giving people more megapixels, it's going to be in clever manipulation of the inherent limitations of the system, especially the size of the lens and the available size of the camera itself. Adding noise just to give the marketers a shiny object to distract consumers isn't the answer IF we want the best phone camera. I wouldn't mind if they found a way to equalize the added noise through smart technology. Then you could give a zillion megapixels and I wouldn't care.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[z06mike]

This thread is very amusing to check out. Some very good points are being made, which makes me glad that it's not just "this camera sucks". Many people don't understand the limitations of cameras/sensors etc. They expect a tiny little lens to perform miracles, without any input from the person behind it. As has been stated a few times, you could give MANY people a 5-10k setup and they would not be able to capture good pictures in certain elements.

 

[anon24860]

Not too shabby.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

And this.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

Never been a big Corvette fan but I'm digging the new design.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

Deleting duplicate post.

 

[anon8380037]

Never been a big Corvette fan but I'm digging the new design.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/21/a4u8ygu8.jpg

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Rare for a car to look good from the rear and three-quarters view. That looks great.

 

[anon24860]

It's got some really sharp lines and it's slimmed down a little.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon8380037]

Slimmer too? I had a look on the site. Still Corvette look up front. Lovely interior and dash. Works from all angles. Great overall package. I don't like that every new car model gets a little wider. Great pic.

 

[anon24860]

It looks slimmer and more sculpted (don't know about actual dimensions). I like the taper on the back window. Everything is designed to make it smaller. I took a pic of the front as well but I can't seem to free enough memory for Gallery to work (my Note 3 is stuffed to the gills). If I get it going, I'll post it later. I had to post this directly from the camera. Didn't bother to take a second "live" shot.

I like the front as well. It's starting to get a shorter, Lotus look to it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk