So is it fair to say that if i move to the one from my s3 i am downgrading my camera overalll???
Ultrapixel Camera Question
- Thread starter mstrblueskys
- Start date
So is it fair to say that if i move to the one from my s3 i am downgrading my camera overalll???
I find blind tests, or any camera tests without a base to go by to be flawed. How can someone judge accuracy of the photo without a base shot to go by? Or at the very least explanation.
I personally would not call it a down grade.
More like a trade off or side grade.
You lose sharpness and less noise, but gain optical image stability and zoes. The dynamic range you lose with the one is not that bad but noticeable.
sent with my 2 year old HTC evo3d
There are lots of user submitted photos popping up online. I've been checking those out over the camera comparisons. They seem more applicable to my usage.
No, the camera one the One is massively better than the SGS3's. I can compare the two directly here.
Oh boy. Okay, lets see if we can get more technical without sounding more technical. Warpdrived already helped, but I'll try to expand.
Okay a larger pixel, as a sensor in its own right, does "let in" more light, but of course how much is a function restricted by the f-stop and shutter speed of the lense as well as the area of the pixel. But it does not "absorb" that light. If that was really the reason for better low-light pictures, thenn as you can imagine sunlight pictures would just get blown out (over exposed) all to ****.
So what they do, sort of, is make better use of the light they do get. They're digital so of course their output voltage is divided into descreet steps, and then the processing software maps each step or value to a gray level. The number of steps, and the mapping done by the software, determine how much dynamic range you can get in the final image.
Trying to think of a good analogy. How about we consider analog to digital audio conversion. The better the frequency response of the analog mic, and the higher frequency sampling of a better converter, can result in an audio file containing a more accurate representation of the original sound. Even though the values in the file are stepped, there is a wider range of available values and a closer distrubution of them. Okay that analogy breaks down on many levels, but it kinda shows how a larger pixel can improve the dynamic range of the image. It can take the light it gets and divide it into a wider range yet smaller separation of steps.
Hmmm. Can we get even simpler? Imagine a tiny volume dial. It's difficult to finely tune the exact volume because your fingers can't select as many finely divided positions around the dial. A bigger dial allows you to precisely select from a larger set of possible volumes.
Okay thats kind of crappy too, but I hope it helps with a basic understanding. Still, we must qualify some things. A bigger pixel by size alone doesn't make it perform better. You've got to have the f-stop and shutter speed to give the pixel something good to work with, the pixel has to have been designed to take advantage, and the processing software has to do a good job. So bigger pixels on the sensor by themselves don't automatically mean better pictures. I suspect that's why the "don't let HTC fool you" thought was expressed.
Now we get into the screen you view the pictures on as well. The specs of Samsung's S4 suggests that the screen on it has more dynamic range available for display than the ONE has, by virtue of its deeper blacks alone. Regardless of what range of values is in the image file, when you view it all those values are again mapped to the display output. So the screen itself and whatever graphics engine is driving it determine the dynamic range of what you're actually looking at. The light that hit your lense, by the time you're looking at on screen, has undergone several levels of interpretation input and output along the way. What comes into your eyeball at that point may or may not be pretty close to what you might have seen if you had just put your eyeball where your camera lense was instead. The best cameras and displays in the world arent perfect, and probably never will be, although technological improvements have brought us a long way. And cell phone cameras, depending on how picky you want to get, aren't even close.
Most of us aren't that picky. So just decide whether the better zoomability/detail/size or the possibility of a very slightly improved low-light capability is more important to you, consider the other features, and choose your phone accordingly.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Thanks for the great information,
So from what both you and WarpDrived said, the Ultrapixel bit is more buzzword then anything. Having a larger pixels opens them up to having better photos but it depends more on the rest of the camera and the software to properly manage it. So at the moment the camera isn't bad per say, it's lower megapixels have put it at a disadvantage since it's not exactly tuned correctly on the software side of things.
So from what both you and WarpDrived said, the Ultrapixel bit is more buzzword then anything. Having a larger pixels opens them up to having better photos but it depends more on the rest of the camera and the software to properly manage it. So at the moment the camera isn't bad per say, it's lower megapixels have put it at a disadvantage since it's not exactly tuned correctly on the software side of things.
Great question. But to answer it we have to look at the history of HTC's camera software first...
Starting with HTC's 2010 phones, HTC has had a history of some camera software flaws. My 2011 phone, as well as the 2012 one x and one x+, have almost the same inherent flaws. Well, the 2013 HTC One also have the same problems.
So what are they?
All have slightly flat or subdued colors.
All seem slightly over sharpend...creating more noise and artifacts.
Auto white balance is quite warm under tungsten or incandescent lightning.
The good news is everything above can be fixed by the user.
You can change a few settings in the camera settings menu. Pay attention if you are getting this phone...
Change the saturation to +1/2 or +1 if the new menu won't allow +1/2
Change the sharpen or sharpening to -1.
Some people say to do -2, but I feel that while it removes most or all of the noise, it softens the image way to much.
Here is the tricky part:
Most people don't want to change auto white balance from full auto. But take a good look at the indoor pic of Phil under heavy incandescent lightning in the review here in AC, and the excessive "warmth" or orange glow in the image is still here in the One.
Changing this to incandescent in the camera settings should help, but it also might make the pic too cool or bluish.
A better auto white balance is needed and HTC may not ever change this. But in phonedog's low light tests, and the last pic in the AC review shows that under heavy incandescent light it is still there and now seems even worse. That is why I keep asking for low light shots under this type of lighting.
Then there is the history of HTC's updates.
While HTC always seems to give 2 or 3 updates for bugs and then you'll get an android update (say from JB to KLP), I personally would not expect anything after that.
As an example, the evo3d that I have has gone from gingerbread to icecream sandwich, the Motorola photon is still on gingerbread, but the GS2 went from gingerbread to ICS to JB. Clearly HTC updated their 2011 phones better then Motorola, but nothing as good as Samsung when it comes to updates. In fact your GS3 will get at least another update and may even get "KLP" based on Samsung's history. That is value for a non nexus device.
So do I expect HTC to fix dynamic range or the software flaws of the One's camera? Not based on their history.
Sent with my 2 year old HTC evo3d
Starting with HTC's 2010 phones, HTC has had a history of some camera software flaws. My 2011 phone, as well as the 2012 one x and one x+, have almost the same inherent flaws. Well, the 2013 HTC One also have the same problems.
So what are they?
All have slightly flat or subdued colors.
All seem slightly over sharpend...creating more noise and artifacts.
Auto white balance is quite warm under tungsten or incandescent lightning.
The good news is everything above can be fixed by the user.
You can change a few settings in the camera settings menu. Pay attention if you are getting this phone...
Change the saturation to +1/2 or +1 if the new menu won't allow +1/2
Change the sharpen or sharpening to -1.
Some people say to do -2, but I feel that while it removes most or all of the noise, it softens the image way to much.
Here is the tricky part:
Most people don't want to change auto white balance from full auto. But take a good look at the indoor pic of Phil under heavy incandescent lightning in the review here in AC, and the excessive "warmth" or orange glow in the image is still here in the One.
Changing this to incandescent in the camera settings should help, but it also might make the pic too cool or bluish.
A better auto white balance is needed and HTC may not ever change this. But in phonedog's low light tests, and the last pic in the AC review shows that under heavy incandescent light it is still there and now seems even worse. That is why I keep asking for low light shots under this type of lighting.
Then there is the history of HTC's updates.
While HTC always seems to give 2 or 3 updates for bugs and then you'll get an android update (say from JB to KLP), I personally would not expect anything after that.
As an example, the evo3d that I have has gone from gingerbread to icecream sandwich, the Motorola photon is still on gingerbread, but the GS2 went from gingerbread to ICS to JB. Clearly HTC updated their 2011 phones better then Motorola, but nothing as good as Samsung when it comes to updates. In fact your GS3 will get at least another update and may even get "KLP" based on Samsung's history. That is value for a non nexus device.
So do I expect HTC to fix dynamic range or the software flaws of the One's camera? Not based on their history.
Sent with my 2 year old HTC evo3d
Looking at the history it looks bad, but considering how much they are pushing the new camera technology it may raise the chances of it being fixed/improved. This also doesn't leave out the possibility of the community working on it.
"Fixing" might not be the right word. Depends on your goals I imagine. Sure, Ultrapixels is a a marketing buzzword. Even though they're larger than what other phones have been using, they're still not comparable to what's in a full frame camera. And even if they were, all the other parts that make up the camera aren't.
Also, no jpeg image is ever going to be perfectly like the original scene anyway. I wish for a phone camera that outputs raw sensor data files. Then you could open the file in a good raw software package on a good, calibrated system and see what the output looks like before it gets processed all to ****. I mean your graphics system still has to map values to your monitor, but at least that's only one level of interpretation.
I wouldn't wish for phone cameras to ever be as good as a real camera though. Who would want to carry that product around in their pocket all the time? Any of them nowdays is way better than the attempts of just a decade ago, and are perfectly adequate for capturing digital memories to share with our friends and family through the internet.
I personally favor the higher resolution, because I'm often taking shots of hvac equipment data plates, electrical panel breakers, etc. with my goal being the ability to zoom in and read the small print on my monitor back at the office. Don't care about image quality other than that in this case. My S2 is barely adequate in this regard, so the S4's 13mp is sounding good to me. Keeps me from having to lug a real camera to the job site. But when I want to take a better picture at my son's hockey award cereminy or anything else I would hang on a wall, or take good jobsite photos that might end up in our next brochure, I'm taking a better camera, choosing a lense, getting the settings right, etc.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Also, no jpeg image is ever going to be perfectly like the original scene anyway. I wish for a phone camera that outputs raw sensor data files. Then you could open the file in a good raw software package on a good, calibrated system and see what the output looks like before it gets processed all to ****. I mean your graphics system still has to map values to your monitor, but at least that's only one level of interpretation.
I wouldn't wish for phone cameras to ever be as good as a real camera though. Who would want to carry that product around in their pocket all the time? Any of them nowdays is way better than the attempts of just a decade ago, and are perfectly adequate for capturing digital memories to share with our friends and family through the internet.
I personally favor the higher resolution, because I'm often taking shots of hvac equipment data plates, electrical panel breakers, etc. with my goal being the ability to zoom in and read the small print on my monitor back at the office. Don't care about image quality other than that in this case. My S2 is barely adequate in this regard, so the S4's 13mp is sounding good to me. Keeps me from having to lug a real camera to the job site. But when I want to take a better picture at my son's hockey award cereminy or anything else I would hang on a wall, or take good jobsite photos that might end up in our next brochure, I'm taking a better camera, choosing a lense, getting the settings right, etc.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
Check out an app called Lumin. It not only facilitates that, but it will also light the camera flash and enlarge what the camera is seeing. It's awesome for hard to reach/read serial numbers.
So to sum up for non-technical people: do we think the HTC One is as good or better for photos we're using online? But it would be inadequate if you're wanting to take a photo that you can blow up to even 10x12 to hang on your wall?
That looks really cool, haven't heard of it before. Is there an Android alternative? I'm not going to buy it on ios since I'm switching in two weeks haha.
Not sure, it isn't an app I use constantly so I didn't have it on my list to find alternatives for. Now that I mentioned it to you though, I do kinda want a replacement for this. I don't use it all the time, but it's so useful in certain situations.
You would not want to print larger then 5x7 or you would clearly see way too many artifacts and your image will lack sharpness.
sent with my 2 year old HTC evo3d
madlaw1071
Well-known member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 1,302
- 11
- 0
Actually the One came in 5th out of 6 overall but your point is well-taken. The Camera is a weak link on this phone.
- Dec 21, 2011
- 979
- 1
- 0
I have blown up 5MP shots to about 6x6. You probably won't want to blow these pics up that big. You can go here to check some pics out on your computer to see how they size up. It looks like they will go pretty large without getting pixel-y.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
Two... that's right TWO unusable Xperia XZ2 Compacts
- Started by MatthewD
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram