New sensors coming from the cell phones... Soon?
Feb 10, 2024 16:44:18 #
This is a follow-up from the "Forgery On Not?" Thread.
Cell phone cameras, while not up to par with regular cameras at the moment, are using a technology that is far superior to that used in our DSLs. I will not be surprised to see smaller cameras coming out with this technology and rival with heavy guns like Canon, Nikon and others before long.
The progress made in cell phone is both in sensor technology and in camera software improvement.
Basically, I kind of compare it with the radios used in the fifties to the miniaturized versions of it offered in the 70s. I remember using a radio that was a keychain to listen to music while in boarding school…
Cell phone cameras, while not up to par with regular cameras at the moment, are using a technology that is far superior to that used in our DSLs. I will not be surprised to see smaller cameras coming out with this technology and rival with heavy guns like Canon, Nikon and others before long.
The progress made in cell phone is both in sensor technology and in camera software improvement.
Basically, I kind of compare it with the radios used in the fifties to the miniaturized versions of it offered in the 70s. I remember using a radio that was a keychain to listen to music while in boarding school…
Feb 10, 2024 16:56:22 #
Define "not up to par"...
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
Feb 10, 2024 17:26:45 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Longshadow wrote:
Define "not up to par"...
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
"not up to par" is a relative term. Depth of field is not the same as larger format cameras. ISO is not the same as larger format cameras. One cannot take 120 frames per second without using a larger format camera. Although smartphones will maybe get it in the future, there are no phones that I know of that do pre-capture.
Now if one does not need or use things like that, then the smartphones and regular cameras become much more alike. And I like my smartphone camera too. I just like my OM camera better.
Feb 10, 2024 17:34:28 #
Rongnongno wrote:
This is a follow-up from the " color=navy b ... (show quote)
I thought the software in cellphone photography included AI to make the pictures look better.
Feb 10, 2024 17:37:03 #
Longshadow wrote:
Define "not up to par"...
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
I have no qualms about using my cell phone camera.
Try to print anything above 11x14. I print at a minimal 2 to 3 feet in any dimension. This is where the not 'up to par' comes from. Once that limitation is overcome and deliver the quality my D850 offers, the 'up to far' is smoked and so will 'our' DSLRs.
For the WEB? No 'up to par' and this is why many think they have a great camera with their phones. They are not wrong, this is all that is needed - for them-.
As to using a cell phone vs a camera? The 'adage' be there, be ready, is ubiquitous with a cell phone.
I have to mention that the print 'era' may also come to an end considering large screen TV can display images properly too with less cost, greater facility. Add the idea of laptops and tablets capable of broadcasting to a TV...
This visual world is changing, fast.
Do I promote the 'end of the DSLR world?' No, far from it.
I just hope the manufacturers stop ******* around and offer real upgrades instead of incremental garbage like 'mirrorless'... Sooner than later.
Feb 10, 2024 17:49:19 #
Mac wrote:
I thought the software in cellphone photography included AI to make the pictures look better.
AI is software, nothing else. AI is nothing more than a program that responds to specific instructions, sometimes in a hilarious way. Check the AI section to see the missteps created.
If you think you have a gremlin taking over your camera to make things better, sorry, there is nobody in there, just a catch word used for marketing purposes.
Find me something that can create something from nothing like a human does*, and I will revise my position, So far? AI is "garbage in, garbage out" in extension, a collection of data that will always fail unreasonable expectation.
I apologize for the tone of this answer, but I will not purchase a ticket to the current commercial bandwagon and alarming press releases.
----------------
"Art is making something of nothing and selling it." Frank Zappa.
Feb 10, 2024 17:53:53 #
And before one asks...
Yes, I use a cell phone too, just not for the same purpose - I never post cell images on the web, short video clips, yes. A cell phone is a great tool similar to Polaroid in some ways.
It removes the eyes bias, another subject altogether that was breached long ago on this site.
Yes, I use a cell phone too, just not for the same purpose - I never post cell images on the web, short video clips, yes. A cell phone is a great tool similar to Polaroid in some ways.
It removes the eyes bias, another subject altogether that was breached long ago on this site.
Feb 10, 2024 18:09:00 #
wdross wrote:
"not up to par" is a relative term. ........
Definitely!
Never to be said as a blanket statement.....
Feb 10, 2024 18:11:52 #
[quote=Rongnongno][b]
"Find me something that can create something from nothing like a human does*, and I will revise my position, So far? AI is "garbage in, garbage out" in extension, a collection of data that will always fail unreasonable expectation."
Humans create things based on past experience, as does AI. If you have never seen a horse you can not create one.
IMO the major issue with AI is with the IDIOT who named it. It is certainly artificial but it is NOT intelligent. Had they called it something like Computer Generated Content (CGC) it would not be the issue it has become.
"Find me something that can create something from nothing like a human does*, and I will revise my position, So far? AI is "garbage in, garbage out" in extension, a collection of data that will always fail unreasonable expectation."
Humans create things based on past experience, as does AI. If you have never seen a horse you can not create one.
IMO the major issue with AI is with the IDIOT who named it. It is certainly artificial but it is NOT intelligent. Had they called it something like Computer Generated Content (CGC) it would not be the issue it has become.
Feb 10, 2024 18:20:30 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
br "Find me something that can create someth... (show quote)
Shows to go ya the "intelligence" of some people....
Feb 10, 2024 18:51:35 #
Feb 10, 2024 20:13:04 #
Feb 10, 2024 21:38:47 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
.../... Humans create things based on past experience, as does AI. If you have never seen a horse you can not create one.
Intelligence and the idea of creating something is not about being god-like and create life.
Yet, folks act like AI has been created (as an entity) by men.
Curmudgeon wrote:
.../... IMO the major issue with AI is with the IDIOT who named it. It is certainly artificial but it is NOT intelligent. Had they called it something like Computer Generated Content (CGC) it would not be the issue it has become.
I cannot agree more.
As to the naming... We have CAD, used by many technical folks in a variety of professions. At the time, no one dreamed of what we have now... Hyperbolizing everything from the weather to whatever is now the 'norm'. So, AI? What the heck, why not, ECAD would not work (enhanced CAD). But then again, being a cad is frowned upon, even if there are songs about it....
Feb 11, 2024 06:12:59 #
Tdearing
Loc: Rockport, TX
I believe you are correct, sensors are getting amazing and will only get better as the investment in that technology dwarfs that of traditional. I just purchased a new Samsung Note 20 Ultra with the following specs:
Main camera: 108 MP (OIS, Laser and PDAF)
Specifications: Aperture size: F1.8; Focal length: 26 mm; Sensor size: 1/1.33"; Pixel size: 0.8 μm
Second camera: 12 MP (Telephoto, OIS, PDAF)
Specifications: Optical zoom: 5.0x; Aperture size: F3.0; Focal Length: 120 mm; Pixel size: 1 μm
Third camera: 12 MP (Ultra-wide, Autofocus)
Specifications: Aperture size: F2.2; Focal Length: 13 mm; Sensor size: 1/2.55"; Pixel size: 1.4 μm
Video recording: 7680x4320 (8K UHD) (24 fps), 3840x2160 (4K UHD) (60 fps), 1920x1080 (Full HD) (240 fps), 1280x720 (HD) (960 fps.
It does an amazing job, and for a camera that is always with you I believe it can't be beat. That said, it does not match the depth of view of my Sony Rx100 - close, but not as good.
Main camera: 108 MP (OIS, Laser and PDAF)
Specifications: Aperture size: F1.8; Focal length: 26 mm; Sensor size: 1/1.33"; Pixel size: 0.8 μm
Second camera: 12 MP (Telephoto, OIS, PDAF)
Specifications: Optical zoom: 5.0x; Aperture size: F3.0; Focal Length: 120 mm; Pixel size: 1 μm
Third camera: 12 MP (Ultra-wide, Autofocus)
Specifications: Aperture size: F2.2; Focal Length: 13 mm; Sensor size: 1/2.55"; Pixel size: 1.4 μm
Video recording: 7680x4320 (8K UHD) (24 fps), 3840x2160 (4K UHD) (60 fps), 1920x1080 (Full HD) (240 fps), 1280x720 (HD) (960 fps.
It does an amazing job, and for a camera that is always with you I believe it can't be beat. That said, it does not match the depth of view of my Sony Rx100 - close, but not as good.
Feb 11, 2024 10:32:30 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I just hope the manufacturers stop ******* around and offer real upgrades instead of incremental garbage like 'mirrorless'... Sooner than later.
I just hope the manufacturers stop ******* around and offer real upgrades instead of incremental garbage like 'mirrorless'... Sooner than later.
When your D850 will do Pro-capture, or Live Comp, or Live ND, then maybe your Nikons will catch up to that "incremental garbage". Oh, wait, they will be mirrorless Nikons.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.