Nokia 808 PureView and zooming in 12x
With the Nokia 808 PureView, the lower the resolution of your picture or video, the further you can zoom. [I'm not super technical so this is just my understanding. Not sure why this article became this long, I originally just wanted to share a video that showed 12x zoom]
This is because there’s more pixels for the 808 PureView to crop into. Traditionally, digital zooms from other manufacturers work by zooming in the set pixels they are at already. What I mean by this is that if they were to record at 360p, (640×360), all they would simply do is enlarge the pixels already inside that 640×360 frame, resulting in ugly blocky recordings. This gets better in higher resolutions, but still you produce an obvious quality degraded image.
You’ll also notice that when you are zoomed in (just before taking the picture), the exposure is managed differently to what is in the frame. This would be quite different to zooming in to a photo where the exposure is locked to what the photo was taken at. Sometimes, some digital zooms don’t compensate for the fact that you have zoomed in and just take the full frame.. This means that when you’re zoomed in and you zoom in to somewhere bright, it may remain over exposed. I believe in the 808, it is also able to manage the focus differently to what is in the frame.
Starting with the N86, suddenly that ugly useless zooming wasn’t there anymore. It was in a way, usable. The N8 however was the first one to market this feature. The 808 is now the king of this type of digital zoom.
Instead of simply zooming in on the pixels in the frame, it zoomed in to the pixels available to the whole sensor. So the total sensor size of 7728×5368 can be used and a 640×360 image can be cropped within that to produce your level of zoom.
Think of it as if you were able to pinch and zoom within a 640×360 frame, inside of a 7728×5368 image. The bigger the resolution of the camera sensor (combined with a physically larger sensor to make sure those extra pixels are usable and not just marketing fluff), you can record at higher resolutions, still with useful digital zoom. Another alternative is to record at lower resolutions and achieve even higher digital zoom.
by ashouhdy
The Nokia 808 PureView at 1080p manages 3x zoom. But knock down your resolution to 360p and you can get up to (by default camera) 12x zoom.
Camera Shakes
The more you zoom, the more camera shakes become apparent. Consider again looking at a scene with the 640×360, 4″ frame on the Nokia 808 PureView. Move it up slightly by 1mm and the image will probably look near enough the same. As you increase your zoom level, that 1mm difference becomes exaggerated to the point that at the 12x zoom range, it can cut off whole objects out of the frame and look like a completely different picture.
Apparently the 808 maintains the same aperture (well, f stop) throughout, whilst optical zooms cameras may reduce the f-stop in telephoto, thus less light is reaching the sensor. The point and shoot might compensate by lengthening the shutter time to obtain more light. But, increased shutter time increases the chance of blurring. It’s useful to have some excellent optical/digital image stabilisation. It helps to have a tripod to reduce shakes at the zoom end. I don’t know what type of image stabilisation the 808 uses but it could be better. It’s best not to be moving yourself whilst zooming. It may be ok if taking photos but the shakes are made so much worse if you’re in zoom and you’re walking about whilst video recording. Something like a steadicam could help here.
Interestingly, speaking of zoom/cropping and zooming in causing more shakes – in digital image stabilisation, I believe it works by shifting an image frame by frame, counteracting your motion, so that particular points in your view have less jittering motion and you can take a sharper image/less shaky video. Pixels outside the border of the original frame act like a buffer by which the frame can be shifted in those directions to stabilise the image/video. This may mean that you won’t get the full focal length of your camera at the cost of digital image stabilisation.
Bokeh
Bokeh describes that selective out of focus blurring. Often it’s things in the foreground that are kept in focus while the background has a lovely mellow blur but it doesn’t just have to be the background or even the foreground – it’s up to you where you select your focus areas and out of focus areas to be.
When you zoom in to close up objects, the bokeh is somewhat enhanced by magnifying the out of focus area and exaggerating the distances between the in focus subject and the out of focus subject (usually the background).
Focusing
It helps to set the Nokia 808 PureView to touch focus when recording video in zoom (as opposed to continuous) as you don’t have to rely on the 808 to guess what you want in focus. When zooming, you might have objects in the foreground which might be locked onto instead. Just tap at the relevant areas to get the focus. Most likely, things in the distance would already be set to infinity (though you’ll have the check and play around with the focus modes on the 808 to confirm).
About the Author (Author Profile)
Hey, thanks for reading my post. My name is Jay and I'm a medical student at the University of Manchester. When I can, I blog here at mynokiablog.com and tweet now and again @jaymontano. We also have a twitter and facebook accounts @mynokiablog and Facebook.com/mynokiablog. Check out the tips, guides and rules for commenting >>click<< Contact us at tips(@)mynokiablog.com or email me directly on jay[at]mynokiablog.comSubscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (73)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Video²: Nokia 808 Pureview i 12x Zoom! | NokiaMob | June 25, 2012
- Nokia 808 PW: video test sullo zoom a 12x nei video in 360p | June 25, 2012
- Nokia 808 PureView: nuovi test sullo zoom a 12x nei filmati a 360p (VIDEO) | Jobbr it | June 26, 2012
The 808 is a great camera for a hobbyist wanting to get a multi purpose tool for taking pictures and video. You can take great pictures with it and you can record some nice video footage.
However the lack of the real zoom becomes apparent when you want to record objects further away. When using 808′s cropping zoom for the video you are limited to 360p at 12x. Real video cameras are offering 1080p with 12x zoom. Some cameras offer over 24x and 1080p with a fraction of the price of the 808. While zooming the 808 is no match for a real video camera. If you don’t care about zooming the 808 is a great camera for you.
The 808 is a versatile tool for taking pictures and recording video. While you can’t get the best quality while zooming you get a nice compromise. If you can live with Symbian and the high price is not a problem for you the 808 may be a real bargain.
I definitely recommend the 808 for anyone who is ok with the limitations. Just don’t expect to get the best possible camera for everything.
Okay boss, once again your superior word & RW knowledge/experience is heeded.
Sure. Whatever.
But boss?
Yeah.
Lord US: Obviously it is true what lack of optical zooming limits the zoom capabilities of the 808. This is one thing that still puts many regular cameras ahead of it, in this area. Like I always say, my 808 beats my point and shoot hands down, in every other department except zooming range. I don’t know how much that matters to me in practice, but still it is an easy distinction to make.
But a couple of points are often forgotten: the way 808 zooms, as opposed to many regular camera lense configuraiton, it still allows the same amount of light to enter the 808′s sensor – whereas the optical zoom in many cameras actually reduces the amount of light depending on the zoom level, meaning worse low-light performance. Also, the non-mechanical nature of 808′s zoom maks it faster and silent compared to some electrically operated zooms.
Also, the 808 does all this while being extremely small compared to many cameras and still packing the meanest sensor and cropping range in this type/size of device.
All this adds up and I don’t actually agree with this:
I think if you care about zooming, the 808 actually is a great camera for you. If you don’t care about zooming, an N8 or some 8 megapixel cameraphone might do the trick for most consumers… But if you want to zoom or crop later, and you want the small size, I don’t know of any better device on the market. Alread the N8 with cropping allowed some detail to be retained over extended distances, the 808 just ups this ante considerably.
Obviously it doesn’t mean that if you can or want to go up in size and/or do need even more zooming capability than the 808 offers, that there aren’t better alternatives. But the 808 is actually very zooming friendly (either live or post-processing) compared to what else is out there. The fact that we’re actually comparing it to the capabilities of high-end P&S and low-end DSLRs tells something.
Now that’s what you call “being objective”…
No saying Janne’s always a perfect in that respect, no sir.
But he try’s to at least approximate that way more than others.
Thank you. I do try. Usually.
Now that’s what you call “being objective”…
No saying Janne is always perfect in that respect, no sir.
But he tries to at least approximate that way more than others.
Actually zooming with the 808 reduces the light used to create the image. If you zoom the sensor area used to produce the image is smaller. The bigger sensor area is used to create the PureView effect. While zooming the PureView effect is lost and the supersampled pixels are gone.
Because of this the image quality gets worse when the zoom is used. The cropping zoom of the 808 reduces the image quality. While zooming the 808 loses to the zoom produced by the compacts.
Lord US:
Obviously it is true that the PureView effect is lost gradually when zooming and thus a smaller area of pixels receiving light is used. But optically the amount of light entering the sensor is constant on the 808.
In most cases and for extreme range, it obviously does usually. Of course. I readily concede this. However, I’d say it is taking things too far saying that to find the 808 great you’d need to someone who doesn’t care for zooming. I think for what it is, size-wise, it is actually a lot better at zooming than many things out there.
The amount of light that can be used to produce the image is reduced 95% if you zoom 3x when using the 1080p. If you zoom with 5MP you lose 85% of the light the device can use for the image. That’s what happens when you lose the PureView effect.
3x zoom may be enough for people who don’t need the 12x zoom. That’s the same reason why the SGS3 provides good enough pictures for most of the people.
Nokia should have been making something like the SGS3.
Come on, now you’re just rambling.
No way is anything in the 808 for “the same reason why the SGS3 provides good enough pictures for most of the people”. Seriously. No.
The point I was trying to make is that the 808 actually produces photographs that are beyond what most people consider good enough. Even when zooming/cropping is needed.
And that puts it in a category where it might actually be considered a point and shoot replacement, instead of a “good enough” Facebook instagram type of camera replacement.
Have you seen how much a N8 image can be crop-zoomed? And then triple that resolution. There is huge potential for P&S replacement in a smaller package that actually can connect and share the images too.
Sure, if people are willing to go for the video camera type of device, size-wise, the zooming potential and stuff changes. But in the small point and shoot category, what the 808 lacks in optical zooming, it may make up in other qualities – and not just because it is “good enough”, but perhaps because it is “that good”.
It seems that 5MP was not enough for most of the people buying smartphones. In compacts the 3x zoom is only the very low end.
You are trying to tell that 5MP with 3x zoom is good enough? That’s with the 3x zoom and without the PureView effect. That’s all the 808 can do while you use the zoom.
It’s a nice camera but the zoom is only very low end compared to the compacts.
Lord US:
Having used even quite extreme already crops from N8 images for years now, yes, I do believe the 808 is more than capable of producing zooming capabilities at a level that makes it competitive with compact point and shoot cameras.
Sure, it may not match them blow for blow in every spec (what does?), but that doesn’t mean it is just a compromise kind of a camera. The totality of what the 808 is and can do is what makes it competitive.
And for the size, its zooming capabilities are quite good too. Again, I don’t know how large devices you are comparing it to, but I’m talking of compact point and shoots – the kind that would actually be size-wise a some sort of equivalent for the 808.
What you mostly need megapixels for is shoot-first, crop-later. Taking those 37 megapixel monsters gives you quite a bit of leeway in post-processing, especially for screen, but even if you are intending hit print.
Again, I’m not arguing the 808 will make P&S obsolete. Of course not. But I do think, as my opinion, that you are perhaps not giving the 808 quite the credit it deserves on this zoomability issue. I agree with much what you say, but not quite all.
The 808 is able to produce an 360p image with the 12x cropping zoom. Now those cheap modern compacts can do 12x zoom with 3000p image.
That kind of compact can shoot those images with a good light but they cost a fraction of what the 808 does. The 808 just can’t come even close to a 12x zooming quality of a cheap compact with a real optical zoom.
The 808 produces an 360p image without the PureView effect and with the 12x cropping zoom. A cheap compact with 12x zoom produces almost ten times the resolution of the 808 with 12x zoom.
The 808 has another advantages but it just can’t come even close to what those modern compacts can do with the real optical zoom.
Lord US:
Obviously, I never said the 808 could compare with a 12x optical zoom. But also I don’t agree with your notion that you have to need 12x zoom in a compact to consider it a good option.
I personally have gone years using a much smaller zoom, yet still using zoom frequently. 808 can offer something in that space. In addition to probably offering the best non-zoomed images an extremely pocketable camera can at this time.
This is what, in addition to the connectivity and leave-your-main-phone-home benefits, makes it a potential point and shoot replacement – even for those who want to do some zooming.
It is not, obviously, making point and shoots obsolete – but it does offer an alternative. But I guess we’ve pretty much explored and hausted are differences. I just think it is not fair to say 808 is only a good compact replacement if you don’t care about zooming.
I think it may be a good replacement even if you do care about zooming. I’d actually go as far as to say it is a good device to have especially if you do care about zooming, but can’t or don’t want to bring your main gear everywhere.
Hi, I understand your thinking, but you are missing the point.
Because the 808 doesn’t use optical zoom, it benefits in several ways, because it doesn’t have the mechanical zoom it:
1) does not loose light capture which means you get better pictures/videos
2) does not add the extra weight and size of the zoom
3) with no digital zoom, you get much better pictures/videos due to the purview technology oversampling and dramatically reducing noise
4) you can zoom in and out in a split second without having to wait for the optic to move
5) there is no noise of the zoom adjusting so you don’t get that annoying noise when you zoom in and out.
these are just some of the reasons why Nokia have goes down this route, and in no way am I saying this route is the best in every situation, but for something you will have on you practically every minute of every day, it’s perfect.
I understand some people are disappointed if they thought it would be a superior products compared to the compacts.
Some people are angry because I’m not just complementing the device. Yeah, it’s a nice product and you can get some real quality when you are not using the zoom.
1) You lose light when you use the zoom because the PureView effect is gone while zooming.
2) It weighs more compared to the competiton if you consider the 808 as a phone.
3) True, you get great quality if you are not using the zoom.
4) Yeah.
5) True, that’s nice.
The 808 uses a nice compromise and it produces nice images. However it’s not superior in every way. Far from it.
1) you don’t because when you zoom on a conventional optical system the aperture actually decreases so less light is able to get to the sensor, but with any digital zoom you don’t get this because you are essentially cropping what is there so the amount of light in the place you have cropped to is the same when you have zoomed in or viewing the whole image. I take you point about the pureview oversampling decreasing but all this means it is looking at the actual pixels rather then the oversampled image, but still the light level in those pixels should stay the same.
2) yes it weighs more, but it means you don’t need that dedicated camera as well as you phone any more, plus it can do a hell of a lot more then that compact camera (direct online upload, HDMI out, video editing, and with the lightning fast camera start up time you should never miss a moment!
1) Losing the oversampling is losing light. You get more light for creating one pixel when you are not zooming. If you zoom with the 808 you will have less light for creating one pixel.
2) I may not need a dedicated camera if the 808 will be able to produce good enough images. However I will need to have a mobile phone because the 808 is too big and it doesn’t have all the features I need. However it will be a nice camera.
I never knew it had a HDMI out. I thought it required an adapter like the competition does. Are you sure about this?
it has a built in Micro HDMI (Type D) port at the top
It also has a micro USB, which supports USB on the go. This mean if you start to run out of space on your phone, connected a USB stick to it and backup your data without the need for a PC. You can also turn it into a portable PC by connecting a wireless keyboard and/or mouse, along with the phone connected to a monitor/TV via the HDMI!!!
it also supports DLNA so you can connect to your TV, etc without any wires!
The 808 has a micro-HDMI connector, so a standard micro-HDMI cable will do. N8 already had a mini-HDMI connector.
That’s a problem. You have to carry an adapter with you because most places like hotels have only HDMI cables.
The 808 has the same problem as the competition. You have to carry around an adapter or you can’t use the video out.
Can’t connect the competition without one. Can’t connect the 808 either.
It is a problem? Seriously? I don’t think it is realistic to expect a phone to have full-sized HDMI connector, any more than a full-sized USB connector. That is why there are smaller standard connectors.
At least it is a standard connector for which you don’t need some obscure manufacturer-specific cable, any will do. I think that should count for something, but now it seems your on a point-making tour more than a sense-making tour.
Yeah, that’s a problem. I don’t expect any phone to have a HDMI connector.
They are just mostly useless because you have to carry around an adapter.
When you are at home you are fine if you can connect the phone with any kind of a connector.
But at least it is a standard connector on the 808. Cables should be easier to come by, at least eventually. I think calling it the same as proprietary competitive solutions isn’t really fair either. You don’t need an adapter, you just need a standard micro-HDMI cable.
It’s a standard connector you can’t find almost anywhere. It’s very hard to believe you would find those in the future.
You have to carry an adapter or that standard cable.
That’s why it’s as good as any connector.
Well, micro-HDMI is a HDMI 1.4 standard and hence quite new still. I expect availability to improve over time, especially as tables begin to adapt the connector. There was a time when micro-USB wasn’t all that common either.
But I guess I can’t eke out an admission that a standard connector is better than a non-standard one from you.
Yeah, when those standard connectors will be popular enough the handsets of today will be long gone.
That’s why it doesn’t matter what connector you have if you need an adapter.
Lord US: I still think, that with a standard connector, the likelyhood of you for example being able to find or source a cheap spare cable is higher than with some 808 specific HDMI adapter.
I’m not disputing your point, but looking at the overall thread I think you singling out the HDMI feature and then calling it a problem does seem a little weird. You make it sound like it is just an adapter solution like others. But it just isn’t.
I mean, it is a great separate feature, that you can use it while connected to a USB source (say USG-OTG memory stick) at the same time, or while charging at the same time. And it is a standard connector, where any micro-HDMI cable will do – something you might still find (at least to buy) in a place where Nokia or 808 isn’t popular.
The micro-HDMI is an adapter solution, a huge problem for Nokia’s sales and it will kill some the future sales.
Why?
You have to carry around an adapter. If someone not tech oriented buys one and tries to connect it at home he/she will be disappointed because connecting was not possible without an additional adapter. That connector will also kill some of the future sales because people no longer trust Nokia.
Yeah, I know some arrogant (not you) Nokia fanboys disagree on this. However this is what happens when Nokia claims you can connect with a standard adapter while the cable is not popular yet.
Standards are nice.
Lord US:
I guess I don’t see it where anybody had claimed the 808 being superior in every way.
But just to be clear, I don’t have a problem with your original message. I think you may be underestimating the zooming prowess (and quality) of the 808 a bit, but overall I get and agree with what you’re saying overall.
I may have been a bit unclear on this point. Some people seem to be claiming the 808 makes the compacts obsolete.
Obviously it’s not making compacts or video cameras obsolete.
I may have been underestimating the 808 if 3x is enough for producing 1080p video. However you can get over 25x with 1080p for a fraction of the price of the 808. It’s a huge difference.
Lord US:
It is certainly true that you can get much more in terms of zooming capabilities in regular compacts or video cameras. And that there are still various benefits in buying a dedicated camera, especially as you go for bigger sizes. But in the 808 size range there isn’t much competition.
The big question, though, is – could the 808 actually replace a compact camera? I think for many people it could. How many really use a 25x zoom? Or need it? While zooming range is less, it actually may produce better photos and 1080p video (at least without zoom) than many compacts do. And for stills, ability to crop 38 MP pictures later means there is plenty of actual zooming capability there (already the N8 was able to provide adequate photos with huge zooming, using post-cropping).
I am actually thinking of offloading my compact and not buying a replacement. My P&S is already some years old and I’ve been pondering a replacement because the quality is just getting behind the times, but the 808 may actually be the replacement – it is that good. At least it will hopefully give me a year or two to think about the next step.
Yeah, not everyone needs the zoom but 3x zoom for video is not that much if you need it.
As you wrote the 38MP size makes it possible to crop the image later. I’m pretty sure for most of the time it’s reasonable to use the 808 without the PureView effect. That makes it possible to crop zoom later on. Sure, the PureView effect is a nice feature in low light.
I actually went and looked what similarly sized point and shoots from Sony (to pick someone) offer, in terms of zooming. It is 3-5x optical zoom, mostly 3-4x. Go a little up in size, 5x seems to be pretty normal. Go more up, then you get 10x, but now we are talking significantly bigger size.
3-5x zoom is easily available on the 808 at printable resolutions, either during or after. I may have been wrong before, I’m thinking now that my 808 may actually in fact beat my current point and shoot even in zooming range.
Yeah, 3x is low end by modern standards.
They have been selling those small compacts with 12x for years.
Can you give examples of 808-sized (roughly) compacts with 12x zoom?
It’s all about the quality.
You can get a phone less than 7mm thick. The 808 is 17.95mm thick. A compact able to do the 12x is thicker.
It’s all about the quality.
Every single one of those devices is a compromise.
The 808 is not a lousy camera if it can’t beat compacts while zooming. That 7mm phone is not a poor phone because it can’t beat the 808 when taking pictures.
Lord US:
I’m not saying the compact has to be as small as the 808, I was just wondering if you could give concrete examples as to what kind of cameras you are talking about.
Here are few examples. Canon IXUS 1100, Fujifilm FinePix T200, Canon PowerShot SX240, Nikon COOLPIX S9100 and Olympus SH-25MR.
I believe any of those cost only a fraction of the price of the 808 and while using the full zoom they still beat the 808.
Thank you Lord US. At least the IXUS was familiar to me, and indeed it is quite small. Not 808 slim, or as slim as some of the really slim (but small zoomed) compacts, but small still.
That list of yours should surely come handy to someone considering options besides the 808.
I now checked through the list and some are smaller, some larger – but overall the compacts seem to be to the tune of 12 megapixels. As you go up in size, you go up in megapixels and zoom too.
So it is an interesting comparison. On one hand you have 12 megapixels with say 12x zoom (say, the IXUS) and on the other 37 megapixels when not considering the zoom (the 808).
I could see both types of devices having merit depending on the use. The IXUS does give you more shooting-time zoom, but the 808 on the other hand cropping potential for post-processing.
It’s an interesting situation. I may get one of those 808′s to be used as a camera. In addition I must have a compact I can use for zoom because the 808 just can’t compete on that. On 12x the 808 gives 360p and a compact 3000p. That’s a huge difference.
On the other hand The 808 gives 38MP without the zoom while the compact can handle only 12.
It’s best to have both and a decent mobile phone.
Well it’s like saying it’s too hot to wear trousers, but I can’t wear shorts because they’re not long enough, so I have to wear shorts and carry a spare pair of trousers with me everywhere I go
Yeah, that’s why Nokia is not going to sell too many of these. People are going to buy a great mobile phone like the SGS3 and a nice compact if they need the zoom.
With the 808 you get a great camera with a low end zoom. You can also use the 808 as an ultra low end smartphone if you can live with the Symbian and the fact it’s really thick compared to the modern phones.
The 808 is a great camera if you only need some mild zooming.
The best camera is the one you always carry with you, ie your phone. It’s amazing how mobile phones have been used in world news like the Arab spring by ordinary everyday people
Yeah, it’s very unfortunate the 808 is too big to be used as a mobile phone.
Sure, some few people can use it as a mobile phone but only some few. This one will not make huge revenues for Nokia.
Samsung have experimented with different sizes. Dell had a 5 inch screen/phone, and at the same time the Galaxy Tab had a 7 inch screen, and it was meant to be used as a phone as well. A phone is a great device because it can be many things. I love photography, but I can’t be bothered carrying a separate camera with me everywhere I go.
this isn’t designed to be a mass seller, it’s designed to prove a point, and so once everyone know about Nokia’s pureview tech, when they release it in other slimmer devices, it’s another reason for people to go for a Nokia!
I understand your point but just want you to note something… there is no camera which is the best in every possible situation!
One thing which was totally within Nokia’s means to improve the 808 as a competitor to a P&S camera: if they made it shock and waterproof…
I think Lord US is comparing the 808 in this case to a compact video camera, not a point and shoot compact photo/video camera that would be closer to the 808 in shape and size. Naturally a video camera will have larger zoom due to its shape, but it is also a completely different form-factor.
I think a very strong case can be made for the 808 to replace a point and shoot photo/video camera, even for video since the actual zoom and quality offered by those isn’t mind-blowing. In photos the 808 may actually best much of what is on offer today, of course it is also quite costly.
Of course the 808 is less obviously a replacement for real video cameras, if one takes those into the equation as well. The video cameras have other attributes too like good form-factor for holding in hand, better steady cam and so on – in addition to a huge zoom lens. But of course, again, that is a completely different size and type of device, not suitable for all events etc.
The point and shoot photo camera is a more suitable comparison.
The Built in ND filter is worthy of using in bright lighting situations.. It does enable better results to a degree.. even for just scenic shots.
Also, using an external polarising filter works really well, but be careful to choose a fixed focal setting like infinity, as holding a filter in front of the lens can upset Auto-focus ability
I am thinking to move on to Android after seeing all the widgets on their homescreen
I see other company do offer almost all hardware that Nokia is offering..
hmm.. I think I will still be getting a 808 next month….
Wasted space at top and bottom of sensor……
lol…what are you on about?
ALL camera’s have round sensors, but no-one wants round photo’s, we want rectangular photos so the image saved is therefore saved as a rectangle.
it would be impractical to even try making a square sensor!
Ha! I knew there was an answer. Round lens + round sensor, the wasted pixels could be used as part of the Pure View oversampling technology to make a rectangular picture
there is nothing they can be used for, they look at a part of the picture which the other pixels do not look at which means they serve no purpose.
you can’t convert a round picture into a rectangular one as it would mean you have more image in the middle which would just result in a distorted image, the only way to go to rectangular is to crop the top/bottom and sides off.
I was thinking of a distorted Carl Zeiss lens, a bit like a fish eye lens, so the sensor is completely filled with light, and then the software oversampling algorithms turn the picture back into a rectangle. So the lens distorts a rectangle picture into a round shape to match the sensor, and then the software reverses the distortion and turns the round picture back into a rectangle.
I understand you way of thinking but I think it would just overcomplicate things, as the more steps you have the more places things can go wrong, also because you have more pixels in some places then others, you will get an inconstant picture, i.e. some areas will be less clear then others, it is better to have a picture with a consistent level of clarity.
interesting idea though.
Ha! Got you there
One thing that bothers me about new phones is their inevitability to need apps and software upgrades. The network provider has to authorise every upgrade, and then they don’t bother when they stop selling the phone. Would have looked to get an 808 sim free
I personally buy all my phones sim-free, I have a sim only contract and that way I can just buy and sell my phones as I want, and I’m always one of the first to get updates, etc, and no network rubbish or restrictions on the device!
The only downside is that it can work out more expensive this way, but I like the fact I don’t have to wait for my contract to end for me to get another phone!
Technicalities aside, 808 can go places that DSLR or sometimes point & shoot cant. Read : Places with rules : “No photography allowed except authorised media.” This is especially true in sports events, these days its getting more & more difficult to bring cameras in.
This is the main reason I ditch the idea of getting a DSLR, it’s too big not to be noticed by the security, lol.
808, well, if asked, ‘It’s a phone, see the Nokia logo’
haha,
thats my video (I’m capoeiraberimbau in youtube)!!
thanks for sharing
nice one mate, if you have any more either me or Jay will update this post with them.
Also if you make any other videos, please feel free to post other vids on the tips page (http://mynokiablog.com/tips/) and we can always make posts from there.
The 808 is a great idea. Everyone who has a phone, now has a camera. Phones are great devices to have
The 808 is a nice camera. You can take great pictures with it and it has a decent low end zoom simulation. Some extremists can even use it as a phone.
And it’s got sat nav