Advertisements
Advertisements

Nokia PureView wins Best Innovation category for Phone Arena #Nokia808PureView #NokiaLumia920

| December 4, 2012 | 57 Replies

PhoneArena’s Most Innovative category for PureView that is featured in both the amazing Nokia 808 PureView (Huge 41MP Sensor) and innovative Nokia Lumia 920 (OIS)

http://www.phonearena.com/news/PhoneArena-Awards-2012-Best-Innovation_id37253

Advertisements

It didn’t take us long to conclude that Nokia should be at the top spot in today’s category with its PureView imaging technology. First introduced in the Nokia 808 PureView, it allowed taking photos with outstanding quality and resolution never before seen on a phone. Users can capture massive, 38-megapixel photos, or shrink those pixels down to a marvelous 5- or 8-megapixel image. In addition, the size of the sensor allows zooming in and out while shooting without sacrificing quality. No moving optics needed! Try doing that with any other smartphone! But Nokia didn’t stop there because the Nokia Lumia 920 is worthy of carrying the PureView tag as well. Its sensor may not have an outrageous pixel count, but its wide aperture combined with optical image stabilization allow one to take impressive low-light shots.

Second place went to Android in random devices, with third going to the pico projector packing galaxy beam.

Cheers Ronaldo for the tip!

Advertisements

Category: Nokia, PureView

About the Author ()

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.com
  • http://blog.petaqui.com petaqui

    Definetly, it deserved to win the contest :)

  • Tak

    920 has nothing to do with Pureview…except carrying its name, but tech wise its regular mobile mini sensor with stabilizer.

    Pureview is innovative. “Cordless” charging, that needs a box and a chord, is superficial.

    • rstyle

      What do you know about PUREVIEW?

      please let us know.

    • Bassman

      Let me guess… If the 920 was running Symbian, it wouldn’t be an issue would it?

      • http://www.gsmarena.com/newscomm-5153.php steelicon

        If the 920 was running Symbian, it wouldn’t be an issue since they can put the 41MP camera sensor and PureView Pro technology alongside the OIS technology and call it PureView Pro with OIS.

        Of course, that wouldn’t happen, since Microsoft made sure through Stephen Elop and the departure of Damian Dinning that Nokia killed off all internal competition because Windows Phone would pale in comparison with Symbian/MeeGo/Harmattan/Meltemi Nokia Innovation, which seems to be lacking these days and is made up for with lies and deception and marketing gobbledygook.

        • Bassman

          Do you have any links or evidence to support you assumption, which you clearly have dictated as fact, that if Nokia chose to do so they could release a 41MP sensor alongside OIS, but only if it was on Symbian?

          • http://europe.nokia.com/pureview steelicon

            Sure, here you go http://europe.nokia.com/pureview Nokia 808 PureView with 41MP sensor running on Symbian Nokia Belle FP2. Hardware OIS is nothing new to point and shoot cameras, although it is something relatively new to cameraphones. Not exactly rocket science.

            41MP Full Sensor is nothing new to high end DSLR cameras, but in cameraphones, something unique. Using 41MP to yield 7:1 superpixels in a cameraphone is certainly unique. What sets it apart from other cameraphones are the Full Resolution 33MP and 38MP mode as well as the superpixel PureView mode.

            • Bassman

              ‘Not exactly rocket science’ – If it’s so easy, why isn’t Samsung, Apple etc. all using the same or variations of OIS tech in their mobile phones?

              Secondly, you have suggested in the previous post that if the 920 was running Symbian then it could use both Pureview 1 and 2 concurrently. I simply asked for you to provide evidence.

              I am not doubting the innovation used on Pureview 1, it is indeed very impressive.

              • betobsqui

                Well, I remember there was an article here at MNB where Damian Dinning said that there won’t be any Pureview in Windows Phone until 2013 because it wasn’t possible due to software limitations, I guess is still not possible in WP8 to get something like Pureview software since the 920 has a hardware modification, which is awesome but in software is still limited.

                • Bassman

                  Is it 2013 yet?

                  • vallentin

                    read this (dss) comment

                    dss says:
                    December 4, 2012 at 4:53 pm

                    Nokia’s understanding of Symbian helped a lot in their imaging projects, and from what I’ve read around the web, the system in the 808 is a very tricky one to synchronize properly because of the xenon and the extra dsp inside the module..

                    We will see how they tackle the problem, its pretty obvious that windows NT can’t support it in its current form, so.. I see 4 options:

                    1. They wait until there is a chip set powerful enough to handle the processing load coming from the camera module in the 808, and that way they bypass all the sync issues.

                    2. They create a secondary (very primitive) OS that handles the camera system separately, and runs under the main OS. I don’t even know if that is possible.

                    3. They bring down the megapixel count to 20Mpix, and don’t perform any oversampling so that the system can handle the load.. and compensate with physically larger pixels.

                    4. They somehow manage to bring the latency in Windows Phone low enough, to where there are no sync issues.

                    There is also the question of Xenon, which requires a mechanical shutter.. more sync issues.

                    so …do you have any othr questions/concerns ???

                    • Bassman

                      Thank you for re-posting the comment.

                      IIRC Dinning said that they had been working on Pureview for 5 years before it was released on the 808 of course it would have developed using Symbian as that was their primary platform.

                      IIRC Dinning said Pureview (as in iteration 1) wouldn’t be seen in WP before 2013.

                      The point I am trying to make is that I am sure the Nokia engineers are aware of the issues of porting the tecnnology to the new platform and from what I’ve read it is possible to do this, again based on what I’ve read.

                      That still doesn’t answer the original question I asked Steelicon earlier on, could he provide proof for his ascertion that if the 920 was running Symbian it would be able to run both Pureview 1 & 2 concurrently, as in one module to rule them all.

                    • mirco

                      Well, dss doesn’t have any idea about what he is talking there. He bases everything on a wrong assumption (that pureview 1 needs some special syncing and the WinNT kernel couldn’t provide this). He has no proof for that nor can he explain it.

                      So, please, don’t spread his false arguments even wider by reposting his imaginations.

          • AreOut

            well, almost year after real PureView was announced they still didn’t announce it for WP models, and for a reason.

            Is that enough of an evidence?

            • Bassman

              No.

            • mirco

              The reason? The first priority had to be a mainstream lineup with a flagship that holds its own against the other flagships. A phone with a big hump couldn’t do that… heck, they even complain about the weight of the 920 right now.
              There is also no need to hurry with a 808 style Lumia…

              • dss

                They don’t need to make a flagship with a hump.. simply use the 808 production line, and pump them out with WP8 instead of Symbian.. and then watch how the “hump” phone overshadows the mainstream “flagship” …

                Symbian and Phase 1 are directly related.. the system was designed, and developed around Symbian.. that is pretty obvious to me.

                Just look at the simplest thing like the camera UX.. Nokia can’t even port their own UI, they need to rely on Microsoft for it.. and just like that, they need to rely on them for everything else software related, and a lot of the PV phase one system is.. software, like someone else called it.. the 808 introduced “software photography” meaning that those 1.4 micron pixels shouldn’t be able to produce the results that they do…its all thanks to the jpeg processing at point of capture.

                Read the white paper.. its very helpful.

                • mirco

                  I’ve read the whitepaper and that’s why I’m asking you at which point do you see the need of any kind of time critical synchronisation between different processing units?

                  You even name it: “its all thanks to the jpeg processing at point of capture.” The jpeg compression is done BEFORE the OS takes over the image. Do you really belive that they pipe the full 41MP with 30fps through the OS? Their special DSP does the job and not the main CPU/GPU which runs the OS.

                  Of course, Symbian and Pureview 1 are developed around each other as there was no WP at the time when the software part of the project had to start. But this doesn’t imply that it is impossible to write a driver for other systems which allow low-level hardware-access.

                  Also, if you believe that for launching a new phone everything you need to do is to make the OS running… well… then you are naive.

        • dss

          Nokia’s understanding of Symbian helped a lot in their imaging projects, and from what I’ve read around the web, the system in the 808 is a very tricky one to synchronize properly because of the xenon and the extra dsp inside the module..

          We will see how they tackle the problem, its pretty obvious that windows NT can’t support it in its current form, so.. I see 4 options:

          1. They wait until there is a chip set powerful enough to handle the processing load coming from the camera module in the 808, and that way they bypass all the sync issues.

          2. They create a secondary (very primitive) OS that handles the camera system separately, and runs under the main OS. I don’t even know if that is possible.

          3. They bring down the megapixel count to 20Mpix, and don’t perform any oversampling so that the system can handle the load.. and compensate with physically larger pixels.

          4. They somehow manage to bring the latency in Windows Phone low enough, to where there are no sync issues.

          There is also the question of Xenon, which requires a mechanical shutter.. more sync issues.

          • mirco

            Again… Where do you see the need for special synchronisation? Which are your sources? How do you think the dsp is integrated into the system?

            The most probable reasons why we have a OIS pureview are simply:
            1. Nokia needed a mainstream device, i.e. one without a huge bump on it’s back.
            2. Writing high performance driver takes time and experience.

            Combine both points and you will see that there simply isn’t any priority for a “Lumia 808″. Just because of the sheer size of the sensor it would be a niche device and not the mainstream flagship they really needed. Also, the average smartphone user gains more from the OIS than from oversampling. At the end of a day he will have much less shaky pictures on his device and this gives the advantage over the competition.

            And btw. following your way of argumentation, you would probably steer the OIS springs through the OS and not in the way it is done in reality?

            • dss

              The 920 is bigger and heavier than the 808… you don’t really have an argument.

              • mirco

                Yes, but it follows the general design rules of “modern” smartphones which are: Big screen and relatively thin. Sure, the 920 isn’t an iphone5 or SGS3 in this respect but the relative proportions are like this.

                Let’s assume you have two devices: One Lumia 920 like it is and a “Lumia 808″ which has the same hardware/software as the 920 except the camera and the design of the original 808. Which one would sell better? Which one would you bring to the market first (given you can only release two phones at this launch date)?

            • AreOut

              I guess you have made the point in 2.

              Well, sort of…

              Question for you, why they didn’t release lumia 928 who would have the hump(or just be fat everywhere together with the huge battery to fill the space)?

              There sure would be a market for such device(808 with its “obsolete” OS shows that) and for all those wanting thin modern looking phone there is still lumia 920 on the shelf.

              Answer for you, they are unable to at this moment and will be for some time.

              • mirco

                Yes, they cannot bring a Lumia 808 to the market. But not because WinNT isn’t capable (there is simply NO proof for this hypothesis).

                I simply don’t think that Nokia has unlimited resources to bring a device to the market (like any other company as well). The job isn’t done once the hardware and software is ready. So, they have to concentrate on those devices which are the most promising. Obviously this is a 920 and a cheaper 820. Now a 620 seems to follow in the lower price range. If they really see a market for a “Lumia 808″ then it can happen after that.

                The example of the 808 isn’t a good one to start bashing WP8…

                • AreOut

                  I don’t bash WP8, just stating the facts…they don’t need unlimited resources to bring such device because they already have developed PV technology.

                  620, 505…they announce new lumia every few days now, sure there is a space for real PureView lumia then?

                  • mirco

                    Again, the priorities are different. A 620 or 505 will sell orders of magnitudes more than a 808 like Lumia. Just because it is cheaper and targeted to the mainstream market. In addition Nokia always anounces its flagship like devices on certain special dates. There is a certain time in between. Devices like the 620 can be introduced in between.

                    Also, it is naive of you to think that the effort stops once the hard- and software is halfway in working conditions. For sure, the phones have to go through many expensive tests for each country they are going to be sold. Documentations have to be written and checked (and there are for sure more than the public ones). You have to organize the production, sign contracts etc. etc.

      • incognito

        No, it still would be a mediocre camera with IOS bolted on, quite a long way from the amazing quality that made the PureView brand – a brand, and which earned this ‘award’ fair and square.

        • Bassman

          ‘IOS bolted on’ – that comment made me chuckle! It was that easy, wasn’t it…

          If you read the phonearena article they are giving the ‘award’ based on both the 808 and 920 and the different iterations of Pureview. Different horses, different courses etc.

          And I’m not convinced that either you or Tak would be making the same comments if the 920 had been running Symbian…

          • http://europe.nokia.com/pureview steelicon

            Wow. You. Are. A. Persistent. Troll.

            • Bassman

              How am I a troll?

          • incognito

            Well, if you can’t be convinced, that is your problem as I’m not here to convince anyone of anything.

            I would never go back to Symbian, the amount of work it would require to make it attractive for me once again probably even exceeds the effort they’d have to make in changing the WP from ground up to get me on their Tetrisy circlejerk bandwagon.

            Both of those are a no-go for me so I’m just comparing them on the merit mentioned in this article – if photography prowess was a deciding, make-or-break feature for me I’d pick the camera from 808PV even if it would run on s40 or god-forbid Bada over the Lumia 920 even if it would run a fully open (w/ UI n’ all) Maemo Harmattan. Thankfully, I lost interest in photography quite a while ago so now imaging falls into the ‘would be sweet but can live without it’ category and if I can live with the N9′s lackluster camera (and on average I’d even say that the N900 will produce better images than it) I can go by with pretty much anything. After all, when I need to take a good photo that is usually a per-meditated task so I can easily carry my old, trusty Nikon D90 for that.

            I understand that Nokia wanted to milk the positive buzz surrounding the 808PV, which is why they probably released it in the first place, but with doing so they’ve tarnished the undisputed champion (and not only in its own category but even stepping into the dSLR realm) title that the PureView brand managed to surround itself with as the Lumia 920, apart from allowing hand-held longer exposure times and thus better night imaging due to the OIS, leaves a lot to be desired, and in many circumstances gets beaten even by the competition.

            If Nokia was serious about establishing the PureView brand as a guarantee of undisputed imaging performance, they would have never released something like the Lumia 920 under the PureView brand – they could’ve just as easily milked the positive buzz around it by calling the imaging tech in the Lumia 920 NightView or SteadyView – still suggesting that it has imaging excellence in some fields but without tarnishing the whole PureView brand which has become a synonym for low-noise, sharp imaging with lossless digital zoom, head and shoulders above the competition in all imaging tasks. Sadly, the camera on the Lumia 920 is nothing of the sort and excels only in one or possibly two areas.

            But, you’re free to assume that I care only about the OS powering a device in question, god forbid that something else might be important as well…

    • flava

      ‘regular mobile mini sensor with stabilizer.’

      It’s so common and regular that every other phones before 920 already used this technology!

      808 is the real pureview, tech wise it’s a regular digital camera sensor put in a mobile phone. Pureview is innovative.

    • AreOut

      exactly, “pure” implies cleanliness of the picture which you get with oversampling in ALL situations, OIS serves only for collecting more light at night with longer exposition, not exactly what you could connect with the word “pure”. NightView would be a lot better word, but they had to rely on success of Nokia 808 to push 920 into the market and decept customers that they will get similar results like 808…because hey, its also called PureView. If not for promoting that tec..actually name of technology in 920 and further WP models 808 would probably be scrapped by elop and stay prototype forever. You see what they did with FP2 and other updates, they couldn’t invest ten fcking thousand dollars to sort out the issues with gallery and other minor things in it but they have invested millions in marketing of 920.

      • Bassman

        How have customers been deceived?

        I’m willing to bet a large number of 920 owners have never even heard of the 808.

        Nobody is saying that you will get better results with the 920. The Pureview pro technology is awesome. The Pureview technology in the 920 is for a more mass market appeal but is still impressive in its own right.

        Hopefully when the next iteration of Pureview is released people will get over this view that Pureview is intrinsically linked with Symbian.

        • AreOut

          its not linked with Symbian, but it seems that (at this moment!) only obsolete Symbian can provide such experience

      • dss

        precisely.. “pure view” was based on the idea of a cleaner, noise free pixel.. Dinning said it several interviews, and I think its also mentioned in the white paper.

        Nokia can use their branding in whatever way they see fit.. but considering the history behind the pureview branding, the 920 doesn’t really fit the bill.

  • B.Srikanth

    I wonder what else Nokia has in its background to turn the technology around.
    True leaders of innovation. Love it.

    • flava

      I demand wi-fi charging!

  • arts

    And this bunch is the funniest of them all. It does not exist BECAUSE i dont know it exist. LOLOLOLOLOL.

    Guys, did you hear? the reason why the lumia 920 was the first to have the OIS tech is because SYMBIAN CANNOT SUPPORT OIS. (All the fancy mancy 500 movements and real time monitoring)

    THE PROOF? Do you see a symbian phone with OIS tech in it? NOPE. WHY? SYMBIAN CANNOT SUPPORT OIS!!!!!!!!!!!

    • dss

      I think that that OIS was being developed as a side project to be added to pureview in the future.. it wasn’t supposed to be put in a phone just by itself, but Nokia had to come up with something since everybody demanded PureView tech, despite that at the time it mean “hump” phone…

      So.. Symbian has carried Nokia’s imaging innovations for over 10 years, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be able to support the springs around the sensor and the jpeg processing.

      • mirco

        Haha… you just don’t get his point. He simply mirrored the argumentation (your own argumentation) that WinNT couldn’t support Pureview1.

        • http://europe.nokia.com/pureview steelicon

          Also known as flamebait trolling. ;-)

        • AreOut

          hehe well there is one “tiny” difference between OIS and PV…OIS doesn’t require any special drivers ;)

          • mirco

            How do you know that? The Software certainly needs to steer some parameters of the OIS.

            Nobody here knows how much of the “magic” behind Pureview1 is done OS independent. Since the system handles much more raw data than any CPU/GPU usually handles I would say that the algorithms run pretty independent on the custom DSP.

            I’m still missing any proofs that WP isn’t capable to do Pureview 1…

            • AreOut

              setting those parameteres for OIS takes a few minutes for software engineers…(let it be few days for fine setup but still very short time)

              you are acting like a religious fanatic and I’m answering like an atheist(which I am), this pretty much looks like “if you are sure give me proof there is no God” debate :)

              • mirco

                Well, atheism is its own religion… so let’s better stay on topic ;)

                All I’m saying is: there is no proof that Pureview 1 is delayed because WP isn’t capable. If you don’t agree, please tell me why and explain it. Just saying something like “There is no WP with Pureview 1 which proves that it isn’t possible” doesn’t cut it.

                The fact is that nobody here knows anything about Pureview which goes beyond some interviews or the white paper. The difference is that I base my hypothesis on more simple estimations which don’t need a bias towards Symbian or WP.

                • arts

                  “All I’m saying is: there is no proof that Pureview 1 is delayed because WP isn’t capable. If you don’t agree, please tell me why and explain it. Just saying something like “There is no WP with Pureview 1 which proves that it isn’t possible” doesn’t cut it.”

                  +1.

                • arts

                  actually micro, there HAD been an interview with Juha Alakarhu (the guy who invented pureview phase 1, no less.) who went on record to say, everything is NOT OS dependent.

                  However, that article came out before lumia 920, and all attempts to find it was futile. Are you finnish? perhaps you would have better luck than me.

                  http://mynokiablog.com/2012/09/04/damien-hinting-at-other-techniques-to-achieve-pureview-oversampling-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-646360

                  this is a nice starting point. I wish you luck.

                  • arts

                    p.s i meant to say i think the interview is in finnish.

                  • mirco

                    No, I’m not finnish… so, I wont find it either (but I remember it as well).

                    • arts

                      ah. alright. =/

                • AreOut

                  I just use simple logic. If it was possible they would produce it and make money on it. They are a company whose goal is to make profit.

                  • mirco

                    Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it will happen. Nokia needs to make profit, right. So, maybe such a device doesn’t promise enough profit to push it to the market with highest priority.

                    Do you really believe that a device is ready to be sold once the hardware and software is finished?

                    What do you think are the reasons why we don’t have a Lumia 808, yet? And why do you think those are the reasons?

                    • AreOut

                      you tell me? They still sell Nokia 808 with an old obsolete OS, if WP8 is that superior why they don’t couple it with real PV?

          • arts

            ROFL. what an epic fail. Read the white paper for pureview phase 2 to understand how wrong and stupid you are.

            • http://europe.nokia.com/pureview steelicon

              @arts stop classifying people to your level.

              • arts

                =D

Advertisements