Hello All,
As you know so far, you have different lenses that equip the OPPO Find X5:
Rear
50MP Main Camera: f/1.8; FOV 84°; 6P lens; AF supported; closed-loop focus motor; OIS supported
50MP Ultra-wide Angle Camera: f/2.2; FOV 110°; 7P lens; AF supported; closed-loop focus motor; 4 cm marco photography supported
13MP Telephoto camera:f/2.4; FOV 45°; 5P lens; AF supported
Front
32MP Front Camera: f/2.4; FOV 81°; 5P lens
Obviously, multiple shooting modes are also present:
Rear: Photo, Video, Night, Pro, Panorama, Portrait, Time-lapse, Slow-motion, Text scanner, Hi-Res, Movie, Long exposure, Dual-view video, Sticker, and Google Lens
Front: Night, Video, Image, Portrait, Panorama, Time-lapse, Dual-view video, and Sticker.
For long exposure and night mode, I will ask you to check this thread and posts named Save The Night:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/night-photos-with-the-oppo-find-x5-savethenight-step-4.4435249/
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/...o-find-x5-savethenight.4435249/#post-86779843
In this thread, including the comments/posts (as I can only upload 20 pictures simultaneously), I will try a different perspective of what eyes usually see.
First, I'm living in a big city (Chicago). As you can imagine, if I want to move inside it, the obvious way is to commute.
Railways, stairs, wagon, station, locals... So many stories to tell. With architecture and human construction, you need a lot of space to capture its entirety. And except for getting grilled by the railways, the only way to do that is to use the UW lens.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
As you can see, you can even play with UW lens inside and give a new perspective and depth even in the wagon. I never felt so tall .
In the first picture, you can see more things going on VS the 3rd one, and you can switch from portrait to landscape.
The second mode I love to hack is the Hasselblad X-Pan mode. Everybody is using it as a Landscape mode. But what if you use it in a Portrait way
Does it give new a new and totally different vibe?
Let's try more Portrait B&W X-Pan Shots:
You can also play with the Zoom, the Wide, and UW wide Angle.
But let's be honest, the Black and White shots are the best when it comes to trains:
Okay, you might think, it's great, but what next?
Just take a look below.
Note: None of the photos below were edited on an app, just reduced/resized to fit on XDA.
Many stops on the L in Chicago are inside some buildings, and you might have some surprises sometimes.
Like green forest spot or mandala style spot...
There is no way to know where you are, and you can easily enjoy your time resting... But if you take a look at the whole picture:
Right, it's a game-changer... Is it all? Nah, let me give you vertigo:
Nice, isn't it?
However, what lies outside?
Check the following post below!
So outside the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago, you can see this cross from the Methodist Church 2 blocks away. Max Zoom, no tripod, shot by hand only.
But there is another story here as a Standing Beast is right in front of me... How so?
Maybe I should ask a higher spirit for some help?
Nah, With UW angle, you can create and capture different points of view even inside the Beast Belly
And I have my crystal ball to see what will happen in the future, and no harm will be done.
When it comes to city shots, architecture, or monuments, the UW angle is handy and prevents you from stepping back into an impossible position or spot to capture the whole thing.
X-PAN mode gives an extra kick if you like the B&W shots too:
The Monument with Standing Beast is a sculpture by Jean Dubuffet in front of the Helmut Jahn designed James R. Thompson Center in the Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois. Its location is across the street from Chicago City Hall to the South and diagonal across the street from the Daley Center to the southeast. It is a 29-foot (8.8 m) white fiberglass work of art.
The piece is a 10-ton or 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg) work. It was unveiled on November 28, 1984.
Source: Wikipedia
Do you really think I'm done?
Nah... I love walking around the city. Sometimes you might even meet face to face with something you don't even recognize. Something Untitled.
Hard to tell what is it?
Let's get a wider view of it:
Yes, this is Untitled by Picasso sculpture, guarded by pigeon birds:
Indeed you don't mess with them
The Chicago Picasso (often just The Picasso) is an untitled monumental sculpture by Pablo Picasso in Daley Plaza in Chicago, Illinois. The Picasso "precipitated an aesthetic shift in civic and urban planning, broadening the idea of public art beyond the commemorative."
The cor-ten steel sculpture, dedicated on August 15, 1967, in the civic plaza in the Chicago Loop, is 50 feet (15.2 m) tall and weighs 162 short tons (147 t).
The Cubist sculpture by Picasso was the first such major public artwork in Downtown Chicago, and has become a well-known landmark. Publicly accessible, it is known for its inviting jungle gym-like characteristics.[3] Visitors to Daley Plaza can often be seen climbing on and sliding down the sculpture's base.
The sculpture was commissioned by the Richard J. Daley Center architects in 1963. The commission was facilitated by the architect William Hartmann of the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
Picasso completed a maquette of the sculpture in 1965, and approved a final model of the sculpture in 1966. The cost of constructing the sculpture was $351,959.17 (equivalent to $2.7 million in 2018), paid mostly by three charitable foundations: the Woods Charitable Fund, the Chauncey, and Marion Deering McCormick Foundation, and the Field Foundation of Illinois. Picasso himself was offered payment of $100,000 but refused, stating that he wanted to make his work a gift.
Source: Wikipedia
Well, gray sky, rain, and cold temperature... Where is Spring?
We need to go more south Chicago for that.
We can take the commute, but this time no, let's ride for it... or maybe take a boat?
You can play with Panoramic mode or even XPAN mode to give more width to your pictures:
Obvisouly, you can think it's the sea or the ocean, but it's just a great lake, near the marina in the city itself:
You can even have the possibility to park your boat... in your building
And a different look at Marina City using the XPAN mode
Some are lucky to get fully equipped for traveling and not be bothered by the weather.
Personally, I opted for my ride:
Okay, so what next?
Let's check below ^^
So all this for seeing this:
Yes, it's Spring, and Blossom is starting to appear here and there.
We can play with the different angles too:
Or just looking up:
But it's all about the cherry trees:
If you look closely, you will see something behind. It's the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago:
Nah, there is no fish eye in the X5:
But you can trick a little bit more the perspective:
Surprising, isn't it?
Magic? nope:
And you can play:
One great thing with Spring, you might have sun, but Love is in the air:
The photos were taken at Jackson Park, Chicago.
Jackson Park is a 551.5-acre (223.2 ha) park located on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois. It was initially designed in 1871 by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, then greatly remodeled in 1893 to serve as the site of the World's Columbian Exposition, leaving it as one of the largest and most historically significant parks in the city. A number of features attest to the legacy of the fair, including a Japanese garden, the Statue of The Republic, and the Museum of Science and Industry. As part of the Woodlawn community area, it extends along Lake Michigan and borders onto the neighborhoods of Hyde Park and South Shore.
Source: Wikipedia
For the Museum of Science and Industry:
The Museum of Science and Industry (MSI) is a science museum located in Chicago, Illinois, in Jackson Park, in the Hyde Park neighborhood between Lake Michigan and The University of Chicago. It is housed in the former Palace of Fine Arts from the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. Initially endowed by Julius Rosenwald, the Sears, Roebuck and Company president and philanthropist, it was supported by the Commercial Club of Chicago and opened in 1933 during the Century of Progress Exposition.
Among the museum's exhibits are a full-size replica coal mine, German submarine U-505 captured during World War II, a 3,500-square-foot (330 m2) model railroad, the command module of Apollo 8, and the first diesel-powered streamlined stainless-steel passenger train (Pioneer Zephyr).
Source: Wikipedia
Do you know Cherry Blossom is known as Sakura in Japan? What is best for enjoying this time of the year is to enjoy it in a zen place.
So I've decided to follow this little boy:
And I found my way on this bridge:
You might wonder where I am. Here is a broader view of this bridge and pond.
Indeed Chicago has also a Japanese Garden:
And this little zen fountain is:
Drop by drop ^^
And if you search well, you mind find the path:
Chicago, Cherry Blossom, Commute, Japan... But what else?
Having an e-kickscooter is handy, and till you have a battery left, you can enjoy the ride.
If the cherry trees are blossoming, what about another park? Let's go!
I found this on my road.
And some lovely flowers for the season:
Following the path to a new park dedicated to the Chinese Community:
This park is also a tribute to some famous local personas:
As you can see, this is a little piece of heaven.
However, perspective is tricky. Indeed we are still in Chicago, in an area marked by its industrial revolution through time.
Photos were taken at Ping Tom Memorial Park:
Ping Tom Memorial Park is a 17.24-acre (6.98 ha) public urban park in Chicago's Chinatown neighborhood on South Side, Chicago. It is part of the Chicago Park District (CPD).
Located on the south bank of the Chicago River, the park is divided into three sections by a Santa Fe rail track and 18th Street. It was designed by Ernest C. Wong of Site Design Group and features a pagoda-style pavilion, bamboo gardens, and a playground. The park is named in honor of prominent Chinatown businessman and civic leader Ping Tom; a bronze bust of Tom is installed near the park's pavilion. Phase I was completed in 1999, and Phase II was completed in 2011. The fieldhouse was completed in 2013.
Source: Wikipedia
As you can imagine, I'm indeed in Chinatown, Chicago.
First, let's start with the Nine Dragons Wall:
A Nine-Dragon Wall or Nine-Dragon Screen (Chinese: 九龍壁; pinyin: Jiǔ Lóng Bì) is a type of screen wall with reliefs of nine different Chinese dragons. Such walls are typically found in imperial Chinese palaces and gardens.
Early reference to the tradition of putting a screen wall at the gate is found in the Analects, 3:22: therein, it is mentioned as a trivial ritual norm ("The princes of States have a screen intercepting the view at their gates". 邦君樹塞門, trans. by James Legge).
Source: Wikipedia
Then the Chinatown Gate:
Let's take a closer look at Chinatown Square Plaza. Do you know what it's all about?
If you correctly guess, yes, it's all about Chinese astrology and signs:
Panorama can be handy in that case to capture the place, but also the twin pagodas
Or you can take a video too:
But also a little bit more:
Indeed there is Gates also at the entrance of the square with a mural:
view from the square itself (reverse view)
If you want to know a little bit more:
Chinatown Square (traditional Chinese: 華埠廣場; simplified Chinese: 华埠广场; pinyin: Huàbùguǎngchǎng) is a two-story outdoor mall located in Chinatown, Chicago, a mile (1.6 km) from the center of Chicago just north of the main Wentworth Avenue District (the main Chinatown Street). On 45 acres (180,000 m2) of reclaimed land from a former railroad yard, Chinatown Square houses mostly restaurants, retail space, boutiques, banks, clinics, beauty shops, and a handful of offices. This outdoor mall is the largest Chinese mall in the US east of San Francisco and west of New York City. In the middle of the mall, there are statues of the twelve Chinese zodiac animals from Xiamen, China.[1] Other landmarks in the mall include twin pagodas.
Source: Wikipedia
As you might start to understand, there are so many ways to play with the OPPO Find X5, only depending on your imagination.
In this case, would you be able to discover where I am now?
Did you find it?
No?
Still not?
Better now?
Yes, the iconic Chicago Theater:
You can shoot it any way you want; this sign will always shine, day or night, and everybody will know where you are.
And for an iconic place, black and white XPAN shots can be a bonus:
If you want to know more about:
The Chicago Theatre, originally known as the Balaban and Katz Chicago Theatre, is a landmark theater located on North State Street in the Loop area of Chicago, Illinois, United States. Built-in 1921, the Chicago Theatre was the flagship for the Balaban and Katz (B&K) group of theaters run by A. J. Balaban, his brother Barney Balaban and partner Sam Katz. Along with the other B&K theaters, from 1925 to 1945, the Chicago Theatre was a dominant movie theater enterprise.
Madison Square Garden, Inc. currently owns and operates the Chicago Theatre as a performing arts venue for stage plays, magic shows, comedy, speeches, sporting events, and popular music concerts.
The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places on June 6, 1979, and was listed as a Chicago Landmark on January 28, 1983. The distinctive Chicago Theatre marquee, "an unofficial emblem of the city," frequently appears in film, television, artwork, and photography.
Source: Wikipedia
I can continue on and on, but just finish with an "extra" bonus:
If you wonder, it's the Calder's Flamingo (created by noted American artist Alexander Calder)
The last one is Jay Pritzker Pavilion without using reflection (in that case a basic mirror).
Literally ‘varied perspectives’, nice shots!
Related
Samsung truly is the leader in technology, especially screen technology
Introducing the:
"The First Full-Color Display with Quantum Dots"
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Researchers at Samsung Electronics have made the first full-color display that uses quantum dots. Quantum-dot displays promise to be brighter, cheaper, and more energy-efficient than those found in today's cell phones and MP3 players.
Samsung's four-inch diagonal display is controlled using an active matrix, which means each of its color quantum-dot pixels is turned on and off with a thin-film transistor. The researchers have made the prototype on glass as well as on flexible plastic, as reported in Nature Photonics this week. "We have converted a scientific challenge into a real technological achievement," says Jong Min Kim, a fellow at the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology.
Quantum dots are semiconductor nanocrystals that glow when exposed to current or light. They emit different colors depending on their size and the material they're made from. Their bright, pure colors and low power consumption make them very appealing for displays. Most computer monitors and TVs use power-hungry liquid-crystal displays (LCDs). Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays are more brilliant and energy-efficient, but are confined to small gadgets because they are too expensive for TV screens, and their organic materials have limited lifetimes.
Quantum-dot displays would consume less than a fifth of the power of LCDs, says Samsung researcher Tae-Ho Kim. They promise to be brighter and longer-lasting than OLEDs. What's more, they could be manufactured for less than half of what it costs to make LCD or OLED screens.
This potential has caught the attention of big display manufacturers other than Samsung. LG Display is partnering with MIT spinoff QD Vision to develop quantum-dot displays.
To make their prototype, the Samsung researchers start by coating a solution of quantum dots on a silicon plate and evaporating the solvent. Then they gently press a rubber stamp with a ridged surface into the quantum-dot layer, peel it off, and then press it on the desired glass or plastic substrate. This transfers stripes of quantum dots onto the substrate.
In a color display, each pixel contains red, green, and blue subpixels. These colors are combined in varying intensities to produce millions of colors. By using their stamping technique over and over, the researchers can create a repeated pattern of red, green, and blue stripes.
They transfer the stripes directly onto an array of thin-film transistors. The transistors are made of amorphous hafnium-indium-zinc oxide, which provide higher, more stable current than conventional amorphous-silicon transistors. The resulting display has subpixels that are about 50 micrometers wide and 100 micrometers long, small enough for use in cell-phone screens.
"This is a powerful demonstration," says Seth Coe-Sullivan, cofounder and chief technology officer of QD Vision. "The individual technology elements aren't necessarily new. Samsung definitely did a lot of good engineering to put all the pieces together in an impressive way."
He cautions, though, that there are many more research and engineering issues to be solved, and that quantum-dot displays are still at least three years away from commercialization. The best quantum-dot devices are still not as power-efficient as OLEDs. They also need to last longer—right now, they start losing their brightness after about 10,000 hours. Finally, researchers will have to develop ways to manufacture them at low cost and large scale.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does this mean the new generation of Galaxy S (next year) will features a quad-core CPU/GPU, samsung's new 4gb powerful and efficient dram, and an ultra-super-mega-quantum display?
The future is looking bright my friends
Well the article you quoted said they are at least 3 years away from commercial viability, so I think the answer to your question is no.
to my best guess... it'll be 2015 ~ 2018 before we see that new technology hit the street level
Sounds (looks) really good on the eyes.
AllGamer said:
to my best guess... it'll be 2015 ~ 2018 before we see that new technology hit the street level
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed ...............
troed said:
Agreed ...............
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Problem?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/nanophotonica-develops-s-qled-oled-to-develop-inferiority-compl/
Ahh, the wonders of OLED -- flexible displays, great viewing angles, and low power consumption. However, the folks at NanoPhotonica have "perfected" a quantum dot display technology called S-QLED that allegedly has superior picture quality, uses 30 percent less power, and costs three-quarters less than its OLED competition. The company is gearing up for mass production and is in talks with several OEMs to start producing S-QLED displays, but unfortunately there's no timetable for when they'll get to market. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer to see just how perfect these QLEDs really are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it'll be nice if they start mass producing them, until then it's still lab prototypes expensive to produce
AllGamer said:
to my best guess... it'll be 2015 ~ 2018 before we see that new technology hit the street level
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, read the article this is 3 years away, they need to milk what they are marketing now for a;ll it is worth
Nanophotonica is apparently 17 months away from mass production. I for one, am leaping on the IPO train for that one! Hell, maybe it'll buy me a new smart phone like Universal Display did (and then some of course) after making returns for shareholders on their OLED manufacturing processes that were put into the phone that I subsequently purchased with the returns. AKA, the Samsung Galaxy S which used their screen component technology. Nothing beats free, and I always buy unlocked as I hate contracts.
I'd suggest keeping an eye out because something like this is going to give along the lines of a 10-15X gain if they have enough patents on the technology.
Interesting?
Interesting? Maybe even related?
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-Samsung-lawsuit-a-battle-over-Samsung-Galaxy-S3-and-the-iPhone-5-both-slated-for-fall-release_id18446
Doesn't make sense legally to sue a company over a product that it hasn't released... how does apple know exactly what samsung will put into their future phones?
CromeX said:
Interesting? Maybe even related?
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-Samsung-lawsuit-a-battle-over-Samsung-Galaxy-S3-and-the-iPhone-5-both-slated-for-fall-release_id18446
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the article is OOOOOOOOOOLD and has been mentioned here before.
and to the above poster ^^^ the article says Apple is affraid of the SGS3 that Sam is prepping to fight the imminent iP5, so they are hoping this law suit will make Sam change designs for SGS3 and make it less competitive.
Early 2012
While all eyes are on Android heavyweights, the Samsung Galaxy S2 and Motorola Droid Bionic, to take on Android's biggest smartphone rival the iPhone 5, there may be more stiffer competition for Apple sooner than expected. Samsung Galaxy S3 (confirmed for early 2012)
According to J.K. Shin, president of Samsung's mobile division, the Samsung Galaxy S3 will launch in early 2012. So what can we expect from the Samsung Galaxy S3. CNET states, "nothing less than a quad-core processor, a super-bright AMOLED 3D screen, a 12-megapixel dual camera, some augmented reality shenanigans, and of course NFC. It should certainly have the next version of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich, on board."
straw55 said:
While all eyes are on Android heavyweights, the Samsung Galaxy S2 and Motorola Droid Bionic, to take on Android's biggest smartphone rival the iPhone 5, there may be more stiffer competition for Apple sooner than expected. Samsung Galaxy S3 (confirmed for early 2012)
According to J.K. Shin, president of Samsung's mobile division, the Samsung Galaxy S3 will launch in early 2012. So what can we expect from the Samsung Galaxy S3. CNET states, "nothing less than a quad-core processor, a super-bright AMOLED 3D screen, a 12-megapixel dual camera, some augmented reality shenanigans, and of course NFC. It should certainly have the next version of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich, on board."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which means it'll be for sale in May/June just like the SGS1 and SGS2 were. It's next year's phone.
Please to be remembering they started talking about the SGS2 last year, leaked it in the fall, showed it right after the holidays, sent demo units out in the spring, and didn't sell until summer. Same story with the SGS1.
As for QD tech, lets not forget that OLED has taken over a decade to get where it is now, and it's still limited to small form factors, and ain't cheap or easy to produce. QD is 2020 tech.
Been a lurker here in xda-devs even before i got my s2 last july 2011, Am about to have my actual s3 in about 12 hours from now. It seems the Ink mark/blotches issue is getting out of hand and some individuals are even opting to have their unit replaced/serviced because of the said issue. So its about time I step up and DID my own investigation about this issue:
Test Setup:
Canon 60D DSLR
Canon 50mm 1.4 USM lens
Galaxy S2 (SAMOLED)
Iphone 4 (LED - Just for comparison)
so lets get to the point:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Was shot using:
Camera: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 60D
Filename: IMG_1213.JPG
ISO: 1250
Exposure: 10.0 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Focal Length: 50mm
Flash Used: No
so the dreaded ink marks/blotches on screen scandal? i dont think so
because in Normal Usage, you cant even see those blotches
comparison with Iphone 4:
additional note: I used my S2 in posting this because my s3 will be arriving in a few hours. reserving the first three reply threads just to confirm ( repeat this test with the s3)
Bottom Line: Stop complaining about it, you wont see it in normal useage. thats all.
Important discovery: using this long shutter method also uncovers screen burn of my 11 month old S2 (upper part of the screen where time is) a good discovery heheh
Test Setup:
at last someone who knows what he's saying and a proof at it...i remembered a dude here who loved to whine too much about screen displays, but when asked about proofs and stuff, kaput...brave one mate!
I had a screen burn in and an ink mark on my Samsung Vibrant SGH-T959 and never really paid attention to it. I'm a phone owl who uses phone at night all the time. This problem doesn't really bother me. Yes, it's there but who cares
reserved
reserved for actual galaxy s3 test
kulzboy said:
I had a screen burn in and an ink mark on my Samsung Vibrant SGH-T959 and never really paid attention to it. I'm a phone owl who uses phone at night all the time. This problem doesn't really bother me. Yes, it's there but who cares
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and we can do something about it, thats the point...we can lower the brightness sets, use apps to fine tune our screen, use players that can decode well etc...no phone is perfect, but only the user can make it one...
Is the S3 there yet?
Is the S3 there yet?
Is the S3 there yet?
;-)
Nice effect with the long exposure. Try it on black with the iphone?
I know it is called screen BURN IN, but the noticible view of the notification bar isn't necesarry a burn in. Plasma TVs have this as well, it isn't a burn in but rather a ghostly remain of the previous image that is slowly fading.
Try opening a black picture with white lines for 20min, then take the picture again, it might show the black lines instead of the notification bar.
You might, MAYBE, brake the myth about amoled burn in. How cool would that be
What app do i use to test it myself? and a great review mate thanks ..
fallenwout said:
Is the S3 there yet?
Is the S3 there yet?
Is the S3 there yet?
;-)
Nice effect with the long exposure. Try it on black with the iphone?
I know it is called screen BURN IN, but the noticible view of the notification bar isn't necesarry a burn in. Plasma TVs have this as well, it isn't a burn in but rather a ghostly remain of the previous image that is slowly fading.
Try opening a black picture with white lines for 20min, then take the picture again, it might show the black lines instead of the notification bar.
You might, MAYBE, brake the myth about amoled burn in. How cool would that be
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha, getting me hyped up before i receive my s3 ayt? hehehe 10 hours to go bro, it is still in transit with the courier
anyways, that is the same BLACK Screen test i did with the S2, heheeh it turned out bright (white hehe)on the Iphone 4, hehehe shows the contrast advantage of the SAMOLED because it is really BLACK heheh
the screen burn-in in the S2 is the actual corpse of the dead blue subpixels on the samoled
BRAVO!!!!
Finally someone open a thread to shut up the whiners and not to join them.
My congrats to you sir.
If people find it irritating they will complain.
I have a couple of ink marks on my unit, I could put my dslr to use and grab a shot but the truth is I cant be bothered to do so.
My point is the problem does exist on the S3, however as stated above you dont see it during normal use so I'ma keep my unit.
I've never seen those on my gs2. I have a 4.5 inch one with the dreaded streaks, and it shows up on EVERYTHING, even on max brightness. That is a bigger concern. Hope the pentile gs3 doesnt have it. They are like lines on an old vhs tape, you know when you have to change the tracking to try and remove.
There's no use trying to be judgmental about people's complaints. Half the posts in threads with the smallest issue (camera jingly noise, warm phone, not perfect white) will tell the OP to return the phone. I just assume everyone on here is an asshole, including you!
cripes i love the attitude of people here...we have screen issues in the note threads and most of them uberly whine and complain and talk crap...but the ones who stuck it out are now reaping the benefits...honestly peeps...the problem is or may be there but it can be mended...lets wait for the actual s3 tests
The thing is that this problem exists since SGS1 days. Passing through the note, gnexus, etc. So you know that this problem is gonna be on the SGS3.
I have the ink marks too, i have a horizontal line about 0.5 CM long on the upperside of the screen.
In normal situation you can't see it, to see it you have to be looking right to that line in darkness watching a black image. I do that about 5 minutes before i go to sleep.
This is a non-issue for me. The problem is to the people who can see it under any light situation, i can understand them.
But if you are taking a picture in a complete dark ennviroment to find spots. Well, it's better to leave it there.....
@OP Im pleased for you that all of your marks are small and unnoticeable. Unfortunately, that is not the case for me... I have a large one right in the centre of the screen, visible without a DSLR.
And for the record. I can't see my marks either on high brightness like you used in your test. Try watching a film at night with the lights out, something with dark scenes like Tron. That's the real would situation i'm unhappy about.
I don't see why this issue shouldn't be discussed by people affected by it. Just my two cents.
Some people can and do see the spots and marks in normal use, and the fact is the quality of AMOLED screens and their durability varies a lot. This is what people are concerned about, don't generalize and say there's no problem.
Wondered how long it'd take for the complaints police to arrive here.
Agreed. Makes me laugh how the OP has basically set up a thread to whine about other people complaining. Even though some of then have legitimate reasons.
I think he was just bored because his S3 hadn't arrived yet. Ended up performing inaccurate tests on his S2 to pass the time.
NZtechfreak said:
Wondered how long it'd take for the complaints police to arrive here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here they come
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
1234568 said:
Agreed. Makes me laugh how the OP has basically set up a thread to whine about other people complaining. Even though some of then have legitimate reasons.
I think he was just bored because his S3 hadn't arrived yet. Ended up performing inaccurate tests on his S2 to pass the time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i guess the point of the OP is valid somewhat for the reasons that some people here complain too much about screen problems and do nothing about it even if some able members suggest solutions...as said if you have a warranty and have noticeable screen issues then by God use that consumer right...and i hope you provide us with an accurate screen test of phones so as we may know what should be done...
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
It's a strong title... I know. Before you carry on reading take a deep breath and keep an open mind.
I've been playing around with a few cameras, for the best camera for photo and video work.
I've had the chance to trial the Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3, LG G2 (4k mod), Sony Z1 and of course the Z2.
Now in my testing I have observed a few things and tested them to conclude the following:
The Z1 and Z2 share the same sensor and lens
The Z2 outputs less compression to increase the quality (larger file size)
The sensor themselves are amazing, able to capture huge dynamic range and have impressive low light capabilities.
The glass in front of the Exmor sensors are just crap, the so called 'G Lens'.
The lens causes a lot of softness/blur... only the centre of the image is sufficently sharp.
I will proceed in the next post with evidence.
oc_masta said:
I will proceed in the next post with evidence.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless you have removed the lens cover from the housing and have taken photos to prove your theory that it's "crap" and then removed the lens and showed how it causes "softness/blur" I'm calling this out as a trolling exercise. I've made multiple comparison photos with my old HTC One X and my girlfriends Lumia 1020 and I can find nothing wrong with the camera. It compares very favourably with both.
Evidence A:
Here are 2 photos of some pebble dashing on a wall, which is great for checking sharpness.
Below are crops of the centre part photos taken with a LG G2 and Sony Z2.
The first is a LG G2 @ 13mp, the second is the Sony Z2 @ 20mp.
We can clearly see the G2 is sharp all around while Z2 starts to blur very quickly off centre in spots around the image. The lens isn't doing this sensor the justice it deserves.
The raw captures are available below for you to pixel peep yourselves.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Evidence B:
Post #57 by Progosu.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2744006&page=6
Evidence C:
4k video comparison with G2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itr7VWBXu2k
Evidence D:
Reviewer @ 13:00 mentions issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7tQ5n32no8
I also think expectations need to be realistic. We're probably still in the range of 3 to 5 years before the cameras on these phones can approach the quality of DSLR or mirrorless units (hopefully we're even closer to when they can output raw files). Even then, unless someone comes up with something rather clever, we won't be seeing any decent optical zoom capabilities or the capacity for interchangeable lenses. But for most of us and for most circumstances, these phones do just fine. I can't imagine a professional photographer for Nat Geo (or any press org) is going to rely on their phone as their primary tool. The thousands of pictures that I've taken over the last 5+ years with a half dozen different phones wouldn't even exist, except for a few dozen maybe, if I didn't have my phone available and ready to use. Indeed I can do more and do better with my Canon, but other than road trip style vacations, it simply doesn't get used.
Slightly OT - Why ANY of these manufacturers put some type of protective sliding cover over the lens? What would that add to the cost of manufacture? A nickle?
THE LG G2
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm115/oc_masta/g2_a_zps0ceaefeb.jpg
THE SONY Z2
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm115/oc_masta/z2_a_zpse786db49.jpg
Don't get me wrong, the sensor is amazing. I don't understand why Sony would develop such a great sensor and pair it with such a bad lens.
I mean if Samsung and LG can incorporate super sharp lenses, Sony DEFINITELY can.
Sony have built a whole industry and reputation on camera equipment, I'm just disappointed they didn't use a sharper lens.
LG G2 is over-sharpened IMHO.. Likewise your "evidence" is also your opinion. Were both of the phones mounted in a tripod? Was OIS on the G2? There are so many variables that you can't account for this amounts to nothing but your opinion. So thanks for your opinion. Sheesh..
bombdog said:
LG G2 is over-sharpened IMHO.. Likewise your "evidence" is also your opinion. Were both of the phones mounted in a tripod? Was OIS on the G2? There are so many variables that you can't account for this amounts to nothing but your opinion. So thanks for your opinion. Sheesh..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both were stabilized to negate the effects of OIS.
I'm just presenting my test and conclusion, it isn't opinion once proven but feel free to believe whatever you like. I'm just presenting the facts and your presenting your opinion.
I love the Z2 regardless, everything is quality, including the sensor which is truly amazing, but the glass is letting it down.
oc_masta said:
Evidence A:
Here are 2 photos of some pebble dashing on a wall, which is great for checking sharpness.
Below are crops of the centre part photos taken with a LG G2 and Sony Z2.
The first is a LG G2 @ 13mp, the second is the Sony Z2 @ 20mp.
We can clearly see the G2 is sharp all around while Z2 starts to blur very quickly off centre in spots around the image. The lens isn't doing this sensor the justice it deserves at all.
The wholes images are available below for you to pixel peep yourselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've just come from a G2 to a Z2 and I can tell you that I'd take the Z2 every day of the week as my main shooter. G2's shutter speed is horrendous (yes I tried all the mods). Pictures of anything moving invariably comes out as a blurry mess.
oc_masta said:
Both were stabilized to negate the effects of OIS.
I'm just presenting my test and conclusion, it isn't opinion once proven but feel free to believe whatever you like. I'm just presenting the facts and your presenting your opinion.
I love the Z2 regardless, everything is quality, including the sensor which is truly amazing, but the glass is letting it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry, but two photos of a pebble dashed wall is not evidence that Sony's G Lens is crap. On my Z2 there are absolutely no issues with soft focus, it is pinsharp in macro and when taking photos of complex landscapes. By all means prove your theory by removing the lens glass from your G2 & Z2 and compare the quality with microscope. Until then, this is an opinion piece. Nothing more.
bombdog said:
I'm sorry, but two photos of a pebble dashed wall is not evidence that Sony's G Lens is crap. On my Z2 there are absolutely no issues with soft focus, it is pinsharp in macro and when taking photos of complex landscapes. By all means prove your theory by removing the lens glass from your G2 & Z2 and compare the quality with microscope. Until then, this is an opinion piece. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um I'm sorry nobody tests lenses and cameras by your method. Your still stating your opinion.
I am trialling every camera I can without bias but I am liking the Z2 build feel and overall package alot more than any other phone.
oc_masta said:
Um I'm sorry nobody tests lenses and cameras by your method. Your still stating your opinion.
I am trialling every camera I can without bias but I am liking the Z2 build feel and overall package alot more than any other phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not going to talk about this anymore after this post as you don't seem to understand. There could be plenty of reasons your Z2 isn't focusing properly (software/hardware/contamination etc.), but you have stated that it's because Sony have used "crap" glass. The onus is on you to provide proof about this and you can't.
Why not get a few Z2's together and see if the issue is the same. No one else has gone out of their way to say "Why the Z2 camera sucks" and then said "probably the crap glass". Do you make lenses? What is the best type of glass to use? Enlighten us..
Well I'm heavily involved in the visual effects industry and photography. I know glass problems like most photographers do, evidently you do not.
All lenses are imperfect by nature and display certain issues. Softness is one and causes a loss of resolution.
That's why you tend to hear people rant how important a lens is over the camera itself. Not that I share that sentiment entirely, but this test did help me appreciate that a bit more.
The reason I say glass is, because the centre when zoomed is sharp (focussed), but further out it gets soft in certain areas. Like I had already stated.
Believe whatever you want and dispute it with your own test.
oc_masta said:
Well I'm heavily involved in the visual effects industry and photography. I know glass problems like most photographers do, evidently you do not.
All lenses are imperfect by nature and display certain issues. Softness is one and causes a loss of resolution.
That's why you tend to hear people rant how important a lens is over the camera itself. Not that I share that sentiment entirely, but this test did help me appreciate that a bit more.
The reason I say glass is, because the centre when zoomed is sharp (focussed), but further out it gets soft in certain areas. Like I had already stated.
Believe whatever you want and dispute it with your own test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think there is a possibility that your Z2 may have a defective lens?
I think what bombdog is trying to say (albeit a bit harsh) is that you need to have multiple test samples before jumping to conclusions. For instance, just because your Z2 had a bad lens does not mean all lens are bad.
If I were to do this test, I'd take a handful of XZ2, a G2, and an S5 then take shots of different scenery. If a majority of the Z2 shows a lack in sharpness then we can assume that the Z2 could have a bad lens.
By
oc_masta said:
Well I'm heavily involved in the visual effects industry and photography. I know glass problems like most photographers do, evidently you do not.
All lenses are imperfect by nature and display certain issues. Softness is one and causes a loss of resolution.
That's why you tend to hear people rant how important a lens is over the camera itself. Not that I share that sentiment entirely, but this test did help me appreciate that a bit more.
The reason I say glass is, because the centre when zoomed is sharp (focussed), but further out it gets soft in certain areas. Like I had already stated.
Believe whatever you want and dispute it with your own test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I thibk other's mean is that maybe your device's glass cover is bad. Sure that may be Sony's fault or it could be bad handling from your part but I have a hard time believing that all the Z1/Z2 glass covers are as bad as yours. I for example have some pictures without blur on the edges and that for me makes this test nothing more than a test on an eventually faulty device(faulty glass cover maybe)
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
HeartUnderBlade said:
Do you think there is a possibility that your Z2 may have a defective lens?
I think what bombdog is trying to say (albeit a bit harsh) is that you need to have multiple test samples before jumping to conclusions. For instance, just because your Z2 had a bad lens does not mean all lens are bad.
If I were to do this test, I'd take a handful of XZ2, a G2, and an S5 then take shots of different scenery. If a majority of the Z2 shows a lack in sharpness then we can assume that the Z2 could have a bad lens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a Z1 which exhibits the exact same issue you see, and they share the same camera. The only difference between the photos is an increase in filesize of the Z2 in comparison with the Z1 at the same 20mp resolution. This usually means less compression. A neat trick by Sony to increase photo quality with the same hardware.
The lens is inside the camera which consists of several pieces of glass layered on top of each other (polished, shaped and distorted). Lenses are very hard to make.
The outside is just a flat piece of glass to protect the REAL lens.
Look guys,
For the purists its an issue yes, for the general happy snappers, it is not. But I hope you would have liked to hear the facts instead of just being ignorant to them.
Its a great camera apart from the glass inside which could be better.
p.s. sharpness/detail isn't everything, this sensor itself beats anything else on offer in a phone and can only compare to the Lumia 1020 (which is my opinion).
I am very pleased with its dynamic range and ability to able to show detail in shadows and highlights (especially useful in 4k video).
oc_masta said:
Look guys,
For the purists its an issue yes, for the general happy snappers, it is not. But I hope you would have liked to hear the facts instead of just being ignorant to them.
Its a great camera apart from the glass inside which could be better.
p.s. sharpness/detail isn't everything, this sensor itself beats anything else on offer in a phone and can only compare to the Lumia 1020 (which is my opinion).
I am very pleased with its dynamic range and ability to able to show detail in shadows and highlights (especially useful in 4k video).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know, I didn't come to take shots at you. I was just trying to interpret what Bombdog was saying so that you two could stop bickering like a married couple. No need to say I'm "ignorant" to the "facts".
I know exactly what you mean but you two don't seem to understand each other. Bombdog suggests you get more Z2 samples. On the other hand, you're going around saying these are facts when, unfortunately, they are not true facts. Bombdog is mostly right in that they are opinions (except the way he came off seemed very aggressive). Giving one sample and throwing around self-proclaimed certifications about being highly involved in photography does not suddenly make it a "fact." What you have here is a HYPOTHESIS not a fact.
Sorry, I did not mean to come off as being too aggressive but I came here to hear a discussion and if I'm going to get shots fired at me just because I happened to walk in at the wrong time then perhaps there wasn't going to be a discussion in the first place.
oc_masta said:
Look guys,
For the purists its an issue yes, for the general happy snappers, it is not. But I hope you would have liked to hear the facts instead of just being ignorant to them.
Its a great camera apart from the glass inside which could be better.
p.s. sharpness/detail isn't everything, this sensor itself beats anything else on offer in a phone and can only compare to the Lumia 1020 (which is my opinion).
I am very pleased with its dynamic range and ability to able to show detail in shadows and highlights (especially useful in 4k video).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with you man...fully understand what you are talking about, but just don't keep trying to convince the fanboys that the Z2 has some issues because you're not getting to any result! They are too ignorant...
P.S: Z2 has a lousy mic, Z2 overheats and I also have proof!!! ...and I'm not a ****ing troll!!!
Devils Advocate
BTW if I came across as aggressive apologies..
Besides my Turbo I also have a company provided IPhone5s so I decided to do a real world side by side comparison. Here is the setting: my truck is parked about 250' away from stop sign, I held each phone with both hands resting on the steering wheel. Both phones have all settings on AUTO the crossroad has a speed limit of 50 mph and no stoplights nearby so I am fairly certain the vehicles crossing in front of me are doing no less than 50 mph. My purpose is to catch the vehicles as close to the center of intersection as I possibly can, I took the Turbo pictures first and made every possible effort to capture the best picture possible with both phones. Observation: the shutter SOUND on the Iphone was instant, shutter SOUND on Turbo had an estimated full second delay. Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions.
smokie11 said:
Besides my Turbo I also have a company provided IPhone5s so I decided to do a real world side by side comparison. Here is the setting: my truck is parked about 250' away from stop sign, I held each phone with both hands resting on the steering wheel. Both phones have all settings on AUTO the crossroad has a speed limit of 50 mph and no stoplights nearby so I am fairly certain the vehicles crossing in front of me are doing no less than 50 mph. My purpose is to catch the vehicles as close to the center of intersection as I possibly can, I took the Turbo pictures first and made every possible effort to capture the best picture possible with both phones. Observation: the shutter SOUND on the Iphone was instant, shutter SOUND on Turbo had an estimated full second delay. Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So while the shutter sound was delayed, it did not matter?
The Droid got the job done while the iPhone did not.
Which pics are which?
aviwdoowks said:
So while the shutter sound was delayed, it did not matter?
The Droid got the job done while the iPhone did not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Turbo has what looks like a simulated gray shutter closing when you take picture, when that happened the picture was captured, the sound followed the visual cue.
wadamean said:
Which pics are which?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first 3 are the Turbo, the last 3 Iphone, if you hold the mouse over the pictures it identifies them, they can also be enlarged.
Ummm... Congrats?
It seems like you had HDR on with the Turbo
zed011 said:
It seems like you had HDR on with the Turbo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He used default settings.
HDR on auto is one of them.
I have read here and other places what a dreadful camera the Turbo has, specially the inability to focus on moving objects and how slow it was to capture an image. I didn't want to dismiss the many stated comments about how awful the camera is. I also did not want to just simply say how I feel about the camera, to me it's a great camera for a phone. I did a heads up comparison between a camera praised often for being superior to the Turbo's and the Turbo camera consistently focused clearly on a fast moving object, the IPhone failed to catch a single vehicle in the focal area. I don't expect to sway the one's that hate the camera one bit, I simply presented evidence, proof of what the Turbo camera CAN do; not an opinion. WE all like here to look at pictures to prove a point... I gave you pictures.
iPhone is sharper
theineffablebob said:
iPhone is sharper
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that missing detail is really crisp.
Its so sharp I cannot see the cars!
I like the camera on the turbo, can't understand how anyone could argue the results of your test
Steve One said:
I like the camera on the turbo, can't understand how anyone could argue the results of your test
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve I did my best to present visual evidence and leave my own personal opinion out as best I could, I didn't know what the outcome would be and I would have presented results even if the Turbo had crapped out. I wanted to address focus and shutter speed on moving objects. The following IS an opinion: the camera is only as good as the hands holding it, even the world's best camera can take a bad picture in the wrong hands. The pictures the IPhone took were considerably darker than actual surroundings, the sky was NOT the darker blue in the picture and of course the obvious: no vehicles are present in the IPhone pictures, if you look hard enough to the right in one picture you will see the car I was trying to capture.
If you have a ceiling fan in your house or office, do the same test on the fan, well lit, low speed.
I've been doing that with the DT and whatever other phones I can lay hands on, none of them that
are built into a phone do very well. My observations that given some light and distance, the DT can
do OK with movement, but lack of light and/or up close action it's lacking. It isn't an accident that they
are putting dual flashes and ring flashes and such on cameras, the $2 sensor and lack of lens is really hurting.
wolf_walker69 said:
If you have a ceiling fan in your house or office, do the same test on the fan, well lit, low speed.
I've been doing that with the DT and whatever other phones I can lay hands on, none of them that
are built into a phone do very well. My observations that given some light and distance, the DT can
do OK with movement, but lack of light and/or up close action it's lacking. It isn't an accident that they
are putting dual flashes and ring flashes and such on cameras, the $2 sensor and lack of lens is really hurting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You realize its the same camera that the Z3 has, right?
For a phone camera, it is pretty good. As for the ceiling fan, that is a rather silly test considering typical shots a phone will take arent that fast. Everyone can agree that there are a few aoftware quips that need to be fixed, but lets stop moving goal posts when someone defies a complaint, yeah? It's never going to be as fast as a DSLR or even a point and shoot.
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
wolf_walker69 said:
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are some pictures of my baby girl, she posed in one; all the others she was moving and yes I can take a bad picture I'm man enough to admit it. I just think "basically useless" is a bit harsh. Merry Christmas.
Great looking dog! Your pics perfectly illustrate the performance I've observed, well lit, white background to reflect available light, mostly static subject, GREAT pics.
That last one with the blurry head, typical for less than great light or up close movement.
wolf_walker69 said:
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the grass is always greener.. if you read through some of those post you will come to the one where the guy with the Note 4 says he has similar results with what everyone praises as the one of the best cameras.. My DT could take some crappy shots as well as some amazing ones, and so can my wife's iPhone 5s.. I agree with an earlier comment.. I would say the overwhelming factor in getting good pics from any phone... is the user..
I now have the N6 and the story is the same.. some pics are trash some are great.., i take pics with that knowledge therefore I don't get as disappointed as I used to.
lazarus2297 said:
the grass is always greener.. if you read through some of those post you will come to the one where the guy with the Note 4 says he has similar results with what everyone praises as the one of the best cameras.. My DT could take some crappy shots as well as some amazing ones, and so can my wife's iPhone 5s.. I agree with an earlier comment.. I would say the overwhelming factor in getting good pics from any phone... is the user..
I now have the N6 and the story is the same.. some pics are trash some are great.., i take pics with that knowledge therefore I don't get as disappointed as I used to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that the camera operator has much to do with the quality of pictures that come of the camera phone itself. This applies to non-phone cameras too.
Seems there are many who have no sense of humor and don't like to have a little fun with an article about our incredible phone.
A man that I know just came from Golden, Colorado, oh (oh no!)
He smiled because I did not understand
Then he held out some light beer, oh ho
He said it was the best in all the land (and he wasn't joking!)
[Chorus]
And I said
"No, no, no, no, I don't drink it no more
I'm tired of waking up on the floor
No, thank you, please, it only makes me sneeze
And then it makes it hard to find the door"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Shut up. I dont even bother to read the article. I believe what my eyes can see.
That's actually true, sometimes it just makes up colors for images, and that's dope, I don't care if it's fake, it comes straight out of the camera app and within 4 seconds I have a better photo that any iPhone can capture. I am gonna edit it anyway so I really don't care what kinda of fake magic Google is applying to pictures, I just love it! Nice article tho
Pkt_Lnt said:
Your smartphone photos are totally fake — and you love it
"Night Sight on Google’s Pixel, which shoots pictures in the dark, shows how phone cameras have become faketastic."
"The little camera on this phone has a superpower: It can see things our eyes cannot."
"Night Sight is a super step forward for smartphone photography — and an example of how our photos are becoming, well, super fake.
It’s true — you don’t look like your photos. Photography has never been just about capturing reality, but the latest phones are increasingly taking photos into uncharted territory."
"Your phone has really high-tech beer goggles. Think of your camera less as a reflection of reality and more an AI trying to make you happy. It’s faketastic."
"Google argues that, since all phones are starting to look the same, what matters is what a phone is capable of doing. "
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The author of this article is a clueless moron, as you immediately see when looking at the comments. Photography never ever has been a "refelction of reality", it always has been a form of art which paints with light.
Picture processing always has been done, just in a different way. People used darkrooms in the analog era, then came photoshop etc. Pictures taken with a flash light also never reflected reality. Or look at the super 8 videos of the 70ies - do you think colors were this way back then?
Then there is the philosophical question of what "reality" really is: Do you think that what you see is "reality"? Think again. Your eyes process the light, send it to your brain and then the information is interpreted. That's how pwople can have religious "visions".
On top, you neither see infrared nor ultraviolet "colors". A bee sees the world differently that a mammal. A cat sees things differently than a dof than a human. A child sees a different reality than an old man. Who is right, and how do you want to measure this.
As an extreme example, I saw a documentary a few years ago about events in Nazi Germany. Back then, the first color videos could be recorded with extremely expensive equipment. Only a few wealthy people could afford this.
Then look at such a Nazi event in black and white: All you see is grey, it looks threatening. Then see the same event recorded with colors: Suddenly you notice the flowers the flags are decorated with. Lots of uniforms are brown, not gray. The swastika-flags have lots of red. Everything is colorful.
Suddenly the scene doesn't look threatening anymore per default - if you wouldn't know that the Nazis were terrible murderers and criminals, you would interpret the color videos very different.
To sum it up: This article is garbage.