Samsung Introduces ISOCELL HM3 with massive 108Mp Image Sensor for Smartphones

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 19, 2021.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,260
    Likes Received:
    8,824
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    894
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    When I checked Canon and Nikon DSLRs, I see that unlike in smartphones, the megapixel race seems abandoned. My ancient Canon DSLR is over 10 years old, but the new Canon ones in the same class have only raised the MP amount from 18 to 24. If you pay over 1000 euros, you'd get 32.5MP. If you pay thousands of euros, you'd get 50MP. I suppose you can tell that the manufacturers consider DSLR to have totally lost the competition against smartphones in the more casual market. Thus people who really want to use DSLR are willing to pay a lot or alternatively don't really care about fancy specs. Nevertheless, as long as my current one works, I'm not going to pay 600-700 euros to upgrade from 18 to 24MP, plus some miscellaneous stuff like a touch screen. If the hobbyist cameras had at least 50MP, I might actually consider it.
     
  3. xg-ei8ht

    xg-ei8ht Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    20
    GPU:
    1gb 6870 Sapphire
    Truthfully it depends on what you want to do with a camera.

    For taking photo's it's best to have a large sensor, you could want faster burst speeds, but lenses play a big part as well.

    No matter the size of a sensor on a smartphone, you still don't have enough quality zoom, then it goes to digital and gets worse.
     
  4. SmootyPoody

    SmootyPoody Active Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX 770 ref
    1 megapixel (or just 1 pixel) is not = 1 megapixel. Its is only a quantitative statement about the amount, not about the quality. Its like saying 4K video is better than 1080p. No. Its just a quantitative statement. Its like saying a 4.5GHz CPU is better than a 4.0GHz CPU. The truth is there are so many variables that makes up a sensor - not even talking about the much more complicated final image.

    108mp does not mean anything. Its a marketing term. It does not saying anything qualitative about an image. I can take a much more technical good image with a 10 year old DSLR than a smartphone from tomorrow.

    I would say the size and the tech used in that sensor is what is going to do most about the image. Physical size will just be better from a natual law perspective. Bigger sensor, more photons. Of cause this also need an equal size lens to support it.

    If you arent happy with your 18mp camera, try and buy some new highend glass for it. I will promise you that the images will be instantantly better (if the photographer knows what he/she is doing).
     

  5. Silva

    Silva Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    571
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Smartphone sensors have come a long way, and some of them take truly amazing pictures in daylight.
    Sadly most of the software offers little to no settings control and even with all the development you can't just beat a full or medium format camera: larger sensor area = more photons captured = less noise
    Plus, the fake blur is horrible. The natural blur can't be beaten by software. But for low quality Instagram pictures, good enough!
     
  6. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    894
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Yeeeeeeeeah... I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges here. What I'm saying is that a Canon DSLR with a 18MP sensor Canon has approved is worse than a Canon DSLR with a 50MP sensor that Canon has approved. The imagine quality will automatically be a whole lot better in the latter, plus you can crop it quite a lot and still have an image of some size. I also believe that when you combine signals from multiple sensor pixels using a sophisticated processor, you may get a less noisy image than with a sensor of the same size but less pixels, although the final image might have the same dimensions, just like the article suggested. Or in your terms the same CPU architecture with a 4.5GHz unit would, surprise surprise, beat the 4.0GHz variant straight out of the ring. However, if few people bother to buy DSLRs these days, it means there's not much business in trying to upgrade them massively. The investment wouldn't pay itself back. That's why we don't see that much development, by the looks of it.
     
    Brasky likes this.
  7. scoter man1

    scoter man1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,796
    Likes Received:
    88
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070ti
    I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.
     
    Silva likes this.
  8. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,233
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse?

    To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself.

    Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.
     
    Kaarme likes this.
  9. scoter man1

    scoter man1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,796
    Likes Received:
    88
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070ti
    I think you're right, that's why I didn't want to go too deep and look like a dick, lol. Using any SLR is definitely something you have to play with. I'm just stunned at the difference you can get between a good phone camera (like a P5) and even a 5+ year old Sony full frame camera. One that I think is a great comparison is getting a similar focal length lens, setting the shutter/aperture/iso/everything up the same on both and taking a shot of the night sky. You'll probably see a 20-100 stars on a phone camera. On a DSLR you'll see tens to hundreds of thousands. Stunning!

    I find it nice that they don't drop new camera bodies every year too. Each one has something that really is an "upgrade" rather than, hey look, a new kludge to get around something that sucked last time! (like phones)

    Anyways, enough of me rambling on here...
     
  10. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    894
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though.

    For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range.

    All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market.

    Sorry about the long post...
     

  11. scoter man1

    scoter man1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,796
    Likes Received:
    88
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070ti
    Ah ok I understand what you're saying now. I think that is mostly because the high mp count sensors just introduce a higher signal to noise ratio and cost more. The Sony A7R series gets you 61MP which is quite a lot. It has a mode where it can use the internal sensor shift technology to "gain" a higher res pic by stitching a few shots together too.

    There are cameras that have higher MP counts but you're talking big money at that point. Like hasselblad.

    To your point of them not allowing 1000fps, I agree that they seem like they should be able to do high burst speeds. Not sure why they can't. Phantom cameras make huge amounts of heat though so there must be a reason.
     
    Kaarme likes this.
  12. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    894
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Yeah, I'm not saying they would need to reach the levels of the real high-speed cameras like Phantom. Those can do hundreds of thousands of fps. Something like 600fps at sub-HD resolution surely should be more than reasonable for a DSLR that costs a thousand bucks. It would require a cache memory of the DDR variety, I guess, but if the image resolution isn't that high, not massive amounts of it for limited length videos. The memory would costs tens of dollars at the maximum, which isn't a huge portion of the total price. As I recall, the flagship smartphones are doing it, maybe closer to 1000fps, so heat isn't likely a critical problem at that speed.

    The SNR has developed to a better direction constantly over the years, plus better CPUs and algorithms help with it as well. When you have plenty of light, it's less of an issue as well. In less light, you can combine the pixels. With modern UIs, it shouldn't be an issue, unlike in the rather unwieldy UI still present in my old camera.

    With technology, it's normal to expect more for the same price.
     
  13. Venix

    Venix Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,516
    Likes Received:
    568
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    Oh ! More megapixels of noise ! While for extreme zoom it will help a phone is impossible to get a lens big enough to not get tons of noise in such resolutions.
     
  14. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    66
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    slight oot
    this probably marketing-"bs" things, but apple release this yesterday:
    https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021...-portraits-cityscapes-the-night-sky-and-more/

    iphone12 is only 12mp, right?
    for whatever reason, aside for production use or maybe big-printing, i think in many people eyes, those pictures already good enough

    the things with smartphone camera is that, its a feature that considered main
    so it still keep getting improvement for each new release, its quite interesting how they will keep pushing image quality that showing what look nice in our eyes

    back to topic, as far as high MP, while its not bringing whole different quality instantly, but there some improvement with high MP sensor, so for me personally as long there improvement why not

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Clawedge

    Clawedge Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,599
    Likes Received:
    920
    GPU:
    Radeon 570
    i had a canon mx10 and i compared it with a motorola one power phone (Gcam) app.


    The phone decimated the canon MX10 so bad, i ended up selling it.
     

  16. SmootyPoody

    SmootyPoody Active Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX 770 ref
    Sure, but that are two different price segments. The 18mp camera is not competing against the 50mp one. The 18mp one is using a lot older tech and lower-end tech. That is why you can have it so cheap. The 18mp is an entry level camera. The 50mp is a professional. But the megapixel count has nothing to do with the entry vs professional.

    A Megapixel count is just a sampling rate. Just like audio sample rate -> https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/di...799216325/increasing-bit-depth-resolution.png

    The higher sample rate the finer detail. However. Just because you sample at a higher rate, it does not mean the final product is better as it is not always noticeable for a human or maybe the image/audio is of a low quality and therefor it is wasted sampling at a higher rate.

    I am a professional photographer and use a 42mp sony camera on a daily basis. That thing is amazing - if the lighting is right. It has terrible ISO performance because the photosites are so small. My 12mp sony camera however is also fantastic. You think 12mp is not enough these days, but it is. If its made with modern tech. The problem is that we compare 10 old tech with brand new future tech and say "look at the difference! WOW!".

    Also. Lower megapixel counts lets you read out data from the sensor much faster and can capture more images with the same space. Those images can then be put together and you can then superresolution them. There is a reason that Apple is still using 12mp cameras. Its because they can manipulate them much faster, take more images and compare difference and then normalise the end result. You dont even notice it just took 20 images and compared them, rotated some, superresolutioned, some in low exposure, some in high all put together to one image.. In the end its the physical size of the sensor and the current tech that says what the quality will be. Megapixels count is just one quantitative factor of a whole pipeline and largely a marketing term. You dont hear all the other numbers of the stuff that is in the tech - only the megapixel count.
     
  17. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    894
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Back when I bought the camera, a decade ago, 50MP camera was probably something only NASA would have been using. Mine wasn't an entry level DSLR either, it was the hobbyist level, so mid-level, before the enthusiastic and naturally the professional series. Entry level was a different series at the bottom. Nowadays the comparable models have 24MP. I'm sure the other technology has made a jump in 10 years. They would have needed Intel execs to not make great strides in 10 years.

    No, it's not. It's a physical feature of the sensor, how many photodetectors it has. Sampling rate has got nothing to do with it, barely even as a comparison.

    Good for you. I'd also use one if I could afford one, but I'm not a pro and can't deduct it from taxes.

    Yeah, I wrote earlier I like to photograph in sunlight. There's no better lighting condition known to men and mer than that, if you like the kind of atmosphere it creates in photos, which I do.

    No, thanks, I don't what to extrapolate images larger, even if the original supposedly has better image quality. I often need to crop my photos, so I'd like more pixels instead. I could also buy better lenses, but the manufacturers sure know how to get their money back. Alas, I don't.

    I doubt I'll be moving to smartphone photography any times soon, and even if I did, I have a genetic dislike for Apple, so it's out of the question anyway. While I haven't experienced the fancy technologies flagship smartphones use, I have a gut feeling the engineers building the smartphone camera systems and software are less interested in photographing living bugs and other small animals, and more interested in photographing humans, tourist attractions, dishes, and the kind of stuff people usually, casually photograph with their phones.
     
  18. SmootyPoody

    SmootyPoody Active Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX 770 ref
    10 years ago Canon sold the T2i. An entry level DSLR with 18mp sensor. 18mp being entry level.
    You are however avoiding the point. That 18mp is not 18mp. Back then the 7D was also 18mp, but they used different tech. The 7D was a professionel camera the T2i was not. Again. Thats why the T2i was so cheap. Not because it had a lower megapixel count. Because the tech was inferior and my point stil stands that 1mp is not = 1mp.

    Sure its physical. But its still a sample rate. The image is sampled in 18 mio pixels. Or in 50 mio pixels. But if the lens is the same or the object is the same the image will be the same. Its just sampled at a higher rate. And if the condictions allow for it it will be higher quality, but if they arent, the image will not be better, it will however be much heavier to process for no reason what so ever.

    Ohmm okay. Weird personal attack for something that is a tool so of cause I use it in my business an deduct it. Whats the point of this? A A7Rii cost next to nothing these days. Even used you can have them for entry level DSLR/DSLM prices.

    Again my point about if the conditions allow for it it will sample it at a higher rate, if not it will only bog down your system and you wont have a "better" image. Just quantitative more data of noise.

    You dont understand my point here. Even the 12mp can be cropped. Forget megapixels. Its about the physical size of the tube (sensor + glass) catching the photons. And if the tech is the same it does not matter. megapixels count is only a sampling rate. Trust me 12mp can be cropped and still be printed for A3 or bigger. Also if you really wanted to crop hard into an image you could still just superresolution more images together and it would acommplish the same. Its not cheating. Its just sampling more data out of multiple images are thus creating more detail. Its not faked or anything of the matter. Its real detail and data.

    But again you miss my point about that the image pipeline.. megapixels is just one factor in an image pipeline. Its a small fraction of the whole system creating your images.

    Generic dislikes are worthless. Why dislike something you dont have any feeling nor data about. If its generic it does not matter. I too hate Apple in some ways, but I wont waste you time about it. My example of Apple was not to say its better or anything thereof. It was to give an example that there are different ways of doing an image pipeling. And cleary its a working example and not just my words as an internet dude saying it. Its one of the biggest companies on the planet and the iPhone (and its camera) is one of the reasons they are on top.

    However.. I can see where this is going, and you will never accept the reality and instead only live in your own.. Fair enough. So there is no need for me wasting more time discussion on the internet.. I wont be responding further after this as I have a life out side the internet and would rather use my time on those. Have a good day sir
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021

Share This Page