Sony Preps CMOS sensor at 127.68 million pixels with Global Shutter Funtion

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 9, 2021.

  1. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    its marketing yes, but not everything pure-gimmick as like what u been said
    and what we talking here is samsung smartphone sensor which is what samsung developed for their smartphone (we already know they didnt make wide array of sensor like sony)

    but then why companies such sony that seriously in photography/videography, offering similar things like samsung ? not creating vastly superior sensor that comparable to mirrorless that blow samsung 108mp sensor out of water?

    so if u trying to say samsung pixel-bining is just gimmick, then its mean all similar sensor is no different
    u should start debunking back from nokia 808 then

    Nokia 808 PureView proved that oversampling improve picture quality
    https://www.slideshare.net/antonioedasilvacampos/nokia808-pureview-whitepaper
    https://www.imagesensors.org/Past Workshops/2013 Workshop/2013 Papers/13-1_071-Alakarhu.pdf

    sony also showcasing similar things
    https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201807/18-060E/
    https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/stories/IMX586/
     
  2. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Doesn't seem to me that they are creating something all that similar. Going back to the car analogy
    The binning isn't the gimmick, the MP count is. The binning wouldn't be necessary if the MP count weren't so ridiculous.
    I didn't know about the 808 but now that you mention it, yeah, that's worth debunking too. That was much less of a gimmick since it used a high-end lens (and on a camera that tiny, lens quality is critical). Linking to Nokia's own slideshows proves absolutely nothing. C'mon, you should know by now that you take a manufacturer's claims with a grain of salt until you see benchmarks. The paper you linked to after is a good source, though incomplete. The test performed in that paper is critical and important, but that's like benchmarking a GPU by playing only 1 game and drawing conclusions from that.
    I never said it doesn't... Oversampling is a necessity when you've got an overly high pixel density.

    Also, Sony isn't infallible. They're allowed to make a stupid phone camera too. I'm not picking on Samsung because it's Samsung, I'm picking on them because they made something absurd with nothing to show for it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
  3. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    what suprising me, u dont even know nokia pureview
    yet you talk like you know better than sensor engineer ?

    https://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.2020064?SSO=1
    if u excusing what i provide not enough, and manufacture claim is "scam"
    you yourself not even providing anything regarding ur theory to this point ... up to this post, u just saying ur theory and excuses, do i need to quote all of those ?

    so if u saying samsung is nothing-to-show
    then where the prove ? based what ? what u compare it to ?
     
  4. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Why do you put so much faith into press material?
    Why do you cling so hard to believe that these are good sensors when they require extensive post-processing to yield something deemed "good"?
    Why do you think phones where the manufacturer actually cares about image quality use sensors with relatively low pixel counts?
    Why do you think professional photographers/videographers will use a 15-year-old mid-range DSLR over a modern smartphone camera (that they may already have)?
    Why do you think modern professional cameras rarely go above 45MP?

    I don't have to know better than the engineer, because literally everyone who knows better than me shows that cramming more pixels in doesn't accomplish anything.
    Yeah... I'm not paying $21 to read something I already get the gist of.
    The problem is you're just providing press materials, studies, and documents about things I'm not even arguing about. What you have consistently done was show nothing about what the real-world results look like. That leads to your next statement:
    From what I recall, this isn't the first time we've argued about these sensors. We don't need to go over this again. You've linked to articles in the past comparing different phones to each other, and even with the image being 2% it's original size, you could still see all the smudging from the post-processing.
    Alternatively, you can just simply look up what other reviewers think:
    The best camera phone for 2021 - CNET
    Y'know what those phone cameras have in common? All except one have 16MP cameras and lower. The 108MP camera makes it on the list, but the fact it's comparable to cheaper phones with 12MP is all the proof you need that it's a marketing gimmick.
    So what is it that you're not getting here? A sensor with 11% the pixel density yields at least as-good results. So wtf are all those extra pixels for?
    What that article (and many others like it) don't tell you is all the reasons why these lower-MP sensors yield such good results.

    Remember - it's not just a matter of image quality. At 108MP, you have the following problems to deal with:
    * An image that large consumes a massive amount of disk space
    * If you want to save space but keep the "quality", you have to use a very CPU-taxing compression method. This will drain your battery.
    * If you want to save space and battery, you have to either use lossy compression or shrink the image, in which case, wtf do you need 108MP for?
    * To handle that many pixels without global shutter, you're going to have an awful rolling-shutter effect. I assume Samsung created software to compensate for this, but then that's just more battery being lost to CPU usage, and, you're likely to compromise further on image quality.

    Why do you so desperately want to believe these sensors aren't a gimmick when physics, professional photographers, and the best-ranking phone cameras all suggest otherwise? More MP doesn't mean you have a better camera, just like more CPU cores doesn't mean you're going to play games faster, or more KW/HP is going to make your car faster. There is a point of diminishing returns.
     

  5. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070

    well yeah your talk is pure-gimmick and nothing-to-take ... until this point none evidence backing your basic theory.
    the last part you said, just put all those link that saying those.

    and why u desperately saying this gimmick? CPU core doesnt mean playing game faster is true, but that doesnt mean it just gimmick, for other uses it can be whole different thing.

    from the cnet list:
    Samsung Galaxy Note 20 simply the best. Zoomed-in photos are sharp and full of detail. Even at 10x digital zoom, images from the Note 20 Ultra still look good.
    we getting advantage with high-mp sensor... which you been saying its gimmick, but it is not.
    you might do not need it, but the advantage of high mp is there.

    those list problems you list, the more you talk the more you make yourself look stupid
    this what you said yesterday
    The binning isn't the gimmick, the MP count is. The binning wouldn't be necessary if the MP count weren't so ridiculous.
    then u should answer this in first place : why both sony and samsung going with high-mp and pixel binning for smartphone sensor now?
    why they just dont go with hi-mp single non-quad Bayer ?

    dont tell me u not even understand the concept why smartphone sensor moving this way ?
     
  6. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I care about this far less than you. I find what Samsung (and to a lesser degree, Sony) are doing to be stupid, but it's not a big deal. Not my money being burned on placebos. For whatever reason, you just simply can't believe that a company pushes big numbers for nothing more than a sales point.
    Fair enough, the CPU cores do serve more purposes. The only thing Samsung's sensor does better than competitors is digital zoom outdoors in broad daylight. That's it. It's par or worse in every other environment. Why bother making such a sensor if par is the best you can do in most cases?
    Yes, in a very specific situation. Try using that zoom indoors and see how quickly the quality suffers. Note how other phones just use a lower-MP sensor and an actual zoom lens. Hell, even Samsung themselves do that sometimes.
    So, in your subjective point of view, my list of objective problems makes me look stupid. Oh the irony.
    Is that a serious question? The part you quoted already tells you the answer: the binning is necessary only because of the MP count. If they used a more sensible number like everyone else, they wouldn't have to use all these other processes. I don't get how you're not seeing this.
    They're shooting for high MP because people like you gobble it up.
    Uh... it's largely not, hence me linking to that article. The best-ranked phone cameras are 12-16MP. This has been the case for roughly a decade. As you pointed out, higher MP sensors were around for a very long while, and clearly, that hasn't caused a shift in the market. People who care about results look at real-world example photos. People who care about specs on paper chase after Samsung's nonsense.
     
  7. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    the way u think about this is backward or opposite, thus make no sense for u
    we all know we didnt get visible-improvement from simply increasing mp, this is why pixel-bining come in

    the advantages from pixel-bining/quad-bayer is what sensor-maker aftering especially for small size sensor
    and it get more benefit with more mp, thus we getting more mp with latest sensor

    you basically eat "108mp" straight from marketing rather looking at technical aspect of it
    surely you need to read more rather than stuck your head with basic-theory, as things wont make sense with ur basic-theory
    in sensor industry things keep pushing to overcome those limitation

    go read https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4302694
     
  8. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Hence the part you don't seem to get:
    why do it then, despite the sacrifices?
    Yeah, and a slew of other more serious disadvantages.
    Actually, the technical aspect is what makes me know it's a gimmick, because the real world results don't justify it.
    Keep in mind, I never said it was a bad sensor. It's actually very good. Doesn't change the fact it's stupid.
    If it were basic theory then answer my questions from a couple posts ago about why nobody else is doing the same thing. You seem to be willfully ignorant about how sensors actually work. Samsung (and Sony) didn't make something that defies physics. They came up with something that looks good on paper and invented new technologies to compensate for the slew of shortcomings.
    No... it isn't. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice low-light quality just for a little outdoor digital zoom.
    Shouldn't you be reading that? The first post exemplifies why all of this is so stupid. You're just not getting it:
    You have to make sacrifices in order to have pixels this small. Whether that means image quality, battery life, disk space, low-light sensitivity, manufacturing cost, or all-of-the-above, you can't just simply increase MP size without consequence. But since the real world results don't give you a better image than a sensor 11% the size, then seriously - answer my questions:
    Why push the envelope when you don't yield better-than-par results? Why have so many pixels if you're just going to bin them? Why aren't others following suit? You deliberately turn a blind eye to these questions and it really shows that you're not listening to facts. I'm guessing you have a phone with this sensor and you just don't like someone telling you the reality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2021
  9. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    lmao the your stubbornness make u dumb for sure

    its proved in real-world result
    look back how we come to this point
    sony make IMX586 48mp quad-bayer -> huawei release phone using that chip, and it praise by everyone -> then samsung follow it with 64mp and 108mp
    before that we are staying in 12mp

    you can keep throwing your pointless-excuse
    but for sensor-maker, this what they can do to improve picture quality with all limitation that smartphone camera sensor have, until next breakthrough

    more serious disadvantages. -> so what it is ?
    No... it isn't. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice low-light quality just for a little outdoor digital zoom.
    again its opposite what u think, it improve low-light quality
    thats why read more dude... you really lack information lol
    https://www.gsmarena.com/quad_bayer_sensors_explained-news-37459.php
    the reality is that the Quad Bayer filter is just a clever (and effective) way of getting better-quality 12MP shots.

    https://www.ubergizmo.com/articles/quad-bayer-camera-sensor/
    Quad-Bayer is a very clever and practical technique that fulfills the role it was built for: improve low-light video and photo capture of moving subjects. It should help with hand-shaking too.

    https://www.xda-developers.com/samsung-galaxy-s20-ultra-108mp-nona-binning-camera/
    Samsung achieves an effective pixel size of 2.4 micron by using 3×3 pixel binning, combining nine pixels into a single pixel at the sensor level. “Nona binning” is nothing but the company’s marketing term for 3×3 binning. This will combine nine relatively noisy pixels into one big and clean superpixel, which would theoretically further enhance low light sensitivity.


    Why aren't others following suit?
    all in smartphone sensor maker doing it, sony - samsung - omnivision... it just u stuck in ur dead head
    sony even bring quad-bayer to A7SIII
    https://alikgriffin.com/what-is-a-quad-bayer-sensor-and-why-its-the-future-for-video-cameras/
     
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Might want to think about that for a moment...
    It's not "praise[d] by everyone", because as the article I linked to (among many others), there are sensors deemed better, like ones that are 12MP.
    And you keep mentioning binning and quad-bayer without acknowledging the reason they're needed.
    Which is why sensible phone makers use lower MP sensors, because they know that the sacrifices don't make sense.
    I mentioned them several times. I'm not repeating myself.
    And yet you accuse me of being the stubborn one? I don't know how many times I have to tell/ask you:
    * Quad bayer doesn't fix the fact that you're losing photons due to sensor density. Think of it like a window screen - the more wires there are in the screen, the less light that gets through.
    * What's the point of having high MP if, as the article itself points out, 12MP mode is the way to get the best image quality?
    * The reason QB exists is to compensate of the fact the sensor is too dense for its own good. Use a normal 12MP camera and you don't need to do this stupid post-processing.
    * High MP phone cameras are a solution looking for a problem, and since nobody was asking for such high numbers, problems arose. As a result, QB became a necessity, so this gimmick of a feature could actually be usable.
    I never said it wasn't! You keep harping about about QB as though it somehow justifies these sensors, without realizing that it only exists because these sensors don't work well.
    Oh right my bad, I forgot there were only 3 companies in the whole market.

    /s
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2021

  11. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    I mentioned them several times. I'm not repeating myself
    Oh yeah quoting/copy-pasting take hours to do, it must be tiresome indeed yes, sorry

    Quad bayer doesn't fix the fact that you're losing photons due to sensor density. Think of it like a window screen - the more wires there are in the screen, the less light that gets through.
    u talk about photon, but not understand "photosites" related to sensor density ?

    https://alikgriffin.com/what-is-a-quad-bayer-sensor-and-why-its-the-future-for-video-cameras/
    "The reason you need bigger photosites for low light is that as the light decreases, so does the density or the amount of photons. Having a bigger photosite allows the surface to capture a signal from a larger area to maintain an acceptable voltage.

    In daylight, there are 11,400 photons in a cubic millimeter. Energy from the sun creates 3.10 electron volts, well the most energetic light, purple light. Orange light is 2.06eV. If you decrease the coherency of the photons in low light, you need a much bigger surface to capture the same amount of energy since the density of photons has decreased.

    I’m not about to do the math on photon coherency and ISO, but I think you get the point. Cut the light by 1/64 and you’ll need a much larger surface area to absorb the same amount of energy. Light has a sort of finite resolution to it in the form of how much energy it can create when interacting with electrons.

    This is sort of why there is little point of buying a high megapixel camera if you’re mostly going to be shooting in low light with fast shutters because you’re still limited by the coherency and energy of the available light. More pixels in a smaller configuration is less efficient at capturing this energy. Have a Quad Bayer sensor gives you the best of both worlds as long as there are no strange artifacts that come from having a 2×2 configuration for each color pixel array."


    I never said it wasn't! You keep harping about about QB as though it somehow justifies these sensors, without realizing that it only exists because these sensors don't work well.
    Talk BS all day is easy, what the prove that those sensors dont work well ?
    u that ignorant and denied all of this things
    go collect your evidences & proves, and if it solid enough, i will help spreading it for u

    Oh right my bad, I forgot there were only 3 companies in the whole market.
    so yeah list up all smartphone sensor companies then?
    that 3 are holding the market share (that take like 90%+ market share), with sony the one that almost monopoly it ...
    how about list up smartphone that using sensor other than 3 manufacture i mention ?

    * What's the point of having high MP if, as the article itself points out, 12MP mode is the way to get the best image quality?
    High-resolution by necessity
    Quad-Bayer sensors need to have a very high resolution because they essentially have each pair of pixels within a quad do sensing with different parameters, thus reducing the effective resolution by 4X. This is typically why Quad Bayer cameras often use a default mode of 10MP or 12MP and not 40MP or 48MP.

    For example, Sony IMX586 camera sensor has 8000×6000 pixels (official pr link) launched in July 2018. However, the auto-mode in phones like the Honor View 20 is set to 12MP.

    Sensor manufacturers can take advantage of having much better semiconductor tooling to build these impressively small sensor pixels. However, a 0.8-micron pixel size is tiny, which is why the main goal is to work in groups of four (a “quad”).

    And you keep mentioning binning and quad-bayer without acknowledging the reason they're needed.
    Which is why sensible phone makers use lower MP sensors, because they know that the sacrifices don't make sense.

    12MP sensor already reaching its limit, it wont get much more improvement than what we are getting now
    so in ur head, what u think u can improve image quality with those smartphone limitation?

    and saying I care about this far less than you.
    while u desperately excusing everything lmao.. u sure make good joke
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    @slyphnier
    It's not usual of me to just give up in an argument, but I've gone as far as I can. This isn't the first time we've argued this subject, which is why I'm being lazy citing sources - I already proved my point last time and I don't need to do it again.

    You yourself have pointed out the sacrifices necessary for these sensors to work, such as QB, and yet somehow, you aren't understanding that making sacrifices isn't a desirable thing. QB is a fantastic feature for theses sensors, but you aren't realizing that QB in and of itself is a sacrifice. You trading pixel density for better sensitivity.
    When you provide the answer and you still don't get it, there's nothing else I can do.

    However, I can at least answer this:
    Actually, they're not reaching the limit. The fact Samsung and Sony can even make such dense sensors that yield par results with 12MP sensors shows great innovation in the manufacturing process. Using my window screen analogy, they have found a way to make the wires thinner without [ostensibly] making the screen ineffective. Despite 12MP cameras being used for the better part of a decade, image quality has improved. You seem to think that all there is to a sensor is MP count, when it's so, so much more than that.
    Had they used this same technology and just used 1/3 the pixel count and triple the size of each pixel, I guarantee you, they would have the best sensor.
     
  13. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    This isn't the first time we've argued this subject, which is why I'm being lazy citing sources
    i am not bringing this back, but really ? not remember many more other than animal images u provided, what i agree back then is simply people can have their own preference
    now i am here with simply because curious with your bold claim saying its pure-gimmick

    You yourself have pointed out the sacrifices necessary for these sensors to work, such as QB, and yet somehow, you aren't understanding that making sacrifices isn't a desirable thing.
    more advantages than disadvantaged with QB/PB thats why it used now

    Had they used this same technology and just used 1/3 the pixel count and triple the size of each pixel, I guarantee you, they would have the best sensor.
    in same sensor size it wont make different and in some cases it wont be better than binned-pixel, thats why i been asking you why highMP+QB/PB and not single non-QB route which is like u said ?
    there no answer from u
    do you think sensor-engineer didnt know about this? yet they still go with hi-mp QB/PB ?
    especially if they can make cheaper sensor
     
  14. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Nothing changed. I always felt it was a gimmick. It's a "solution" looking for a problem, and ironically causes problems that need solutions like QB.
    Right... without QB, the sensor isn't useful enough. QB is a necessity so the sensor is, at best, par.
    I still don't understand how you're not seeing the gimmick: you're getting a bigger sensor and then deliberately lowering the pixel density to make it useful. I find it mind boggling how you're not getting this.
    Yes... it will. I've already explained this to you several times. Refer back to my window screen example. Whether you're using QB or not, more pixels means less light is getting through.
    That's because your question grammatically makes no sense. Lower MP sensors don't require QB to be good. So, you can either get a 12MP sensor that's already good, or, you can get a 48MP sensor and QB-it to 12MP. So, you're paying more for a bigger sensor and getting nothing to show for it. That's a gimmick.
    Serious question: do you suffer short-term memory loss? I've been re-answering your questions over and over, this one included:
    Yes, they do know. They're making what they're told to make, because people like you buy up this marketing nonsense. All you see is a big MP number and think that automatically is a good thing, when you don't realize that you're not getting what you paid for.
     
  15. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    Nothing changed. I always felt it was a gimmick. It's a "solution" looking for a problem, and ironically causes problems that need solutions like QB.
    lol u still using ur backward mindset, go learn more about QB, i guess u not fully understand the flexibility it give, and why people saying QB is the future for video camera
    u not only oversimple things but also overlook many things

    u can believe what u want, i dont care about that.
    but u need to prove ur claim its pure-gimmick, otherwise u just BS-ing with ur basic-theory and excuses

    you're getting a bigger sensor and then deliberately lowering the pixel density to make it useful. I find it mind boggling how you're not getting this.
    simply because u lack information, you not even know PB/QB improve low light, yet u insisting you know to make better sensor based your basic theory?

    with your logic then then just answer
    why no one doing back with 12mp camera? increase pixel-size and get better low light right ?
    why those sensor stuck around 1.0~1.40 μm ?
    sensor its advancing way more than u think, wake up and learn.

    do you suffer short-term memory loss? I've been re-answering your questions over and over, this one included:
    Yes, they do know. They're making what they're told to make, because people like you buy up this marketing nonsense. All you see is a big MP number and think that automatically is a good thing, when you don't realize that you're not getting what you paid for.

    Not much different with you, other than insisting ur basic theory.
    that another stupid claim based ur wild guesses, u not even work in industry, but telling u know how things works in there ?

    dont make me return it to u do you suffer short-term memory loss?
    its u the one that only seeing big-MP-number
    why all u see is big-MP-number ? when there is technical benefit using QB/PB that need high-mp.

    how many times i have to repeat this ? sony make jump to 48mp to use QB not the opposite (sony jump to 48mp and then need QB)
    get ur mind straight
     

  16. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I do understand, it's you who somehow doesn't get that QB is a sacrifice.
    You seem to be one of those "it's not a bug, it's a feature" people.
    If you didn't care, you wouldn't be arguing this much, so don't give me that crap.
    I did prove my claims, you just deliberately ignored them and keep saying "b-b-but QB!" as though that changes anything.
    Maybe they are - I actually haven't really looked into it. But considering hardware reviewers agree that phones like the Pixel or iPhone have better cameras, that should be all the evidence you need.
    I don't go around asking you the same thing over and over again, except where you refuse to answer. I'm not the one who thinks QB is a feature, rather than solution to a bigger problem.
    If my theory is so basic, it shouldn't be hard for you to understand.
    I don't have to work in the industry when people who actually do reflect what I've been saying. The only people "in the industry" you're referring to are those who write papers without any real-world evidence to show for it.
    Here comes your short term memory problem again:
    QB isn't necessary if the MP number were lower. The MP number is the problem. You just keep focusing on QB as though that's what I'm complaining about. It's not. It never was. It's so strange to me why you keep mentioning it.
    Ah delusional now too? You never once said that. I searched for "Sony" throughout this whole discussion and nothing you said even implied it. You mentioned several times QB using QB, but that's not the same thing.
     
  17. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    If you didn't care, you wouldn't be arguing this much, so don't give me that crap.
    i already said curious with ur claim, so yeah i arguing for that, why do u think i am here for ?
    while you saying "I care about this far less than you." and continuing this up lol

    hardware reviewers agree that phones like the Pixel or iPhone have better cameras
    what i read lately is shifting, pixel camera not really got as much improvement since last 2gen despite major software update, iphone also losing in term of detail compared to those hi-mp cam

    If my theory is so basic, it shouldn't be hard for you to understand.
    like i said sensor is advancing, like mentioned in verge article before,
    But we do know that high-megapixel sensors aren’t a gimmick, and can’t really be judged in the way we’d evaluate traditional cameras. Don’t call this a reboot of the megapixel wars that plunged consumer point-and-shoots into irrelevance. This 108-megapixel sensor from Samsung is comparatively huge next to its competitors and should be able to capture unprecedented detail with the right implementation.
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/...sor-size-image-quality-noise-vs-iphone-xiaomi

    The only people "in the industry" you're referring to are those who write papers without any real-world evidence to show for it.
    there is evidence&prove thus people write papers, otherwise it already debunked way long before

    QB isn't necessary if the MP number were lower. The MP number is the problem.
    u denying the fact "QB/PB High-resolution by necessity" ?
     
  18. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    It's not the tech I care that much about.
    That doesn't refute my point - "not much improvement" doesn't mean it's inferior.
    Yes, it's very good they have a larger sensor. But pixel density is the key [in this discussion, there's more than that too]. Interesting how the article doesn't mention that, eh? That's why I was saying that if Samsung made something with 1/3 the density but 3x the pixel size, they would hands-down have the best sensor on the market. Their manufacturing process is already better than most/all of the competitors, so with larger pixels they would be indisputably unrivaled.
    The only papers you showed were from manufacturers (where you have to take it with a grain of salt) or from a lab. Lab results are good, but would you buy a CPU only because of synthetic benchmarks? Synthetic benchmarks, no matter what the product is, shows technical capabilities but are inconclusive about real-world use.
    No, I'm not denying that. High density sensors require QB/PB to have practical use, and QB/PB isn't a good idea unless you have a high-density sensor. They are co-dependent of each other. But just because that's true, that doesn't mean either are necessary. There are and have been more important issues phone cameras need to fix. The fact of the matter is, these sensors with QB/PB don't yield better overall results than a lower MP sensor without QB/PB.
    Going back to the Dodge Challenger example, they can go ahead and keep finding ways to add power, but none of that matters if cars with half the power can still outpace it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
  19. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    It's not the tech I care that much about.
    you can excuse whatever, but u here, is there any prove better than that ?

    That doesn't refute my point - "not much improvement" doesn't mean it's inferior.
    and so its also same with hi-mp sensor, not much improvement is NOT equal to pure-gimmick

    But pixel density is the key [in this discussion, there's more than that too]. Interesting how the article doesn't mention that, eh? That's why I was saying that if Samsung made something with 1/3 the density but 3x the pixel size, they would hands-down have the best sensor on the market.

    why pixel density need to be mentioned ?
    for people, the result is everything. u see improvement and thats what u need.

    beside, until it proven make any difference
    as simple math-wise 36mp 2.4um vs 108mp 0.8um pixel-bined to 2.4um, there no different, and considering losing PB feature, dont think u got the answer

    u saying urself hi-mp wont improve image quality, then why u insisting 36mp better than binned 12mp photo shoot ?
    i am guessing either perform similar with cons and pros
    and this why i am saying u are the one gimmicking-the-number
    because what i am seeing and actually what samsung also promoting is that "binned-image-from-108mp-camera"

    https://asp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1687-6180-2012-125#Sec16
    The binning-aware demosaicking also succeeds in suppressing noise and preserving image details. We verified experimentally that the binning-aware demosaicking outperforms the alternatives.

    The fact of the matter is, these sensors with QB/PB don't yield better overall results than a lower MP sensor without QB/PB.
    u need to prove ur saying again, and get ur reality fact check
    huawei phone with sony hi-mp sensor boost image quality and get praised by many, if that didnt work back then, i believe we still stuck at 12mp main now

    beside the image sample in verge article that already showing improvement, this https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-camera-test-shootout-1171474/
    If you’ve struggled to tell these phones apart for much of this shootout, you’re not alone. The differences, if any, between the Pixel 3, 4, and 5 are very small. While this is a testament to Google bringing some of its latest camera features to older phones, it equally suggests that it’s probably time for a hardware upgrade to take the Pixel’s pictures up another level. The Pixel 3 was a great camera back in its day, but competitors have caught up and even overtaken in some regards.

    and iphone keeping up lil better, but that also because they upgrade their hardware such adding lidar scanner

    Going back to the Dodge Challenger example, they can go ahead and keep finding ways to add power, but none of that matters if cars with half the power can still outpace it.
    still using that example ? its not good example for sure
    u might not use that car-power , but if it used for drag-race that will be different story
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2021
  20. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    4,301
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    No, I seriously don't give a crap. My phone has I think a 5MP camera and has the image quality of something that is worse. My phone is 3 years old and it was terrible when it was new (quad core A7, 2GB of RAM, 16GB of storage). It does what I need it to do. I'm arguing only to defend my point. You're the one who is getting all pissy about my thoughts.
    It's roughly 9x the pixels as other phones with par results. Yes, that is a gimmick. "Hurr durr look at how impressive our MP count is! Only the most expensive of phones have it!" even though there's nothing to show for it.
    Holy crap seriously, how short-term is your memory? I've been saying over and over and over again that a bigger pixel takes in more photons, and merging 4 pixels to form 1 is still going to take in fewer photons. Pixel density is imperative to the sensor's performance. That's why professional night sky photographers use $4000 cameras that have 35mm sensors and relatively low pixel counts like 24MP.
    And yes, the average person cares about the result. So why the hell are you arguing with me when the real-world result shows no improvement?
    So, you're gaining nothing but spending more. Wow, what a great marketing strategy!
    I didn't say that. The thing about phone cameras is they're already crippled by their tiny apertures and chromatic aberration issues, so to increase MP count without improving the pixel density or the lens is just making more problems. The solutions to such problems either defeat the purpose of such a large sensor (QB/PB) or cause other problems (post-processing).
    On cameras like a DSLR or mirrorless, pixel density is still a problem but there are several ways to compensate for it without major compromises. There is no physical room to compensate on a phone.
    Ugh resorting to synthetic tests and theory again?
    I did, by referencing people who actually used the sensors in the real world. But obviously you would forget that.
    Remember, I'm not saying these sensors are bad, they're just misleading (AKA, gimmicks).
    The best rated sensors are 12MP, so yeah, we are kinda stuck at that for now. Honestly, I don't see why that's a problem. 12MP is plenty for most people.
    Yes, absolutely - this is my whole point. The differences are negligible. So to put 108MP on paper when there's hardly a perceptible difference makes the spec a gimmick.
    It is a good example and your response to it further exemplifies that:
    The only thing that car is good at is drag racing. Compared to competitors, it's either as good or worse for every other purpose. But here's the thing: it's not even that great at drag racing - it's not even in the top 10 (obviously only accounting for production cars).
    The power numbers are just a marketing gimmick, because even though the numbers are enormous, it's worse than cars that (on paper) should be much slower than it. Samsung's sensor is no different - it gives an impressive number but is no better than the competition. It's not bad, just like the Demon isn't slow, but it's misleading.
     

Share This Page