Nick Tagataka, 16 Sep 2020Don't worry, the physical size/pixel pitch of smartphone camera sensors has been definite... moreBut regular Bayer high-res sensor can still maintain its pixel detail when downsampled to lower resolution whereas a Quad Bayer or modified Bayer filter sensor will sacrifice pixel detail for larger effective pixel size. Not my word, but the word from the man behind the 808 PureView camera technology: https://twitter.com/jalakarhu/status/1021695857786331136
Shui8, 16 Sep 2020Looks like Samsung still playing those megapixel numbers to hype things up. (When actually its not)I think it would've been much nicer if what they released was a Tetracell 40MP 1/1.55" sensor instead of meaninglessly high res 108MP one. Samsung still hasn't been able to show us how their Nonacell solution is better than their Tetracell or Sony's Quad Bayer image quality wise, and at such a tiny pixel pitch I suspect that the light loss caused by shieldings between pixels is far more significant compared to higher end sensors with lower resolution and larger 1.0μm, 1.12μm or 1.20μm pixels.
YUKI93, 16 Sep 20200.7 µm pixels for the new 108MP HM2? That's even smaller than the old one, even in pixel ... moreDon't worry, the physical size/pixel pitch of smartphone camera sensors has been definitely on a rise in a last few years and here Samsung is just trying to make mid range sensors that appeal to average consumers with big MP numbers which won't change the market trend. Also I strongly doubt a regular Bayer high-res sensor will make a comeback given its drawbacks as compared to a similarly spec'd QB sensor (e.g. Lower SNR, poorer tonality, slower readout speed, slower processing speed, potentially slower AF as well).
0.7 µm pixels for the new 108MP HM2? That's even smaller than the old one, even in pixel binned form! This kind of news really made me deeply appreciate Nokia's camera hardware technology from 808 PureView and Lumia 1020 with their proper oversampling technique. Now it's all Bayer filter modifications with tiny native unbinned pixel pitch.
I don't really think I will see a true real successor to those two phones sometime in the future.
Nick Tagataka, 16 Sep 2020Hopefully nobody will try to use those sensors for their high end offerings, including the lar... moreLooks like Samsung still playing those megapixel numbers to hype things up. (When actually its not)
Hopefully nobody will try to use those sensors for their high end offerings, including the largest 108MP one in the lineup of course. Make pixels larger not smaller for heaven's sake.
Anonymous, 16 Sep 2020Good joke. Sony clicks the worst pictures among those phones. Are you blind? Where did he say anything about picture quality? Sony does have the fastest autofocus out of any phone out there rn. The picture quality isn't even that bad.
Also drop the 108mp for the 50mp 1.2um for 4k 2.4um or 8k 1.2um for those that need it. My N20U periscope shuts off below 100 lux so it's useless unless I'm out in full daylight. Give me a 12mp 3x optical with 1.44um
What we really need is, 10mp 1/1.55" with quad pixel binning with a OIS and 2 axis gimbal and a 90-95 degree fov at f1.7-1.9, give us an amazing low light performing camera already with 1080p30/24 at 3.2um or higher...
Anonymous, 15 Sep 2020S20 Ultra has PDAF. S5 has PDAF.
Evolution in this case is software related, not hardware... moreExcept that the point of PDAF is simply to have dedicated pixels for detecting the phase shift between light, giving theoretically the distance between the unfocused light rays from the same source, allowing to make the autofocus choose a target.
The thing is, as any technology based on camera, it is dependent on the capability of the sensor, and clearly since S5 6 years ago, sensors have massively improved, except Nokia who used massive sensors, no phones had 30Mp, the light gathering capability were quite different, the sensors have improved by a lot, from added technology to different ways of doing things.
And PDAF performances are obligatory linked to the sensor performances, so in essence, PDAF have evolved too, you can't just make PDAF alone evolve, everything, from the sensor itself, the analog part, the digital part, the converter, the in-chip algorithms and the softwares are all part of that, the implementation of PDAF probably changed a lot, but the way it work can't really be changed as it is just about using some pixels to do something.
Like car's pedals haven't really changed, but the engine and all the electronic that control the throttle input have changed a lot.
I agree, I know the importance of software in smartphone photography, it sounded like you were against OPDAF, my point was just that OPDAF is better than just increasing the resolution.
Samsung have their own OPDAF equivalent already with the GN1, and the thing is with software you have many ways to implement the same thing as many different codes can get the same result, which is the essence of retro-engineering, aka, making copying legal, I mean, after all, most phones have PDAF despite one having invented and implemented it first.
And the GN1 is directly made for competing against the IMX689 and IMX700.
So yeah, like Apple and Samsung love to copy each other, nearly all smartphones manufacturers do copy the others by implementing a slightly different enough tech so that it get the same (or better) result without having to reinvent the wheel each times.
so camera quality further regressed. But marketing says otherwise and prices go up....
Thanks a lot.
Demongornot, 15 Sep 2020You are literally saying "with a better software it will work better" and "it w... moreS20 Ultra has PDAF. S5 has PDAF.
Evolution in this case is software related, not hardware related.
2x2 OCL will not get any better than it is today. Same way Dual Pixel has not. Better performance will come with better software. Something BBK could not achieve.
My point is: having omnidirectional focus alone is not making AF any better if software is not well done. The tech itself is not enough to improve AF performance.
You say that will be better as hardware gets better, which is not true ...
Samsung cannot just go and copy someone else's tech. Remember patents? Would be samsung willing to pay whatever sony charges for licensing?
Samsung had to modify 3-layer stacked sensor to avoid sony patent. It is not "doi g it because other is doing" ...
Anonymous, 15 Sep 2020P40 Pro, Find X2 Pro , S20 Ultra , mi10 pro do not omnivision for periscope.
And definitely NOT an Isocell sensor either.
It's often just between Sony and Omnivision. Glad my Redmi K30 5G has the better IMX686. Its RAW files hold up in quality much better than the GW1 from Samsung.
Anonymous, 15 Sep 2020Stop with excuses that "first generation is always worse". "The tech will be m... moreYou are literally saying "with a better software it will work better" and "it won't change anyway".
It does apply to almost anything, materials, new algorithms, dedicated chips, new instructions set, optimisations, different implementation, etc, so many things can be changed and improved, the only case where it can't become better is when a tech, once implemented is already at its peak efficiency, which is quite rare.
Gave me a single exemple of something that CAN'T be improved from its initial creation.
Don't tell me that DPAF on smartphones haven't greatly improved since it was first introduced to now, which actually is totally stupid considering that Omnidirectional PDAF that you criticize is actually an improvement of this tech.
The point is still that OPDAF is better than regular PDAF and improving the software will improve the OPDAF performances, because BBK haven't implemented something well, you really mean to tell me that Samsung and Sony that you used as an exemple as being better, with their better expertise, shouldn't implement OPDAF ?
What is even the point at this level ? Complaining for the sake of complaining even when it make absolutely no senses ?
Demongornot, 15 Sep 2020Peoples like you should seriously consider stopping to judge a tech by its very first implemen... moreStop with excuses that "first generation is always worse". "The tech will be more mature".
It does not apply to everything.
Canon created the Dual Pixel AF tech. Performance after years is still the same.
The performance of AF also depends on how well it is implemented. No matter the type.
Software has huge impact on it. The outcome can be good or bad for any type of AF.
Galaxy S10, Xperia 1, iphone 11 pro and Pixel 4 all use dual pixel AF.
But they do not perform equal.
S20 Ultra was bashed because the bad performance of main camera's AF. The issue was the software, not the Phase Detection AF. Most of the phones use PDAF. Most cameras (except Canon, Sony and Panasonic) use PDAF.
The proof is the fact phone can perform better compared to the time it was released.
BBk phones have weaker AF performance than Sony/Samsung because lack of competence to use the tech, not the tech itself ....
Anonymous, 15 Sep 2020Find X2 Pro and OP8 Pro has slower AF than S20 and 1ii.
Pointless to have 2x2 OCL if softw... morePeoples like you should seriously consider stopping to judge a tech by its very first implementation.
EVERY tech was sub optimal at its beginning, the IMX689 is still one of the best sensor ever made for a lot of points, it isn't only about autofocus.
There are so many tech that despite having been improved by a lot are still suffering of their initial images, ultrasonic FPS is an exemple, yes it was slow, unreliable and had once instance where a specific condition could trick it, but those issues are long gone and this first generation and first of its kind mobile sensor in its first implementation is NOT a representation representation of the whole ultrasonic FPS tech.
Same here, the Omnidirectional PDAF is of one of the biggest breakthrough in recent smartphone sensor history.
The first aircraft was slow, couldn't fly high, it could only took two persons, now we have monsters that fly at over 80% of the speed of the sound at over 30000 feets and can carry well over 500 passengers across the globe.
The first rockets (post V2) could barely go into space with extremely light payload, now we can and have launched a car to Mars.
The first Plasma, LCD or Oled displays were quite bad, the first implementation of tactile was a nightmare to use, the first OS was not user friendly, the first CPU (even the counting 8086 as the first) was slow and couldn't do much in real time, etc etc.
Plus, Oppo isn't a good representation, nor is OnePlus, when the original Find X was made, NOW we could talk about a great brand making interesting products, but the Find X2 was literally exactly as any other smartphones except for its IMX 689 for the Pro.
Also I never saw any claims of the autofocus on those being slow, if anything it is actually faster as many test shown.