5 ms·

I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images

by airza 7y ago

I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away

jacobush 7y ago
Sensor size is important because sensor sites are too damn small. Lightfield or similar trickery with maybe 20 regular cameras together with software assemble a larger sensor, could work.
- llampx 7y ago
  Huawei (and probably others) experimented with using multiple cameras to increase light sensitivity. They used monochrome sensors for luminance data along with color sensors. Recently that has fallen out of favor as lenses have improved, bigger apertures have become popular, and sensors themselves have improved, from RGBY sensor in the P30 to various quad-bayer arrangements.
lm28469 7y ago
> doesn't let in enough light Most smartphones lenses are f1.8 to f2.5 which is plenty fast. The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. You realistically can't get more than maybe 12 mega pixels of data from a phone sensor, you can't cheat optic laws by adding pixels. This is the new 108mpx sensor used on phone, zoom anywhere in the pic and it looks more like a blurry abstract painting than a picture: https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332/scene03_XiaomiMi10Pro-13.jpg https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332... https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332/scene04_XiaomiMi10Pro-23.jpg https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332... Compare that to a 6x6 camera (40 years old camera/lens) : https://i.imgur.com/eEWx7ln.png https://i.imgur.com/eEWx7ln.png 100% crop on the left tower: https://i.imgur.com/qy157qy.png https://i.imgur.com/qy157qy.png
- ksk 7y ago
  >The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. Please demonstrate how it "blows away" any digital camera with a 80 year old lens. This sounds to me like a completely made up claim without any data behind it. (data != one random image)
  - jashmatthews 7y ago
    Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology than Sony A7 + 16-35mm wide lens. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th...
    - ksk 7y ago
      >Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. In what way? Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses. When it comes to ILCs, everytime there is a bump in sensor resolution, it is entirely possible to extract more detail from the same lens (provided its was a good lens to begin with). And ILCs are still not at the level of pixel density as smartphones, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement. > So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle, and then you have a manufacturing challenge of grinding and polishing an even larger amount of glass, so it doesn't scale linearly like that. >. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th.... That image is very very nice from a compositional standpoint. I respect the work of AA, but I don't feel its rude to point out that it is not particularly sharp by modern standards - the point I assume you were trying to demonstrate? Here's one that even an total rank amateur like me can produce.. which is sharper, with an el-cheapo bargain-bin samyang lens on a non-pro camera body (6d) https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi
deftturtle 7y ago
With a larger sensor, you don't have to compress the image as much, so you can record more detail per unit of area. If you take two pictures of the same scene, one with a small sensor, and the other with a larger sensor, the geometric difference is apparent. Scale a 5 meter tree down to the size of a phone's sensor, and you're having to tightly pack the detail of the tree, to something smaller than your fingernail. But shrink that same tree onto a bigger sensor, or a sheet of 4x5 film, and you don't compress the tree as much. We don't notice the shortcomings of phone sensors until we try to print the photos. They don't enlarge very well. Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified. But you can enlarge that piece of film to 8x10 no problem, and the detail is astounding. If you only look at phone pictures on a phone, then they look very nice, and a piece of 4x5 film is bigger than some phone screens. There are more silver crystals (pixels) in the film than there are pixels in your phone screen, so you can't appreciate the total detail of film on a small phone either. The thing to consider is choosing the sensor or the film size based on how you want to display the image. Then you pick the best camera for the situation, considering cost, convenience, usability, etc. I have worked a lot of different analog film cameras and digital ones, and I've noticed that most cameras can take great pictures. You end up paying more for usability and quality. Pro bodies have dedicated buttons and whatnot, so you can accomplish what you need, very quickly. A touch-screen camera with pure software controls is never going to be for pros, but, cell phones have their moments of better performance for getting the job done. A cellphone camera is like a piano that plays chords but not individual notes as far as usability. A manual camera lets you do what you want and make up new chords. Hope that clarifies the image sensor aspect. Aperture helps, but it can never make up for the constraints of the sensor.
- ksk 7y ago
  > Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified. Have you verified this personally or seen any data on this? I find this claim very hard to believe. I make several 24x36 prints in a year (albeit from APS-C and FF sensors, but sometimes heavily cropped) and 8x10 is a tiny size that should not present a challenge for any modern cellphone's sensor.

by airza 7y ago

I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away

jacobush 7y ago

Sensor size is important because sensor sites are too damn small. Lightfield or similar trickery with maybe 20 regular cameras together with software assemble a larger sensor, could work.

llampx 7y ago
Huawei (and probably others) experimented with using multiple cameras to increase light sensitivity. They used monochrome sensors for luminance data along with color sensors. Recently that has fallen out of favor as lenses have improved, bigger apertures have become popular, and sensors themselves have improved, from RGBY sensor in the P30 to various quad-bayer arrangements.

lm28469 7y ago

> doesn't let in enough light Most smartphones lenses are f1.8 to f2.5 which is plenty fast. The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. You realistically can't get more than maybe 12 mega pixels of data from a phone sensor, you can't cheat optic laws by adding pixels. This is the new 108mpx sensor used on phone, zoom anywhere in the pic and it looks more like a blurry abstract painting than a picture: https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332/scene03_XiaomiMi10Pro-13.jpg https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332... https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332/scene04_XiaomiMi10Pro-23.jpg https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/medias/post-41332... Compare that to a 6x6 camera (40 years old camera/lens) : https://i.imgur.com/eEWx7ln.png https://i.imgur.com/eEWx7ln.png 100% crop on the left tower: https://i.imgur.com/qy157qy.png https://i.imgur.com/qy157qy.png

ksk 7y ago
>The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. Please demonstrate how it "blows away" any digital camera with a 80 year old lens. This sounds to me like a completely made up claim without any data behind it. (data != one random image)
- jashmatthews 7y ago
  Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology than Sony A7 + 16-35mm wide lens. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th...
  - ksk 7y ago
    >Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. In what way? Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses. When it comes to ILCs, everytime there is a bump in sensor resolution, it is entirely possible to extract more detail from the same lens (provided its was a good lens to begin with). And ILCs are still not at the level of pixel density as smartphones, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement. > So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle, and then you have a manufacturing challenge of grinding and polishing an even larger amount of glass, so it doesn't scale linearly like that. >. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th.... That image is very very nice from a compositional standpoint. I respect the work of AA, but I don't feel its rude to point out that it is not particularly sharp by modern standards - the point I assume you were trying to demonstrate? Here's one that even an total rank amateur like me can produce.. which is sharper, with an el-cheapo bargain-bin samyang lens on a non-pro camera body (6d) https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi

deftturtle 7y ago

With a larger sensor, you don't have to compress the image as much, so you can record more detail per unit of area. If you take two pictures of the same scene, one with a small sensor, and the other with a larger sensor, the geometric difference is apparent. Scale a 5 meter tree down to the size of a phone's sensor, and you're having to tightly pack the detail of the tree, to something smaller than your fingernail. But shrink that same tree onto a bigger sensor, or a sheet of 4x5 film, and you don't compress the tree as much. We don't notice the shortcomings of phone sensors until we try to print the photos. They don't enlarge very well. Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified. But you can enlarge that piece of film to 8x10 no problem, and the detail is astounding. If you only look at phone pictures on a phone, then they look very nice, and a piece of 4x5 film is bigger than some phone screens. There are more silver crystals (pixels) in the film than there are pixels in your phone screen, so you can't appreciate the total detail of film on a small phone either. The thing to consider is choosing the sensor or the film size based on how you want to display the image. Then you pick the best camera for the situation, considering cost, convenience, usability, etc. I have worked a lot of different analog film cameras and digital ones, and I've noticed that most cameras can take great pictures. You end up paying more for usability and quality. Pro bodies have dedicated buttons and whatnot, so you can accomplish what you need, very quickly. A touch-screen camera with pure software controls is never going to be for pros, but, cell phones have their moments of better performance for getting the job done. A cellphone camera is like a piano that plays chords but not individual notes as far as usability. A manual camera lets you do what you want and make up new chords. Hope that clarifies the image sensor aspect. Aperture helps, but it can never make up for the constraints of the sensor.

ksk 7y ago
> Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified. Have you verified this personally or seen any data on this? I find this claim very hard to believe. I make several 24x36 prints in a year (albeit from APS-C and FF sensors, but sometimes heavily cropped) and 8x10 is a tiny size that should not present a challenge for any modern cellphone's sensor.