9 ms·
Nokia faked the still photos too
- eckyptang 14y agoThere is definitely something up. The Register got their hands on one but the minders managed to stop them sending the photo externally: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/handson_nokia_lumia_920_windows_phone_8/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/handson_nokia_lumia_... "Alas, the Minders leapt into Red Alert mode to prevent me transmitting the results, you'll have to take my word for it."
- joethompson 14y agoThey are as noted prototype devices – with no announced release date – so it's completely in the realm of possibility that the camera simply isn't ready yet. Of course that doesn't excuse the misleading video and pictures Nokia used to advertise it.
- wisty 14y agoThe one actually marked "taken on a prototype" looks legit - tonnes of ISO noise.
- joethompson 14y agoThe comparisons do make you wonder if they fiddled with the lighting artificially though, some of the differences are surprisingly drastic.
- wisty 14y agoI doubt it. The camera seems to have HDRI. That, a looong exposure time, and a tripod can do amazing things. Plus, it's compared to a photo they took with "a competitor's phone". Even I can take an amazingly crap photo with my camera-phone, it's not hard.
- joethompson 14y agoAh, yeah I guess HDR would do it, slanted comparison nonetheless.
- pedalpete 14y agoI was actually wondering about this, maybe you can enlighten us. Could they not have used external ligthing for the Nokia shot, and none for the competitor shot? How do we know they used the same lighting conditions? Not trying to feed the anti-Nokia, I've always been curious of these types of things.
- drats 14y agoAndrew Orlowski has to be one of the most unreliable troll journalists and last person who's word I will take at face value.
- eckyptang 14y agoI agree and I take things he says lightly, but he's right on this one.
- tribeofone 14y agoThis is too funny. And on top of all this, the sheer comedy of the ad. I mean whats going on here? Is this supposed to be some date night? A couple on vacation? No. Felt more like a guy who somehow landed a girlfriend/date above his league and is trying to get as much as possible on camera to show his friends because they won't believe him.
- CamperBob2 14y agoThat, and the example shots all look like someone picked the wrong LASIK surgeon.
- kleiba 14y agoNo way... Fake pictures in ads? Who would have thought!
- TeMPOraL 14y agoIt's not just a picture IN ad, it's also picture OF what's advertised, and that, at least in some parts of the world, is required by law to be real.
- goblin89 14y agoI guess it depends on the amount of ‘real’. Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps. There's a need for more complex regulations here.
- praptak 14y ago> There's a need for more complex regulations here. I'm not sure about that. The general "don't be a dickhead" rule and the resulting public stink for those who don't follow seem to work ok in this case.
- sltkr 14y agoYou raise valid points, but taking a photo with a professional DSLR camera instead of the phone camera you are advertising goes way beyond post-processing. > Well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps. Sure, but there is a standard procedure to get a photo out of your camera and onto your Facebook page, and that's pretty much the standard amount of processing necessary. I'm more interested to see what the photo would look like if I made it with their camera, than what a professional photographer with a DSLR and a Photoshop license can do with it.
- goblin89 14y agoI've heard[0] that ‘big’ camera makes like Canon or Nikon regularly advertise their products using photos made with completely different equipment. It would be more surprising if Nokia used actual photos made with Lumia in promotion materials, I guess. [0] http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm: “For those of us in the press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos of the D3. They were shot in a studio, so of course Nikon had them shot with an appropriate camera: a $30,000 Phase One P45 back.” Anecdotal evidence, but I'm unable to find another source, so take it with a grain of salt.
- ivanbernat 14y agoWhy so much hate on Nokia?
- zoul 14y agoBecause using fake stills is something people are not happy about?
- LaRakel 14y agoBecause clearly, they lie about what their products can do.
- tribeofone 14y agoThis stinks of Microsoft. Only one of their ad agencies could put together such a soulless dramatization of a couple's date night.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- forgottenpaswrd 14y agoBecause from love to hate there is only one step. When you trust someone or something you don't want to be taken advantage of. A friend of mine loved his Nokia's phones. He always bought Nokia for 10 years during his teenage years because they were very good phones. He had good memories of those times. He wished he could buy Nokia again, get super enthusiastic with the videos and now he discovers that he has been fooled. F*ck them!!
- anovikov 14y agoI can say precisely which lens was used to make that photo: Canon EF 17-40 L USM on a DSLR. Or some other very, very similar lens. No photographer can mistake this for anything. Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-72157628560591547 http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-721...
- neya 14y agoWow. Are you a professional photographer? If yes, nice to see you in here! =)
- cgs1019 14y agoWait...why can you say (very, very precisely) that lens (or similar) was the one used? Because of this other picture? I see no resemblance... Would you mind elaborating? I have no idea what you are implying or why.
- SquareWheel 14y agoThe shine on the lights appear very similar, to me. But I am no professional
- anovikov 14y agoI just mean it is a lens with a very similar optical schema than the Canon 17-40L. The diffraction pattern around light sources is very similar. I played around with this lens some time before with my previous DSLR (now i am a Nikon user) and enjoyed it really. I don't mean it was exactly that lens, but something very close - definitely not fixed f/2.0 cheap lens of a smartphone, that kind of halo with 'rays' around light sources is possible only with a lens having many internal components which will be too thick to fit into a smartphone, and not f/2.0, and of course too expensive for a smartphone. So i fully agree with the article saying it was a fake.
- cgs1019 14y agoGotcha. Definitely didn't doubt the article; just wondering what you meant. Thanks!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jonah 14y ago"Professional driver on closed course." "Screen image is simulated." "Product enlarged to show detail." etc. etc. Yes, yes, we like "truth" and all. Especially when they're selling a camera after all, but getting a great cameraphone image and getting an image that will work on tv are two different things. No real surprise. Maybe disappointment, but no suprise.
- coob 14y agoExcept there's no implying or warning, just outright lying about this being a sample image.
- jonah 14y agoAgreed. They should have small disclaimer text at the bottom. And that's what everyone should be up in arms about, not that they faked it in the first place. I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.
- VMG 14y agoAlso these images are nothing like the images the camera would take. That is like advertising a totally different car than the one you are selling.
- bradddd 14y agoExactly. It's like getting cockpit footage from a nascar and using it in a ford focus commercial.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- myko 14y agoI don't really understand how either is okay, but I would prefer at least the disclaimer. I still find that form of advertising misleading at best.
- yread 14y agoI wonder why did they do that, it was pretty obvious. The second picture looks good enough.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- moneypenny 14y agoI might be able to take that photo on that phone. I would use a high-output continuous light balanced with gels to match the ambient colour, and create diffraction stars by putting a cross filter in front of the lens. I think it's fake too, but I'd have a go at making it.
- digitalengineer 14y agoThere's only one way out of this for Nokia. They need to release new photo's and video's created with the new Nokia Wndows 8 Phone right the f* now. With as much EXIF and/or metadata as possible. If I was Nokia I'd hire the best photographer-artist the world knows and make a big splash about it.
- yread 14y agoMaybe they are planning to do just that. How else would they miss the truck reflection - isn't that way too obvious?
- digitalengineer 14y agoYou'd be suprized how often mistakes are overlooked (mostly due to tight deadlines). Have a look at http://www.psdisasters.com/p/greatest-hits.html http://www.psdisasters.com/p/greatest-hits.html for a good laugh.
- infinity 14y agoOn the other hand, it is very easy to edit and fake EXIF and metadata. Adding EXIF data fields to demo pictures does not increase the credibility.
- digitalengineer 14y agoAll right. How about hiring the best photographer-artist and letting people sign up and co-create photo's with them? Everything will auto-upload to the cloud in the artist's album live. No cheating there and I'd sure go for an experience like that.
- rplnt 14y agoThis is a great idea actually. Take your mobile phone and let's shoot with us.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
- mtgx 14y agoNokia has been very very misleading about pretty much everything their phone can do, from the PureView naming to how the actual photos and videos look like.
- vowelless 14y agoHere is an apology from Nokia: http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/06/an-apology-is-due/ http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/06/an-apology-is-due/ Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6HSbhyaH0vw http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6...
- mtgx 14y agoThey need to release one for the photos, too, now. It's not just the photos from that video, but others as well. This is turning into a PR disaster for Nokia. Companies should remember that ethics and truth pays out in the end. Nokia has been too close to Microsoft lately, and some of Microsoft's habits must've rubbed off on them.
- anonymfus 14y ago>Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920 OIS in Lumia 920 can not be turned off, it's different phone. In presentation they showed photo of special device holding both phones for producing comparation videos.
- jswanson 14y agoEven the apology for being vague and somewhat underhanded is somewhat.. underhanded. Here is the video shown at the press conference shot using a Lumia 920. On the right is a Lumia 920 prototype with OIS. On the left is a smartphone without OIS. The difference is apparent. Notice they specify 'a smartphone'. The wording shifts the focus from the camera to OIS, and then they must have used a completely different phone for the comparison. Weird.
- manaskarekar 14y agoIt could have been an older Nokia Lumia, but they wouldn't want to admit that publicly.
- gvb 14y agoInteresting future tense in the apology: "[W]e produced a video that simulates what we will be able to deliver with OIS." (emphasis mine). When will they be able to deliver?
- Steko 14y agoHow to botch your annual device announcement; you know the one the whole company is riding on by Stephen Elop with a special Forward by the guys who ran RIM into the shitter.
- ioulian 14y agoFunny that people ignore the fake facetime video's of iphone because it's from apple, and keep bashing microsoft because it's microsoft. Fake advertisements, it's nothing new, EVERYBODY does that. Think real
- chucknelson 14y agoApple has a disclaimer about "simulated" images in most of their commercials, and if you look at their dedicated facetime ads [1] where they don't have a disclaimer, you'll notice...that is how facetime actually looks and works. [1] http://youtu.be/RxVzP_OWnDw?hd=1 http://youtu.be/RxVzP_OWnDw?hd=1
- josefresco 14y ago*Sequences shortened
- Ono-Sendai 14y agoA small camera with a small aperture and smaller sensor than a DSLR will produce a greater amount of aperture diffraction than a DSLR, at the same f-value.
- leke 14y agohttp://yle.fi/uutiset/nokia_apologises_for_misleading_lumia_video/6284588?origin=rss http://yle.fi/uutiset/nokia_apologises_for_misleading_lumia_... Confusion? This is deceit! A video of just OIS? The Video states at the end, "This is Lumia". It seems the once honest Nokia has picked up some bad habits from their partnership with MicroSoft.
- antonyme 14y agoWhat's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product. Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.
- manaskarekar 14y agoI think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team. Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one. One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact. What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad, everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.' Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department and how they make it look so good. http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8 http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8
- ajanuary 14y agoIn most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.
- pycassa 14y agoactually, i read some where regarding tips in food photography.. where they dont actually use ice cream.. let me find you the link.. it is more of an advertising thing..
- allwein 14y agoThe gist is that the item being advertised has to be the actual item as offered to the consumer. So in a cereal ad, the cereal featured has to be the actual cereal (even though they may go through hundreds of boxes picking out the perfect corn flakes to use). However, since they're not actually selling the milk that goes with the cereal, they're free to use glue or some other liquid that will let the cereal maintain it's crunch or otherwise enhance photography.
- jcr 14y agoIn case the HN submission of the following doesn't float to the front page, it seems Nokia has apologized for the fake advertisement: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19499879 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19499879 EDIT: The HN submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4483817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4483817
- exDM69 14y agohttps://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578446_10151087026494473_802634455_n.jpg https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578446_101510870... A friend of mine shot this in Helsinki. Low lighting conditions, Nokia style.
- agscala 14y agoWell there you go, case closed.
- youssefsarhan 14y agoThanks. Updated. I'd like to credit him, if he has a preferred link.
- exDM69 14y agoHis request: please add copyright johaee (at) gmail.com. Don't remove the watermark in the image.
- alzy 14y agoThe internet is amazing.
- fardolui 14y agoSite www.standard.at uses photo with almost completely removed watermark - just wanted to let you know (full link http://derstandard.at/1345166647161/Nokias-PR-Desaster-Auch-Fotos-bei-Lumia-920-Praesentation-gefaelscht#TBUserFollowMenu http://derstandard.at/1345166647161/Nokias-PR-Desaster-Auch-...).
- exDM69 14y agoI can't see the photo in there, have they changed it? All I can see is a link to this thread.
- fardolui 14y agoIn the meanwhile they removed it from the article. But here's the link where you can still find the manipulated photo on their server: http://images.derstandard.at/2012/09/10/1345248927798.jpg http://images.derstandard.at/2012/09/10/1345248927798.jpg
- brudgers 14y agoFaking images for a product rollout appears to be common mobile-electronics industry practice. Apple faked a video still from Star Trek and made a fake video of the New York Times for their iPad introduction. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Exposed-As-Liars-in-Faked-iPad-Promo-146566.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Exposed-As-Liars-in-Fak... http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/22/apples-ipad-nytimes-promo-video-shows-flash-again/ http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/22/apples-ipad-nytimes-prom... I wonder if Nokia cross-licensed Apple's patent.
- wklauss 14y agoId argue that there is a difference of intent in these two cases. Nokia is deceiving customers about a specific function or capability (camera) while Apple is just showing a promotional video of the device as a whole. Both cases are reprehensible, no doubt, but maybe I'm the only one who think that Nokia has gone a little too far. Lets think of these in terms of food. Its not the same to show a "perfect Big Mac" in and ad than it is to show a Big Mac thats made with completely different ingredients of the ones you'll find when you order one.
- Splines 14y agoI'd give Nokia a pass if they took pictures in a very optimal conditions to show their products in the best possible light. Heck, I'd be probably ok if they didn't even use a real phone but some sort of prototype that was very, very similar. But using a completely different camera to show "this is what it could look like, maybe" seems like just outright lying. The unfortunate thing for Nokia is that unless their product actually can perform like this they are going to have many disappointed customers. For all we know, the new Nokia phone is actually a potato.
- brudgers 14y agoApple showed the iPad displaying Flash content as a way of showcasing the browsing experience consumers could expect. In addition they manipulated a still image to sell the iPad as a device for watching movies. The choice of a still image was based upon an intent to deceive potential customers about the shortcomings of the 4:3 format of the iPad. In the case of the iPad watching feature films is probably about equivalent to using the camera on a smartphone. On the other hand, browsing the web is a primary function of the device, and there was no way the iPad was getting Flash.
- tripzilch 14y agoSo the final photo in that article is actually shot with the real Nokia phone camera? Because it looks really good. They didn't need to have faked anything.
- esolyt 14y agoI don't understand why they need this. They made a gorgeous and great device. It probably has one of the best smartphone cameras ever. Because of what they did, now everyone is talking about how they faked the photos instead of talking about the phone. A friend of mine even emailed Nokia and asked "Will the Lumia 920 also have the built-in CIV (cameraman in van) feature?" Apologizing isn't going to change anything. People are going to keep making fun of Nokia for a long time about this.
- muratmutlu 14y agoNokia N97 promo video was also riddled with fakeness http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1231464 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1231464
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- imkarthikk 14y agoThis would take a direct hit on their reputation!
- Lightfoot 14y agoWhen I have a look on the photo, I think that the depth has to be remarkably long. That is because the sign "RESTAURANT" looks very clear. In other words small aperture and short exposure time. This is not taken by Lumia camera shot.
- Lightfoot 14y agoKirjoitin jo englanniksi. Katuvalojen lisäksi kiinnitän huomiota kylttiin "RAVINTOLA". Pitkällä valotusajalla se "Neonvalo" tms puuroutuisi. Nyt se näkyy selkeästi eli kyseessä on pieni aukko ja lyhyt valotusaika.