How to Read Novels Like a Professor, Thomas C. Foster |Sony’s PlayStation Now uses custom-designed hardware with eight PS3s on a single motherboard
on January 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm
The lack of native backward compatibility in the new PlayStation 4 was a bit of a bummer when the console was announced, but
promised it had a solution. The company bought game streaming startup Gaikai a few years back, and has been developing the technology to deliver its catalog of PlayStation 3 titles not only to the PS4, but to smart TVs, tablets, and phones. Now the first details on the guts of Sony’s
streaming service are leaking out, and it all starts with custom PS3 hardware that crams eight consoles into one server.According to content partners that are working with Sony to test PlayStation Now, the service relies on a new piece of PS3 hardware. It consists of a single motherboard with the miniaturized components for eight PS3s embedded, each of which can be independently controlled. Sony’s PS Now server farms will be filled with rack after rack of these units to power games in the cloud.
Sony reportedly decided to create new hardware after experimenting with placing retail PS3 units in data centers. However, the space and power requirements to run enough games made this plan fundamentally unfeasible. As an added bonus, redesigning the PS3 hardware to fit multiple units on a single board allowed Sony’s engineers to optimize the console for faster response times. This could save precious milliseconds to combat the latency of playing
over the internet — it could be the difference between a console-like experience and a laggy mess.PlayStation Now will rely on the PS3s in the cloud to do all of the rendering and processing work, which is why Sony thinks it can get PS3 games running on almost any screen with an internet connection. Most titles on Sony’s regular local console platform run at 30 fps with 100-150ms of input lag. That doesn’t leave a lot of breathing room for internet latency — anything over 150ms starts to feel disconnected from controller input. Sony hasn’t said officially how the system compensates for this, but there are whispers.
It is unlikely that the PS3’s cell processor and RSX GPU have been modified in any way on these new eight-unit motherboards. To do so would introduce compatibility issues with the games. The new boards could include a more efficient network interface, though. Without the DualShock 3 controller communicating with the PS3 hardware over Bluetooth, the system could also increase the controller polling rate. If the PS3 octa-boards also include hardware h.264 video encoding, Sony could shave off 16.67ms of lag from the PS3’s HDMI output. Together, this might be enough to make the service usable.2014 is going to be an interesting year for Sony in the cloud. If it can deliver a fluid streaming game experience, it has the catalog to lure a lot of people in.
Grid streaming service is more technically advanced, as it ties in with local rendering hardware, but Sony’s got the games.
Post a Comment
ExtremeTech Newsletter
Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
More ArticlesReading mode:
Now reading:
We lined up for the new Apple iPhone 5s this morning, and Dpreview's Studio Manager Kelcey Smith wasted no time in getting it into our studio, to take a critical look at how its new camera performs.
This is an initial comparison - there's much more on the way. As well as more studio work, we'll be taking the 5S out for the weekend to gather shots for a gallery planned for this Monday. In the meantime though, you can take a look at how the iPhone 5s compares to the competition in our new studio widget. We also recommend checking out our sister site,
which will be publishing additional related content in the coming days.&
You may also like
Most popular (15)Editors' picks (0)DPR staff (2)Oldest first Some say this isn't a camera. Some say it is. Which is it? Does it matter?The device itself is, at its core, a phone. Even the name tells you that. But it's also a camera, a GPS, a calculator, an address book, a word processor, and so much more.If there was a calculator-oriented website (and I'm sure there is somewhere on the Internet), we could talk about this calculator-phone. We could talk about how well it adds up 2+2 and whether the answer it gives is the correct answer, and how long it takes to arrive at its answer, etc. And we could also argue about whether talk about the iPhone belongs on a calculator website.Whatever you call this device, it takes digital pictures, and that is a fact that cannot be denied. Therefore it is a digital photography device, at least partially, and reviews and discussion of it do belong, in my opinion, on this website.Further, I believe that comparisons should be possible with other cameras in the same price range, at the very least.Like0 If one wants to get very technical with definitions, one could argue that this website has never reviewed a camera. 's first definition of &camera& is:&a boxlike device for holding a film or plate sensitive to light, having an aperture controlled by a shutter that, when opened, admits light enabling an object to be focused, usually by means of a lens, on the film or plate, thereby producing a photographic image.& ever reviewed something that uses film or plates to record an image?Today we use the word &camera& to include digital cameras, without bothering to say &digital&. Years ago, users of &real& cameras would not have allowed discussion of any digital camera to enter their worlds, but today, the common use of the word includes digital cameras, which are the main focus of this website. The iPhone has a digital camera in it. As a topic, it is not out of place here. It may not be a dSLR, but it belongs here as much as any $100 point-and-shoot does.Like0 What ever you call it... please not that at the Palm Springs Photo Conference last May, over 400 photographers from around the world entered the slide show contest. A young woman who took photos of people on the street with her cell phone, and a tintype app won. Many of the 400 were professional photographers.Like0 Looking at the 'Print' size the advantages of the Nokia Pureview technology become really obvious: it is a much cleaner and more detailed image. Difference is significant even at these low ISO values, imagine what happens at ISO 400...Like0 The totally differently sized crop for the Lumia and Sony compared to apple due to the different resolution renders the visual comparison more or less useless. It would have been better to set the lumia to an equivalent resolution for this purposeLike0 You can set the image size to &print&, to have the same size for all images.Like2 some say that phone cameras are not real. maybe they also say single-use cameras not real. but these cameras are at least better than some pre-war Leica. the plastic lenses have less aberration than German grinded and polished ones (because the precision technology and aspherical lens design). call it real or not, we have been using better than Leica disposable cameras since 1980s.Like0 also those who call phone camera not real may also want to call Pentax and Olympus not real, because they are really digital Polaroids. they cook photos so heavily that the raw files can hardly be called &digital negative.&Like0 Stop cooking Meth man.Like0 I guess there is a point to this but if you've decided to use a phone as a camera, you've already decided what your priorities are.
It would be interesting to see how much you give up by not using a camera as your camera. Then again, some of the smaller sensor cameras are probably no better than a phone.Like1 You cannot deny that is is a camera that photographers do use. You also cannot deny that it is a camera used by many photographers that also own and are proficient at using &serious& and &professional& gear.Like3 Meanwhile, we all wait for bunch of 'preview' cameras to be tested... what is this site turning into? :|Like0 Not one real camera to compare it to. I don't usually say this kind of thing but this article seems to be a waste of time on a photography website. I feel like someone is trying to sell me a Kodak Instamatic when I came here to buy a Nikon F100.Like3 It's not a real camera. It's a phone with a camera. Makes sense to compare it to other phones with cameras.Is using a smartphone to take photos NOT photography? Is photography a term that describes images captured with x,y,z brands of cameras? Get a grip. If it's capturing still images, it's a camera, and it's photography.Like9 Nice straw man. &It's not a real camera. It's a phone with a camera.& vs. &If it's capturing still images, it's a camera, and it's photography.&So, which is it?Like0 A more relevant note:I don't see any real improvements between
the 5 and 5s it's hard to see any real improvements at Apple lately, hope this chance soon.Like1 There IS an improvement in the non-corner areas. See my dedicated posts.Like0 A few other sites have conducted low-light comparisons of the 5 and 5s and there is a definite improvement.
This scene doesn't tell the whole story.Like0 If you don't see any improvements, you haven't been paying attention.Like0 At best, a modest improvement.Like0 Austrian money at Dpreview.Like0 It is a pity that we can't compare them with the cameras tests!!! I find it would be VERY interesting and informative!!!I wonder why Dpreview excluded that possibility?!? :(Even if we would have to press an extra click to open that possibility!!!Like4 where is nokia lumia 1020 (5 mp)? This is the essence of technology PureviewLike2 I would love to see each phone's rendition of an HDR image as well.Like0 I don't think there's much difference - after all, the so-called &HDR& mode (when present) only provides about 1-2 EV's worth of additional DR but in no way more. Good to have but you'll always need to bracket for the best results as this &quick& HDR can't at all match &true& HDR.. (I have it always on on my iPhone 5, with enabled backing up of the non-&HDR& originals, should the HDR version being messed up.For example, I've compared the stock HDR capabilities of the iPhone 5 to stitching at
, in section &2.1 The stock Camera client&. There is an auto-stitched HDR shot with 8 EV difference and also one made
with the hDR featue of the stock Camera client.Like0 Looking at skin tones on the studio test image. we can see the iPhone 5 and 5s going for a much warmer approach which is actually somewhat pleasing to the eye. The 1020 and Z1 looks for some strange reason render skin tones very similar, albeit the resolution difference. The S4 skin tones seems to like in between the 1020 and the iPhone. Interestingly, I actually like the skin tone gradations between the iPhone and the S4 more than the 1020, and the Z. It feels like both these camera sensor is missing a few bits or something.Like0 Would be nice to be able to compare against standard cameras, too.Like3 Hey, the Iphone 5s looks bad, the best of the lot is the Samsung, it looks not so bad. What agreat add to buy a point and shoot. But I do come from a time when &take a picture of that with your phone&, would make people think you were not well or very stoned. A point and shoot for $100 would more then likely blow these guys out of the water. Anyone who buys a phone for a camera get's what he/she desreves.Like0 &Hey, the Iphone 5s looks bad&Does it? IMHO, it's - apart from the corners - about as good as the GS4. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. The GS4 has definitely better resolution (also because of its lack of an AA filter) but definitely destructive oversharpening. The 5s applies far less sharpening but its effective resolution is lower and the corners are far worse than that of the GS4.&, the best of the lot is the Samsung, it looks not so bad&In the corners (and, when compared to the 1020, in the left/rightmost 7% of the frame), the GS4 indeed is the best. In the remaining 84% of the frame, however, the 1020 has much better resolution and less noise (assuming equivalent downsampled image size).Like0 wow, I did not know the GS4 did not have an AA filter? if so then, does it suffer from Moire effects more than say the Z or does the Z also not need an AA filter. I know some Panasonic m43 cameras do not have an AA filter, but in doing so has a software processor to remove moire effects. It seems to work quite well, but still will not remove moire like an AA filterLike0 I don't know whether the AA filter is indeed fully missing or is &only& too weak.Basically, the GS4 has VERY good effective resolution - and also a lot of (in videos) aliasing / (particularly in stills) color moire. Aliasing is certainly visible for example in the ISO 12233 video
framegrabs over
at GSMArena. Aliasing isn't really present in double-res ISO 12233 stills (including the vertical double-res resolution checker lines of DPReview's studio scene above) - but color moire is much more present than on the 5s or the 1020.Like0 In the case of the 1020, the video recording and alos the stills, as long as it has pureview 5mp as the output, there should be no moire, as moire is a side effect of bayer style sensors. Because the 1020 can combine 7 pixels into one creating a pure pixel, there should be absolutely no moire, even if the 1020 has no AA filter.Do you really see the GS4 as having very good effective resolution? I think even though the charts may indicate good resolution, in real life, the s4 images lack textural detail, and also suffers from a massive edge sharpening phenomena.Like0 In synthetic resolution tests (includin g this one's ISO 12233 reschart lines), the GS4 shines.Of course, real-world (non-BW synthetic) images are marred by NR and oversharpening.Like0 It would be more helpful to compare it to a real camera. Why are the all turned off?Like1 Am I missing something, shouldn't the Sony images be the Z1 rather than the older Z?Like1 The Z1 is a brand new camera. DPRewview may still not have it in-house.Nevertheless, the Z1 produces pretty bad-quality images. I don't think it can beat the 5s / GS4, let alone the 1020. That is, we don't miss much.Like0 What about low-light scene? Is it that horrible?Like2 The Xperia looks god awful, the others look satisfactory, I own the S2 & I have been using it for a long time, would I get any of these phones? no because the difference is not enough yet for me to warrant spending over 500$ for a new phone.Like2 I think the 1020 is a massive jump in pixel IQ and quality over the S2. The only issue is that the 1020 is running Windows Mobile, and not Android.Like2 So is the Samsung S4. They look like coming from the same sensor, watercolor with over-sharpening of edges, just like a normal phone camera.Like0 limlh, the Z has way worse IQ than the GS4. There is just no comparison.Like0 the Z only has worst IQ than the GS4 due to poor image processing algorithms. This is strange since Sony is known to have excellent image processing in their dedicated digicams.It is said that both the Z and the SG4 have the same 13mp sensor, but the optics may be different and the way the image is processed may be different.Like0 The HX series has exactly the same bad IQ. It's indeed the JPEG procession - it just can't make out anything meaningful of the sea of noise.Like0 Nobody seems to be mentioning that the 5S shots are much sharper than the 5 when examining the items in front of the main scene (EG Top left sponge, top right feather). When you look at the items at the 'back' (Such as all the focus charts) the 5S is softer.So what we are seeing is a depth of field difference, or maybe some front focussing or maybe a poor selection of focus point. Some of it 'could' be jpeg artefacts, or noise but I think the culprit is focus / dof.I don't think this one test image alone can conclude which 'is sharper'Like2 I'm pretty sure it's not a DoF issue - after all, the 5s only has a 1/3& sensor, which, with a 30mm equiv f/2.2 lens, still produces very deep DoF (the iPhone 5 has a 33mm equiv lens, which means it would have somewhat shallower DoF if the aperture / sensor size would be the same). Even with the feather &sticking out& a lot, both it and the cardboard would still easily be in focus.BTW, I've closely scrutinized the feather / sponge. What you consider &being in focus& is plain less NR / post-sharpening, which, with pretty much homogenous colors like those of these, results in much better detail retention. Note that I too pointed out (see my posts on the three-color decreasing-charize text) the 5s applies far less NR / post-sharpening than the 5.(contd. below)Like0 (contd. from above)Furthermore, if the background were defocused, the 5s couldn't have beaten the 5 in the three-color text test (my dedicated post & crops at
)All in all, the 5s is in focus. The corner softness is because of the somewhat wider (30 vs 33mm) & brighter (2.2 vs 2.4) lens and 15% bigger sensor area. It'd be impossible to reuse the same (-size) lens of the 5 with the same corner sharpness. Even Nokia couldn't do it while miniaturizing the 808's lens for the 1020.Like0 Those focus charts in the corner are designed to test corner sharpness of the lens. Obviously the main focus point will be the center circle and moire testing charts in the middle.I would imagine DP review would have designed their new studio test chart to be larger, and hence allowing the phone camera to sit further away from the focus plane of the chart. The distance should alleviate the need to correct for DOF.Like0 Both Samsung S4 and iPhone 5 they seem to be equipped with more appropriate lenses, giving sharper images even at the corners, where lumia is the worst than competition.Like4 *facepalms* the other phones use a ton of noise reduction not to mention the lumia is taken at 41 megapixels, the others at 8 megapixels, size it down to an 8 megapixel image and it wins hands down but still looses to the 808 by a tiny bit.Like1 Lumia's superiority is obvious only at high iso, even at 8mp the lens has
light fall off at corners!.Like1 &Lumia's superiority is obvious only at high iso, even at 8mp the lens has serious light fall off at corners!.&???? you mean corner softness & CA, not vignetting, do you?Nevertheless, the 1020 indeed has bad corners / left&right borders. However, in everything else, it wins. Including shooting in bright light like the above test scene (ISO 100 & 1/120s means bright scene): when downsampled to 8 Mpixels, it has considerably less noise than even the (also-downsampled) GS4 or the 5s, let alone the worst of the bunch (the iPhone 5).Again, feel free to read my dedicated writeup here in the DPR forum, where I've proved this all: Like0 @KariIceland
Yes, sizing down to 8Mp will not only reduce noise, but also reduce the corner softness, but as Menneisyys has stated, that even at the reduce 5Mp pureview, the softness in the corners is still of concern, just less of a concern.I also find it annoying there is actually no option to do 8Mp oversampling with the 1020, so you either are stuck with the massive full resolution image, or a much lower resolution 5MP image.I tend to agree that the iPhone and SGS4 do have better corner performance, but one has to remember that the iPhone does have a narrower focal length, which in turn makes it easier to to achieve more consistent sharpness in the corners.Like0 The 1020 has a very wide FoV compared to the iphone. Seeing as size was clearly important to nokia I can see why they went with smaller lenses. Besides, the intention was never to use the full 38MP images, but rather the oversampled 5MP images or even zoom crops from (hopefully) the centre regions of the sensor.I think the 1020 should include an 8MP option like the 808, and I think this is planned for a future update. In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that this is coming, but I can't remember where. 8MP would be nice because you do get that extra resolution, but you also get the amazingly sharp and noise free image that the oversampling provides. Even the 5MP images from the 1020 have way more detail and less noise than the S4/iphone images, and they often look better than the full 38MP image anyway, so I tend to stick to using those for sharing/publishing.Like0 yes the 1020 really does need 8mp modes, since 5Mp is a little low these days.Just to let you know using 3rd party app on the 808, it can capture 12mp pureview oversampled images. Obviously it is not as clean as 8mp pureview or 5mp pureview, but at least there is a solution for those who want a smaller amount of over sampling in favor of higher resolutions.Like0 I think there is a definite improvement. Image from Iphone 5s looks like it comes from a real camera and not a phone. Nokia Lumia 1020 looks very good as well. Sony Xperia Z and Samsung S4 look terrible.Like2 The GS4 is in no way terrible compared to the 5s - actually, it's definitely better in the corners.It does apply more sharpening than the 5s and has some bad aliasing over the Nyquist limit because of the lack of the AA filter but, on the whole, I'd say the IQ of the GS4 isn't much worse than that of the 5s - if at all.Like8 It would seem that we ought to be able to compare 'it' with some 'real' cameras as well as Vlad has suggested.Phones are not dedicated cameras yabokkie and others suggest and have little flexibility in some many instancesLike0 Have to disagree. The Iphone 5 looks better. Compare the cards and colour circle towards the top right. The card next to the Queen of Spades looks cleaner and better defined on the Iphone 5. Look again at the threads. The Iphone 5s has slightly better thread definition, but the colours are off, with red looking like orange (skin colour on the unshaven caucasian is also orange) and the black-white inscriptions are clearer on the Iphone 5. So, definitely not an improvement - objectively speaking.Like0 The S4 actually looks better than the iphone 5s & Xperia ZLike2 &The S4 actually looks better than the iphone 5s & Xperia Z&I wish it applied way less (or at least configurable) sharpening. It has a very detrimental effect on the overall IQ - which, again, isn't at all bad, also thanks to the (seeming) lack of the AA filter.Like0 I would like to compare smartphones with real cameras. Why not add phones and cameras to same single database?Like4 smart phones are not fake cameras, they are all real.Like2 @Vlad4DYou mean, real cameras with real lenses taking real photos ? That would collapse peoples arguments flaunting the superiority of cell phones, it won't be good for the arguments.Like1 There is a lens, there is a sensor, there is capture taking place. So it is a camera.Some people sound like the large- and medium-format die-hards said when that teeny-weeny 35mm film on a roll was introduced. It's not really photography unless you slide it in.Like1 If the closest you can get to a real camera is your phone, then good for you, you won't be asking for more.Like3 I would actually like to see this as well. If we consider phones to be equivalent as point and shoots, I'd like to be able to compare relative performance. I think it makes a lot of sense if I, as a consumer, can decide if the improvements on mobile are good enough relative to a dedicated camera to make either purchase or just stay with one for photographs.Like0 I take my phone with me always. I do not bother dragging my Canon 5D mk III with me everywhere. See the point? The phone will capture shots the DSLR will not because the DSLR was not there when opportunity arose.Like0 I'm not a huge Samsung fan but I chose the Galaxy S4 earlier this year and it's good to see it performs better than most of the competition.Like4 It actually outperforms any of the camera phones except the nokia 808. You made a good call, I own the S2 & personally am going to wait another year before spending hundreds of dollars on a new phone.Like2 Drop it to &print& or &web& size and anyone would be hard pressed to find a difference without reference.Like1 &Anyone&? You meant people without knowledge of photography / image quality.The IQ differences are obvious, particularly in the corners and in the small-text areas (e.g., the bank note and the multirow text at the top)Like1 By anyone i mean anyone whos not looking for differences and shooting in uncontrolled enviroment.
Thats around 90+% of consumers right there. be honest .. When was the last time you heard someone take a picture with camera phone and complain about soft corners?Like3 & Thats around 90+% of consumers right there. be honest .. &Sure, casual users / snappers won't really notice the difference because they don't know much about photography. We do.Like0 IPhone 5s Studio Comparison is very helpful to us.but now iphon 5s is going well in it.so I hope the iphone 5s will go long run.but the user infrared is very good.lets seeLike1 5S corners are much softer than the 5.
This factor negates any improvements in the minimal improvements towards the center.Like1 The lower right corner looks softer than the upper left corner, which suggests that the camera was not well aligned with the object. It's interesting that the Lumias look terrible in the corners, too.Like0 how come only ISO32?Like0 DPReview's target is very brightly illuminated, about 7-10 times of a normal livingroom.Like0 The 5s is not well aligned, check corners. For my tastes the 5s is best in terms of natural reproduction, very good for a smartphone.Like0 think they need a trolley in the studio, which will be also good for checking lens' angle of views in normal usage.Like1 Or more likely the lens elements aren't well aligned, which is more of a QC problem at manufacturer level.Like0 can't understand this Comparison, you take the brand new iphone 5S but the one year old Sony Z, you d'better compare the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S4 with the Sony ZLike0 Nowhere has a patch of green leaves and fluff been more scrutinised than this test scene.Like0 Why didn't you add the Z1 instead of the Z? ;)Like1 Because they still don't have one? It's a very recent handset.Nevertheless, I'm not too bothered. The Z1 seems to be a loser, IQ-wise. I definitely won't purchase it - I'll wait for the Nexus 5 announcement to see whether it really has the G2 camera, with OIS and all the other niceties.Like0 Unbelievable, the Nokia Lumia 1020 outresolves almost all FF cameras except the Nikon D800! For example, if you compare the Nokia Lumia 1020 with the Canon 5D MkrIII you'll get the following numbers:Nokia Lumia 1020: ~3600 LPHCanon 5D MkrIII: ~3000 LPHThis result is even more surprising if you consider that the 85mm Canon lens was set to F/7.1, whereas the Lumia lens was wide open at F/2.2. That is, the Canon lens was operating at the optimum aperture regarding resolution, and the Lumia lens was using an aperture much more prone to degradation by optical aberrations. Even so, the Lumia won.Like6 So does it best the Nokia 808 Pureview in terms of IQ?Like0 I think you're making a false assumption about the &wide open& lens. Basically, all conventional wisdom is off the table here, since this lens doesn't stop down at all, controlling exposure only through digital ISO and shutter speed. That means it's optimized for the only aperture it has -- there really is no concept of &wide open& because there is nothing else.Like0 That's not to say it isn't impressive, of course!Like0 it's an f/8.5 lens in term of 35mm format, piece of cake. some complains about peripheral aberration but quality at the center is much more important especially for digital zoom. it's very impressive for it's a lead camera of a new breed of cameras we are going to have, even for interchangeable lens ones because optical extenders will always perform less as well as digital zoom as long as we have enough sensor resolution.Like0 &it's an f/8.5 lens in term of 35mm format, piece of cake&.I think there is a confusion here. In terms of control of aberrations, an F/2.2 lens is an F/2.2 lens, no matter the size of the sensor. Designing an F/2.2 is not a &piece of cake&. By the contrary, it is very difficult to control the aberrations, especially in the corners.Like0 well &how difficult& is not something I can calculate with high accuracy. it may be more difficult than f/8.5. still f-number equiv. is a good rule of thumb for cost unless we get really close to f/0.5.Like0 The lumia can resolve a lot of detail but the general performance overall is still heavily in favour of the mid to higher end cameras. I can appreciate the detail here but it also misses in other areas of scene reproduction.Like0 Eh no, no it does NOT. What you just said is 100% BS.And I say this as a future owner of that phone (coming in a few days time) But sir you have proven that you have NO knowledge about photography so please just stop claiming things like this, it is utter nonsense.Like0 In the right situation, the Nokia 1020 and it's predecessor, the Nokia 808, would out resolve the 5d3 for detail. I have tested this on the field, and it is the case.This does not mean the 808 or 1020 is a replacement for your DSLR. There are many other factors that affect capturing images, eg dynamic, range, usability,
ergonomic grip, focus speed, high ISO performance, etc. All of these a DSLR will easily outperform the 1020. If you primarily capture landscapes and use a tripod often, the lumia 1020 or 808 will capture an image with substantial detail but not without some digital noise.The optics on both the 1020 and the 808 is really quite amazing being able to resolve good detail at full resolutions without suffering from too much diffraction effects. The 808 goes that little bit further by having
really impressive detail throughout the frame including the corners, while maintaining an aperture of f2.4.Like0 808 & 1020 in terms of image IQ and overall lens performance..Like0 agree vlad0 I still believe the 808 was designed to compete against large sensor DSLR's whereas the 1020 is designed to compete against entry level point and shoot and other mobile cameras.Like0 there's no evidence that the designer of the 808 targetted DSLRs. the pureview technology in the 808 was designed to be able to perform lossless zoom for pictures and video like an entry-level P&S without making the phone bulky. the exceptional image quality at 1x was just an added benefit. read the white paper if you have any doubt.Like0 near all of new features we have on SLRs come from P&Ss, live-view, video, facial recognition, on-sensor PDAF, and many new sensor technologies (any sensor maker should have a firm foot in mobile and P&S market, or fail the competition like Canon).Like0 I can't find my post here in these comments, but I posted detailed images from both the 5 and 5s on my gallery and in the iOS forum, showing both to be rather poor cameras when images are viewed at 100 percent. The tremendous variation in quality across the images at random points are unexplainable.Like0 The skin tones are all over the place. I wonder which looks more like the original?Like0 A quick note: I've posted a detailed comparison of the three-colored varying-charsized text area at the top center to Like0 Sony is junk.
I guess we know where they saved money?Like2 All their small-sensor cameras (e.g., the HX series) are junk, IQ-wise, compared to cameras in the same class (e.g., travel zooms) from other manufacturers (e.g., Pana) with the same sensor size.Like0 it's not really the small sensor but small aperture lens.Like0 Well well, I think we all can agree on one thing. The Lumia 1020 is nocking the sock out of the rest. Having said that the Iphone is better than Xperia.Cheers :)Like0 These complaints are incomprehensible.On a phone, I think these photos are incredible.
The detail on those tiny little cropped samples are amazing....for a phoneLike2 Refreshingly restrained sharpness settings means less artifacts baked in. So I guess that's nice.Like1 The 5s applies less oersharpening as it doesn't need to do as much NR as with the iPhone 5. This is why for example the text rendering (see my just-posted article addition at
) is decidedly better on the 5s than on the 5.Nevertheless, it's still a long cry away from the 1020, apart from the blurred 6.6% part of the frame next to the left/right borders.Like1 A comparison with a Point and Shoot, a super zoom and a DSLR would be useful, I would expect all of these to suck, just like my Nexus 4 does.Like0 Come on - the Nexus 4 has, as is well known, a sub-par camera. It just can't be rightfully compared to any of the high-end smartphones (iPhones, Samsung GS series, Nokia's cameraphones etc).Like0 Did you notice the bunch of hair to the right of center is not there on other cameras (e.g. the S4) :)Like0 Yup, the GS4 shots must have been taken earlier.Like1 Hi, new test scene is very nice. Just wondering though, will you be adding more ISO settings for the mobiles.Also how about the low light mode..Lastly, will you be adding the likes of older camera phones like the Nokia 808, iPhone 4s etc to this new studio test scene?Like0 Overall the iPhone 5s is clearly superior to any of the others.
Add up all the pros vs cons and there is no other conclusion possible to anyone who is objective.
Corner sharpness alone crushes the Nokia.
None will replace my DSLR, Micor4/3 or even my aging G6, but when it's all you've got I'd take the 5s anyday.Like3 If you're an Apple fan, then yes, iphone is the best and clearly superior to others. Otherwise Galaxy S4 is better.Like10 Nothing to do with being an Apple fan. I compared the 4 phones displayed in the article.Like1 Although after glancing at your posting history, it appears that YOUR opinion is one based on being a Samsung fan. A bit hypocritical if you ask me.Like1 Did you check out the Nokia 1020 (both in full size and print size) the difference is just amazing in resolution and color reproduction. Will probably be more noticeable once they add the low light test as well...Like2 I checked them all very carefully and the sponge, brushes and other items look terrible from the Nokia.Like2 It's NOT. Resolution clearly lags behind other 13MP crops of cameras, and has NO manual control whatsoever, lacks OIS.Like0 &If you're an Apple fan, then yes, iphone is the best and clearly superior to others. Otherwise Galaxy S4 is better.&Yup, brent collins is another blind Apple fanboy. Or one that doesn't know anything about photography.1, the GS4 has about the same IQ as the 5s in the center of the frame.2, the GS4 has significantly(!!!) better IQ than the 5s in the corners3, even the iPhone 5 beats the iPhone 5s in the corners! BTW, WRT your assessment of the GS4 being the best, let me disagree, Disregarding the left/rightmost 10% of the frame in 16:9 mode, the 1020 delivers (when all images are downsampled to print sizes) cleaner and better-resolution images.Like2 &I checked them all very carefully and the sponge, brushes and other items look terrible from the Nokia.&If you meant the sponge and the right brush in the bottom right corner, you're right. They're already in the &red zone& of the 1020 - with a native 4:3 shot, the rightmost 6.66% of the frame, that is, 7136 * 0.0666 = the rightmost about 475-500 pixels. Everything in that area (and on the left, of course) is blurred and packed with CA.However, the center of the frame (about 7136 - 2*500 pixels) has much-much better resolution than that of the 5s. Try, for example, reading the text in the three-color English text, with decreasing character size, in the top center! You'll be able to read almost everything on the 1020, while, on the iPhone 5/5s, only the first few rows.Like0 Not it actually is NOT. the 1020 & S4 beat it hands down but the S4 BARELY beats it, apple fan much?Like0 One thing I dislike about Americans is their overtly nationalistic and patriotic attitudes. You know, hand on heart and that &One nation under God& lark. And what do they do, buy phones from a Korean company instead of an American company. Makes me laugh.Perhaps Americans aren't as nationalistic and patriotic as the media makes us Brits believe.Like1 Apple is a US company. 95% of the strategy, design, implementation, execution of their products happen in the US. Manufacturing and assembly of the products may happen outside the country where it can be cheaper and economic.What is wrong with the picture is your interpretation of how high-end products are engineered, manufactured and sold. You are stereotyping based on certain observations and assumptions, making you look childish and foolish.Like3 At least Jonny Ive is a Brit.Like0 Americans have quite open mind that they threw their own TVs into toilet in favor of Japanese and now Korean. they may prefer Chinese, or some made by honey bees or ants if the quality is good and the price is right.Like1 Wow what an off topic comment...I especially find your comment about &one nation under God& kind of the Pot calling the kettle Black, when you and your countrymen say &God save the Queen&.Considering that all your industry is owned by foreign companies (Land Rover and Jaguar owned by an Indian Company, Mini owned by Germany, Aston Martin owned by Ford and other companies)... I don't see why you would choose to make such a silly comment, but to each his own.One thing I don't like about Brits is their bad teeth, but you won't catch me saying this on a forum :)Like1 I think you don't understand the multinational makeup of these products. Neither product is all-American, neither is all-Korean, either.Like1 empty anti-American comments make me laugh. Americans buy the best product at the best price, regardless of who made it, because that's the American way and that's completely FAIR.You must be a true Brit and buy all your products from British manufacturers. Which means you have a Triumph motorcycle and not much else :P :P :PLike0 no, Americans are not nationalistic, they are more laid back.
For example they don't throw TV's out of their windows when their team loses (in any sport) on the international level.Besides, how can they be nationalistic when Americans are ALL migrants. But when it comes to tyranny that they escaped from, they do get pretty patriotic about their freedom.Like0 Enjoyed seeing the last two versions of the S series, 4S and 5S.Like0 Where's the lowlight comparison?Like2 exactly...Like0 Posted a quick evaluation and comparison to the forums here:(Sorry for the link - it's too long a post, I'd have to separate it into several consequtive comments if I wanted to replicate it here.)I only replicate the Conclusion section:- the 5s delivers less noisy images than the iPhone 5- it, however, has somewhat worse corner sharpness than the previous model (as was easy to predict, given that the lens is brighter and the sensor larger, while the lens is of the same size.)- the 1020 delivers considerably better images, both noise- and resolution-wise, than any of the iPhones, if you shoot full-size and downsample on the desktop. Before it’s fixed, avoid using the output in-camera downsampler for serious shooting!- however, the 1020 has definitely worse corner & border sharpness than even the iPhone 5s, let alone the, in this regard, better-than-5s iPhone 5. Shoot in 16:9 and crop afterwards to compltely get rid of the problem.Like1 On
is already cropped (removes top and bottom of the sensor), the you ask to remove left and right, that means you're using the same size sensor as others. Then, what's the point of having a big sensor? The lens seems to be crappy at the borders, I don't see the point of having big sensor with this lens.Like1 yes the corner softness is quite apparent in the 1020. What is interesting though is the SGS4 has the best corner sharpness to resolution, with the older iPhone 5 coming in second. It seems if you want detail across the whole frame, it is easier to achieve using a smaller sensorLike0 DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3. a fair comparison will need 3 rectangles of exactly the same area for 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 and compare the fully overlapped common area. all the sensors will have some parts cut off but the cut off area will be exactly the same (so it's fair for everyone). currently DPReview use a target 1m high which is a fundamental flaw in their test design. but use 1.5 square meter as standard, we will have, 1500.0 x 1000.0 mm2 for 3:2, 1414.2 x 1060.7 mm2 for 4:3, and 1633.0 x
918.6 mm2 for 16:9with the fully overlapped common area 1414.2 x
918.6 mm2 = 1.3 m2 or 86.6% of any sensor.note: the common area is for sensor test only, the non-fully-overlapped areas are still there for lens tests.Like1 &On
is already cropped (removes top and bottom of the sensor), the you ask to remove left and right, that means you're using the same size sensor as others&Wrong - the DPR shots are using the native 4:3 mode of the sensor, which, just like with every multiaspect sensors (also see Pana GH1, GH2, ZS3 and the like) uses far more rows as the native 16:9 mode.If DPR used the 16:9 mode and, then, cropped to 4:3 (this is what I've recommended and you've also assumed), the outermost 10% would have completely gone. With the native 4:3 mode, 6.666% of the outermost region is still blurred.Finally, if you shoot 16:9 and crop to 3:2 (it already gets rid of the blurred areas - you don't need to crop to 4:3), you still have much more pixels (and, consequently, much better IQ than even the 5s / GS4) and a comparable FoV (around 33mm equiv - just like with the iPhone 5 and 5s). That is, cropping 16:9 shots to 3:2 is a usable way of getting high-quality images w/o blur / CA.Like0 &DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3. &Nope, the
*native* 4:3 mode of the 1020 shoots
images. (The sensor being a truly multi-aspect one, the 16:9 mode is of resolution 52. This is why there is a considerably wider blurred area when shooting 16:9 - all horizontal photodiodes are used in 16:9, unlike in 4:3.) No cropping was done.Like0 @Menneisyys, &DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3. &would you kindly read it again please.we should use each of the target rectangles for each aspect ratio. how the maker makes use of a sensor we have no control but we can test them on level ground and whatever the result should be fair.we should not cut off a sensor in a test but if that's not possible for sensors of different aspect ratios, we can cut off the same portion of area of each and compare, like if we compare 86.6% of two sensors and decide they are the same, we can say 100% of them are the same, too (not the lens). DPReview now compares 88.9% of a 3:2 sensor against 100% of a 4:3 one so that if we see two sensors the same in such a setting, we can say 100% of the 3:2 is 0.17 stops better than 4:3.the same applies to 16:9 only the error introduced by test design may be different.Like0 &DPReview now compares 88.9% of a 3:2 sensor against 100% of a 4:3 one so that if we see two sensors the same in such a setting, we can say 100% of the 3:2 is 0.17 stops better than 4:3.&OK, now I understand what you meant. In this case, this didn't cause any problems as all smartphones, except for the multiaspect 1020, are natively 4:3; that is, extreme (true) corner softness can be directly evaluated and compared.(The 1020, while its 4:3 mode uses about 400 pixels less than the 16:9 mode, used its native 4:3 mode as people would do. That is, the comparison to it was also valid.)Of course, with natively 3:2 sensors (those of DSLR's) corner sharpness can't be evaluated / compared based on 4:3 crops.Like0 as for lens test, targets of the same area should also be used (like the sizes give above) for that's the base we can have to measure &sharpness&. a scale could be sqrt(area) or 1224.7mm here for normalized 1.5m2 targets . then it's 115.5% PH for 4:3, 122.5% PH for 3:2, and 133.3% PH for 16:9this also shows that any resolution numbers based on PH are not directly comparable across different aspect ratios. then the &corner& that I think it should also be defined based on area, like a certain portion of area between concentric circles, but a 7x7 grid for all aspect ratios may be a handy method that corner = (1,1), border=(2,2).Like0 The iPhone 5 is a lot better than the 5s for pictures. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?Like4 Only worse in the corners, i think. In the center, it's at least as good as the 5.Like0 I think the same... But pay attention to the ISO. The 5s is shooting at almost twice the sensitivity. I'm not sure why that is so. Did Apple silently raise the base ISO?Like0 &I think the same... But pay attention to the ISO. The 5s is shooting at almost twice the sensitivity. I'm not sure why that is so. Did Apple silently raise the base ISO?&Are you sure about this? The 5s shoots at ISO 32, while the 5 at ISO 50.Of course, these values aren't necessarily the true ones, as has also been pointed out by another comment stating the 1020's shot of exactly the same brightness and shutter speed (the aperture of the two lens being the same) was done at ISO 100. This can even be intentional: We all know how Panasonic? / Olympus? used to
overstate their m43 cameras' ISO to make people think their cameras are far better in low light than they really are.Like0 This is shockingly UNBELIEVABLE but true.All the 4 corners of the Lumia 1020 image are total CRAP nightmare..Like5 Your right. However, the rest of the image is great and the whole point of a 40 megapixel image is that you will crop the image.Like3 &All the 4 corners of the Lumia 1020 image are total CRAP nightmare.&Shoot in 16:9 and CROP.Like1 yup, Lumia 1020 is pretty much overhypedLike0 &yup, Lumia 1020 is pretty much overhyped&again, the 1020 is only worse in the corners / around the borders. In the rest of the frame (with 16:9 shots, 80% of the entire frame) it's CONSIDERABLY better than even the 5s.You only need to crop in post and compose your shot accordingly.Like0 I don't want to crop the 1020, why should I. I want it sharp in the corners or not at all.Like2 No, the point of 40 MP is absolutely not to crop the image. That would mess with the focal length and cheat the user, causing a host of problems such as seeing something on the LCD that doesn't represent what will be usable.No camera assumes that the end-user should take care of cropping horrible lens weaknesses.Like1 &I don't want to crop the 1020, why should I. I want it sharp in the corners or not at all.&Well, then, you can have the 5s or the SG4, which are way worse in the center. Or any other cameraphone - all of them being worse than the 1020.Your other choice, with perfect corners, is the 808 if you can live with the lack of OIS / full manual mode / a modern OS. Unfortunately, in the camera world, you have to live with limitations. You can't have great IQ in a small body.Like1 &That would mess with the focal length and cheat the user, causing a host of problems such as seeing something on the LCD that doesn't represent what will be usable.&Well, a photo-savvy user wouldn't be bothered by this recommendation. They already know few lens are tack sharp in the corner and already crop when necessary if stopping down during shooting doesn't help / must be avoided to have as shallow a DoF as possible.For non-tech savvy people, nothing is required - after all, they may not even notice the corners being bad.Like0 @Menneisyys. If one has to crop all the 1020 images to avoid soft corners, what is the approx new focal length of the 1020?Like0 if you shoot 16:9 and only crop 10% on both sides, about 31-32mm equiv. that is, still somewhat wider than the iPhone 5 - but already narrower than the 5s or the GS4. (Assuming the 5s indeed has a 30mm equiv lens, that is, the EXIF data is right.)Like0 thats alot of loss focal length!. Even thoug 32mm is still considered as wide angle, the iPhone at about 35mm not that far off, and you do not need to pos process crop every single image captured!.Think the 808 is still the 41mp champion imhoLike0
Total: 83, showing: 1 & 50
Latest reviews84738485 &
Finished challengesInsect Predators Face Off by Michael L NYC 99from Insects in Flight #250th Annual Custer Buffalo Roundup by poppyjkfrom National flag &
Most popular cameras &
Top threads8482574941373635312626262626242423232322
Editorial content
Product database