Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Communications Hardware

Samsung Producing 5 Megapixel Camera Phone 177

Posted by michael from the convergence dept.
Shippy writes "Straight from Yahoo News on the other side of the pond comes a story about Samsung's latest creation: a five-megapixel camera phone. This is pretty cool considering it's a pretty big jump from the camera phones that are currently available (many max out around 1.5 megapixels). It's expected to be available by the end of the year, but only in South Korea. I doubt it'll take long for a domestic carrier to pick up on this hot new toy." Other readers submitted a closeup picture and the company press release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Producing 5 Megapixel Camera Phone More

Samsung Producing 5 Megapixel Camera Phone

Comments Filter:

  • 5MP is still crap if the flash sucks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VE3ECM ( 818278 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:32AM (#10585657)
    ...has a charge-coupled device camera and high-sensitivity flash which allow users to take high-quality pictures. It can also function as a camcorder.
    One of the biggest problems of camera phones is poor flash (if the phone has one AT ALL).
    Until phone manufacturers make phones with a good quality Xenon strobe flash, 5 MP still doesn't mean anything if the lighting conditions stink. (See this month's issue of PC World for a little blurb on possible developments of Xenon strobe flashes in camera phones.)

    • Re:5MP is still crap if the flash sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iezhy ( 623955 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:38AM (#10585751) Homepage
      yea, thats true

      and there's is one more reason why it will suck - the sharpness of the picture depends largely lenses quality. And i doubt that smasung will bother putting high quality glass lenses on mobile phone

      so it will wnd up with 5mp photos blurry photos with losts of noise
      • Good point.
        I could see SonyEricsson sticking Carl Zeiss lenses in their phones, though...
        Of course, it still means squat when the phone gets slid in and out of someone's pocket so much that the lens gets scratched. Scratch coating only protects so much.

      • Re:5MP is still crap if the flash sucks... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Archibald Buttle ( 536586 ) <steve_sims7@yah o o .co.uk> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:52AM (#10585949)
        The press release says that the phone is, in part, the result of a collaboration with Pentax, who have some considerable experience in making camera lenses.
        • While Pentax make better lenses than Kodak, when I studied photography at college (quite a while ago) we did resolution tests between various 35mm SLR cameras. While Pentax and Nikon did quite respectably, an Olympus with a Zeiss-Ikon lens was streets ahead, with comparable quality to 2 1/4 inch cameras.
        • Many people seem to think that MP is directly proportional to image quality. Not so. The MP is part of the equation, but mostly tells you how big your pictures can be (print sizewise). The real quality lies in the image processing capability, the size of the CCD, and the kind of lens that the camera uses.

          More information here [pcmag.com].
    • With the recent advances of high lumen output LED's and LED arrays, I would think it would be advantagous to move in that direction for a flash instead of a Xenon strobe flash. Makes sense from a power standpoint.
      • I thought that, too... until I read the PC World article... seems that there's been some advances in charging a small xenon strobe that doesn't eat a lot of battery power...
        Of course, if you're taking so many flash pics with your phone that you're killing the battery, maybe you should invest in a real digicam...
    • One of the biggest problems of camera phones is poor flash (if the phone has one AT ALL).
      Until phone manufacturers make phones with a good quality Xenon strobe flash, 5 MP still doesn't mean anything if the lighting conditions stink. (See this month's issue of PC World for a little blurb on possible developments of Xenon strobe flashes in camera phones.)

      I understand the general populous plays by different rules, but photographers avoid using a flash whenever possible. Natural light is more ... well natura
    • I'd say the whole goddamn camera phone is going to suck.

      The tendancy: ALL camera phones are going to suck. Digicams will suck less. DSLR's will suck just a little. Expensive DSLR's will suck a tiny bit. DSLR's with expensive optics won't hardly suck at all.

      What's the point of making a big ass 5MP file when the optics AND the sensor (size) sucks? Planning on blowing that up to 8x10 and framing it? No one does that with point-n-shoot pictures (or, I hope not). People are FAR less inclined to print d
      • Oh, it'll most certainly suck. But one bonus of these tiny, tiny focal length cameras is that one barely needs to focus at all. Hell, it probably doesn't even have an AF system and is set to it's hyperfocal distance in the factory. There would be none of that painful shutter lag so prevalent in digicams.

        Sure, no-one with a deep interest in photography will ever use this toy, but for someone who's only ever used a cheap 35mm P&S it'll do the job.

        Oh, and offtopic, but if anyone from a camera company is
        • I can't comment on the specifics since I didn't bother reading the article. :)

          However, yes, it probably doesn't focus - just extra crap to engineer and manufacturer only to have break cause it's a rough-and-tumble phone.

          And yeah, no one's using this to shoot the cover of Vogue. However, I stand by my assertation that "5MP" is pure marketing. On the flip side, though, they either had to increase the amount of memory, increase the amount of JPEG compression on the files or decrease the advertised number y
    • If the lighting conditions stink, you can't make a good picture with flash anyway. Even if we are talking about decent stand-alone cameras. I'd rather make a pic with less exposure (more noise), but decent colors and more natural lighting.
    • I assume that this means 5 million picture elements. Arranged in some sort of rectangular pattern.
      But does it mean 1600 lines of 3000 pixels in each line? And if so, what is the resolution of each pixel? Is it 24 bits per pixel? That is, 8 bits of resolution each color red, green, blue ( or the equalivant three primary colors for recording images rather than generating images) like VGA? Or is it 4 bits per pixel with a predefined palatte of color shades?

      Before everyone jumps on my case and calls

  • Phone camera? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by theluckyleper ( 758120 )
    Getting philosophical on Thursday morning: At what point does it cease to be a Camera Phone, and become a Phone Camera? 5 megapixels seems like a good place to start. You could definitely use this as your "main" digital camera, and occasionally use the phone functionality, as needed.

    For people like me who rarely use a cell phone, and don't really want one, a Phone Camera might be the ideal solution!
    • I think though, the vast majority of people with camera phones have them as phones first, cameras second. I would say though, that if I bought this device, I would be buying each function equally.
    • Even a blackbox with a pinhole and a strip of film taped in the bottom is a camera. To be a camera I would use, it must give 8x10's sharp corner to corner, ISO 6400, and an under f/2.8 lens capable of resolving over 50lp/mm; anything below those specs is a gadget/toy.

    • Re:Phone camera? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Nikon has a great SLR phone camera coming out..

      you just look a little silly holding a SLR with a 300mm lens up to your head when answering it.

    • Re:Phone camera? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cyngus ( 753668 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:55AM (#10585994)
      Although somewhat redundant of the first reply I think that it will always be a Camera Phone, because people are going to use it more as a phone than a camera and therefore the phone functionality will always been more important. I am a big believer in devices doing one thing and doing it well. If it can do other things well, then do them, but don't half ass it. Digital camera technology isn't quite to the state where you can shove it into a phone and have it be good, the miniturization isn't quite there yet. In two or three years I think that phones and cameras will essentially be one device because both functions are best if mobile, who wants to take pictures of their living room?
    • You could definitely use this as your "main" digital camera, and occasionally use the phone functionality, as needed.

      I'm sure many people would be happy with it as their main camera, but if I'm going to bother taking and storing 5Mpixel images, I wouldn't want to settle for the optics on this unit. The press release doesn't say anything about the specs of the lens, but that photo shows a slider with icons for "flower", "head shot", and "landscape", which suggests that it uses zone focusing. And if it ha

    • At what point does it cease to be a Camera Phone, and become a Phone Camera?

      When it has a real lens. And optical zoom. In other words, probably never, they're just too expensive and too big to make it into something like a cell phone.

      5 megapixels seems like a good place to start. You could definitely use this as your "main" digital camera, and occasionally use the phone functionality, as needed.

      Sure, whatever, as long as you don't mind that you're looking at five million pixels of blurry plastic lens,
    • Here's my combo idea.
      Instead of camera + phone, do camera + GPS.

      It stamps each photo with the GPS co-ordinates plus compass heading the camera is pointed at. When you get home and download the photos, some software looks up the location and direction the camera was pointing at and gives a reasonable name to the picture. Not always going to be exact, but should be able to at least title things like "GrandCynNorthRim05.jpg" or "ElCapitanSunset03.tiff".

      Second step is there is a web site you can upload your
    • Seriously, the most important part of a camera is the lens. A phone camera would be obvious. The lens will be relatively large. It's location will be optimal for taking pictures. The phone functions will be squeezed around it. This is still a camera phone. Despite the megapixels, the lens is tiny. The camera functionality is squeezed around the phone functions.

      It is closer then earlier versions though. It looks like one should be able to hold the unit properly when taking pictures. You will have h
    • ...easy, really ;-)

  • Yuck... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by G-Licious! ( 822746 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:32AM (#10585666) Homepage
    That's starting to look more like a camera with a phone builtin than the other way around. It looks rather big. And it's not really a pretty design either.

  • The phone should work in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stecoop ( 759508 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:33AM (#10585670) Journal
    Did anyone notice that the phone uses cdma2000. Carriers such as Verizon, Sprint and US Cellular use CDMA so this phone will work in the US. But the last time I tried to hookup a privately owned CDMA phone with Sprint and US Cellular they refused stating that if it didn't have their company name on the phone then they would activate it. I would hat to spend probably a grand (couldn't find the price) on the phone and not be able to use it. Then again, I don't know which is worse, I would hate going with a mobile phone carrier that wouldn't allow me to activate it.
    • That's why I just LOVE GSM: you don't ask the provider to enable your phone, you just get the SIM-CARD out of your old phone, and stick into the new one. Subscription info and phone book carried over to the new phone.

      Heck, this even allows one to have an expensive phone (say a P900) for day-to-day, and a cheap one for hiking, cycling, etc ... Just swap the SIM-CARD and off you go ...
      • too bad GSM lags behind in features, bandwidth, and Call Quality, i would love to see SIM-Card style activation in CDMA phones.

      • get the SIM-CARD out of your old phone, and stick into the new one. Subscription info and phone book carried over to the new phone.

        Did that when I upgraded from my V60 to my V300, and LOST ALL MY PHONE NUMBERS!!!

        And I asked, before the guy in the store pipped my sim out of my old phone and into my new one ...

        Almost 2 months later, and I still don't have all the numbers back (people call me to ask why I haven't called them in so long - am I avoiding them?, and I explain that I lost their number when I u

        • Moral of the story: I need to back up my phone once in a while. Whodathunkit?

          I had to create some extra users on my powerbook, so I could have the new address book/iSync capabilities to back up my brother's phone and my fiancee's phone when they switched from AT&T to Verizon. The old AT&T phone was a motorola v60 and the new phone was the t720c from Verizon, thanks to the USB cable and iSync.
        • Next time, put the numbers into your SIM card. As you say the phones have the option of storing the data in either the SIM or the phone. I have a crappy siemens phone but even it lets me put them in the SIM and when I finally get a real phone all I have to do is swap the card over. Bingo! Done.
          • I believe they were in the sim card (but I could be wrong), but that the software in the new phone book stores them differently - instead of having one phone book, there are 4.

            Of course, that's moot now. My new phone gives me the option of storing different numbers either in the sim or in the phone, but I still should have backed them up (or at LEAST written them on a piece of paper, or gmailed them to myself, or SOMETHING. Boy, was I stooopid.

            Anyway, I'm giving the old phone to one of my daughters, since

    • Re:The phone should work in the US (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Speaking as a former wireless carrier employee, I can give you a the reason (as explained to me by a tech supt agent when I tried to activate a phone from different carrier for a cusotmer) why this isn't allowed: Every wireless carrier keeps a "master datebase" if you will, of all the Cellular ESNs that are "approved" to connect to the network. The ESNs are supplied to Wireless Carriers by the Phone Manufacturers as production lines go out the door and into stores, so by the time a customer picks one off a

  • Careful! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 2.7182 ( 819680 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:33AM (#10585673)
    The definition of megapixel is slippery. Sometimes these companies allow for interpolation for some reason (they are liars!). Some camera, such as the Foveon, only have 3.1 megapixels but behave like a much higher megapixel camera. This one I can't tell about what is the reality.
    • The story with the Foveon is that it has a fundamentally different way of forming a color image. Current cameras use what is called a Bayer pattern, where the pixels more or less alternate between being red greed and blue, and interpolation is used to get the full RGB value at each pixel. The Foveon camera actually has 3 separate chips for the RGB. So actually most cameras that say 6.1 m color are 6.1 m b/w in some sense.

  • Only useful if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:33AM (#10585681) Homepage
    You can get the pictures off the damn thing.

    I recently got myself a Motorola v220. Got a cute little 640x480 camera on it. Only problem is the only way to get the photos from the phone to my computer [or any other storage] is to either buy the 70$ software from motorola [that should have come with the phone] and run windows [something else I don't do] or pay 5 cents per kilobyte to email myself the picture.

    So 5M pixel camera is likely to make "slightly larger" files. If I want to pay a couple of bucks to get each photo off the camera this might be a good idea.

    Best thing they can do is make the thing act like a usb-disk to get maximum portability.

    Tom

    • Re:Only useful if... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you have a Samsung E700 phone, here's a useful article telling you how to get pictures off your e700. Its free.

      http://www.samsungexplore.com/talking/tech_explain ed/tech_article02.html [samsungexplore.com]
    • Hey, a phone communicates with towers via wireless, right? So, the most logical way for it to communicate with a computer would also be... wireless. My phone (Sony Ericsson T610) has Bluetooth support, so all it takes is a Bluetooth USB dongle and I can easily access the pictures via OBEX file transfer.

      I'm amazed they still make expensive phones without Bluetooth support.
      • My phone (Sony Ericsson T610) has Bluetooth support, so all it takes is a Bluetooth USB dongle and I can easily access the pictures via OBEX file transfer.

        I'm guessing that you're not a Verizon [slashdot.org] customer? They have a habit of crippling Bluetooth features of their phones in the US.
      • I'm using an *old* Nokia phone and Cingular service. Would like to stay with Cingular, but I want a bluetooth camera phone, and they seem dead-set on not allowing that. They did, for awhile, carry one on their website, but in order to get that phone, they want to raise your monthly rates by $10 to have some special feature - and that's the point of the bluetooth, I don't think I should *have* to trasfer my pictures via their system. Bluetooth should handle that. Similarly, I should be able to back up th

    • Re:Only useful if... (Score:5, Informative)

      by orbital3 ( 153855 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:12AM (#10586181)
      I'm studying in Japan this semester, and I've seen tons of phones here far more advanced than those in America. To address your concern, though I don't know about the Samsung camera in particular, alot of the phones here with 1-2 megapixel cameras have flash RAM sockets for storing/retrieving pictures. I would imagine such would be the case for this new camera as well.

      And in response to the "it should be imported any time now" comment, I would have to say that's highly unlikely. The phones here that have features we in America wouldn't even dream of. Everyone here has 1-2 mpixel cameras, and some phones even have videophone capabilities; Hell, this one [sharp.co.jp] even has a TV/FM tuner built in! I actually held it in my hand, and watched TV on a cell phone. In-freaking-credible. But seeing those kinda phones all over the place here, and nowhere in America, I'd have to say the creation-to-import lag is quite high.

    • Best thing they can do is make the thing act like a usb-disk to get maximum portability.

      Or have it use some kind of removable media. I want Sony to make a good phone / PDA / camera / Mp3 player that uses memory sticks. The latest in that product is a 1GB "high speed" mem stick. Surely that's enough to handle those three tasks.

      But I agree, it also needs to be a USB reader.
    • Get a real carrier that doesn't charge on a per kb basis for data. Cingular and SprintPCS all have unlimited plans for photos/data, T-Mobile has unlimited for data, 20/photos for $3 or $4 /month and like $.25 each after that.
    • Never by phone without IRDA or Bluetooth. IRDA and BLUETOOTH have standards of object exchange (OBJEX) while cables don't.

      I never have problems transfering pictures from my phone (which, of course isn't Motorola) using ircp.

  • And what of battery? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bugbeak ( 711163 )
    And what of battery life? Sure, if you're a regular user, you'll be charging your phone after a day's work, but what if you don't? Most phones these days have anywhere between 2 and 4 hours of talktime. What happens when you throw in a 5MP camera into that equation?
    • No, this is a feature.

      Also known as the "get-all-those-jerks-off-the-phone-while-at-the-tr ain-station-quickly" mode when you camera is enabled. ;)
    • Good question. It's certainly one of the major reasons that palm-based devices couldn't get their foot in the door in the pda-phone-camera market. That and, I suppose, that the picture quality wasn't there, back then.

  • Not into Samsung phones (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They like putting these little rubber pads over the recharge contacts, so you have to remove them before putting the phone on the charger. They aren't connected to the phone, as they easily could be, so they are easily lost. You have to pull them off with a little rubber tab. The tab gets worn out and pulls off, and then it takes some work with a pin or pencap every time you want to remove the rubber pad. And the recharge contacts don't look they would do well in a pocket full of change, lint et cetera.

  • What's your definition of long? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kryonD ( 163018 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:39AM (#10585765) Homepage Journal
    ...I doubt it'll take long for a domestic carrier to pick up on this hot new toy

    Uhhh....where have you been for say, the entire history of the wireless world? Japan and South Korea have consistantly been about two years ahead of the US in this technology. The blame almost surely rests on the shoulders of the carriers, with about 25% of that being the consumers fault. Why would Motorola spend big dollars licensing that tech when consumers are still perfectly happy shelling out $300 for phones with 0.3MP camera's in them? The same argument applies to the rest of the market.

    We, the consumers are locked into a rut where we don't quite have the money to start pushing the 6 month product cycle. Until we start upgrading our phone everytime a new model comes out, the carriers are still going to maintain high prices with slow product upgrades. Right now the mentality is that the average cell user signs a year contract and then never upgrades the phone during that year. With no drive to upgrade, there is no drive to innovate. With no innovation, there is no competition. With no competition, prices will stay rediculously high. And we, the consumer, will keep paying $300 for 2 year old technology.
    • We, the consumers are locked into a rut where we don't quite have the money to start pushing the 6 month product cycle. Until we start upgrading our phone everytime a new model comes out, the carriers are still going to maintain high prices with slow product upgrades.

      You're right about the blame ratio. Still, most consumers can't upgrade their phone every six months because virtually all US carriers lock consumers into a two-year contract by offering subsidized phones. Breaking the contract means you st
  • It would be pretty awesome if it could stream video off a network and into your TV in real time. Or even just to use as a monitor for your recording. (Though it would need some decent storage space.) Looks decent, even if a bit bulky it's acceptable camera size for me. I wonder if it's programmable, just get MAME on it like those DIgita OS [mame.net] cameras could do and you'd have a pretty geeked out hybrid going on. Hell, throw in an mp3 player too for good measure.

  • Mostly hype (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:42AM (#10585812)
    Everyone looks at the number of megapixels, while almost no one ever thinks about the optics. Even if they cram a billion megapixels into that thing, the pictures won't be very good if they're using a tiny little fixed focus lens. Even more so given the likely quality of that lens.

    "Quality like a top-end digital camera", indeed.
    • That and it has a fixed focal length. Camera phones generally don't have room for zoom. OK, zoom isn't always advantageous, but for the typical public, I think it is necessary, short of using a camera with modular lenses. People that use modular lenses wouldn't use this phone anyway.

    • I have a 1.3 MP Fuji camera and it's o.k. I actually bought it because I figured Fuji would have a better chance of doing reasonable optics than Panasonic or Sony.

      The odd part about it is that it has a tiny little lens, the kind you'd see in a cameraphone. The only problems appear in shots with low-lighting and no flash, or where the flash can't reach. I.e. what you'd expect... a lack of light-gathering ability. But for the vast majority of shots, it's o.k., and 1.3MP pictures aren't bad to deal with.

    • Everyone looks at the number of megapixels, while almost no one ever thinks about the optics.

      Speaking from a purely film camera perspective, since I've not yet bought a digital ...

      I recently upgraded to an SLR from a little point-and-shoot camera because I routinely exceeded the capabilities of the lenses in certain contexts (zoom, low light, fast motion) and it was really annoying me.

      The difference in optics between a 35mm SLR and a 35mm point-and-shoot is huge. Unless they've come up with some reall

  • So is that a Samsung Anycall in your pocket, or are you just really happy to see me?

  • its a waste if thats its only selling feature, it would need a decent lens and a flash plus none of this extra crappy software and USB cable you have to buy in order to use it like a camera.
    My dad recently got a SAGEM camera phone, it doesn't work with macs and SAGEM have told me they are not going to release anything in the foreseeable future for the mac. Its only good now for showing people in the pub or at work rather than transfering any of the photos off it.
    Good job he bought himself a real camera

  • mobile cameras everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davejenkins ( 99111 ) <slashdot@NOSPam.davejenkins.com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:44AM (#10585840) Homepage
    There is a problem with everyone having cameras at all times (on their phones): everything, EVERYTHING becomes a photo moment, with the requisite posing, commentary, and "destruction" of the real connection with whatever you were trying to experience.

    Everywhere I go (here in Tokyo), everyone takes pictures of everything, all the time. This turns a simple lunch, night out with drinks, or my wedding party into an extended photo shoot, with everyone taking turns shooting a group photo with their mobile phone/camera. It never occurs to anyone there is this thing called the Internet through which they could share one nice picture among else. *sigh*.

    5M pixel cameras will only worsen this problem-- all of those people who (before) only took quick stupid shots because they knew the quality was poor will (now) switch to shooting entire photo albums from the minutae of their sardine-packed train commutes.

    There are phones here with TVs in them, but my favorite is the karaoke phone [vodafone.jp]
  • ... voyeurs that want to take high quality pics of women they'll never get to talk with :(
  • ...on the other side of the pond...

    Just FYI, "across the pond" always refers to the Atlantic Ocean.
    • And 'across the pond' is pretty meaningless on the internet, save the slightly higher pingtimes.

      Slashdot is an international site read by an international audience, like it or not.

    • Just FYI, "across the pond" always refers to the Atlantic Ocean.

      In Atlantic countries that may be true.

      Meanwhile in the Pacific "across the pond" means "across the Pacific". That is why Telstra calls their ISP business BigPond [bigpond.com.au].

      .

      Our ocean is bigger than your ocean.

  • Seriously, who else actually needs a camera phone? As if cellphones weren't already sufficiently annoying.
    • I don't know either what is the whole point having a cellphone combined with a 5 megapixel camera. I can't imagine someone really in the rush to send a 5 megapixels picture over cellphone connection showing himself frying some ants with a magnifier?

      Except photo-journalists, I just don't see what is the point. And even photo-journalists may prefer specialized cameras instead of a all-in-one or one-size-fits-none clunky thing.

      Have we reach the point where we just don't know what to do with all this bandwidth

    • Seriously, who else actually needs a camera phone?

      You find uses for it. For example, the other day, I noticed I lost one of my hub caps on my car. I'd originally bought them in Target, but knowing they have several similar looking models, I take a pic of the ones I have so I can match them and have a few spares.

      Along the same lines, my GF asks me to pick up some haircare/ facial/ random feminine product. They all look the same to me, so I grab the bottle/can/box and take a pic. Also, fresh herbs and sp

  • a few more pictures (Score:3, Informative)

    by jstave ( 734089 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:46AM (#10585876)
    Here [engadget.com] are a few more pictures of the device.

  • megapixels, shmegapixels... GIVE ME OPTICS! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steevo.com ( 312621 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:47AM (#10585887)
    A high pixel count is great, but if you want a good picture, you need good optics.
    • if you want a good picture, you need good optics.
      ...which need a lot more space than those tiny lenses built into mobile phones. That's just one of the reasons mobiles can't replace real cameras.

      I'd rather carry a small mobile and a decent camera with me than a device which makes bad pictures and is a pita to call someone.

      • Re:megapixels, shmegapixels... GIVE ME OPTICS! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:35AM (#10586556)
        if you want a good picture, you need good optics. ...which need a lot more space than those tiny lenses built into mobile phones. That's just one of the reasons mobiles can't replace real cameras.

        Aren't fluid lenses [dpreview.com] on the verge of revolutionizing the size (or lack thereof) of digital camera's?

        Even if they aren't, I would never use the expression "can't" when it comes to technology, and especially not when it comes to the size of lens systems. After all, nature has demonstrated that lens systems can be versatile, high-quality, and positively tiny. If nature can do it, eventually we'll do it too.
        • Aren't fluid lenses on the verge of revolutionizing the size (or lack thereof) of digital camera's?
          Although they certainly sound interesting (and useful), I don't think that they address one of the primary problem with small lenses: a small lens can't gather as much light as a large one. That's a physical limitation, and one that we can't just get around.
  • now my sneaky bathroom phone pr0n will be less pixelized!

  • At this point, wouldn't having a good digital camera that included basic cell phone capabilties be smarter?

  • Cool, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:49AM (#10585919) Homepage
    Putting a camera in a phone is cool, but putting a GPS in a phone would be cool AND useful.

  • Verizon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:53AM (#10585969)
    I bet Verizon picks this up.

    Of course, they'll reduce the camera to 2.0 megpixels, cripple the OS, and in addition to the half dozen Verizon logos on emblazoned on the phone, they'll make sure there's at least another half dozen built in to the phone, usually doing something incredibly obnoxious, like alternating displays with the clock...

  • Megapixels are the latest Megahertz (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xtal ( 49134 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:56AM (#10586012)
    The rush to higher density CCD's is insane.. but it's an easy number people seem to be able to understand. The optical lenses used are often much more important once you go beyond a certain threshold, e.g. 3-4MP. What's next, a 8MP camera phone? Why?

    Camera phones have a limited ability to hold focusing and zoom lenses, and the sooner people understand this the better.

  • More to come very soon? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by madprof ( 4723 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:00AM (#10586062)
    The end of the article says this:
    "South Korea's top mobile carrier, SK Telecom, said it would introduce 10-megapixel camera phones produced by Samsung by the end of this year." If this isn't a mistake then this is quite a staggering rate of change in camera phones.

  • Not being an optics expert, I still have to wonder whether the quality of pictures from a 5 mp camera will be wasted with the typically small and cheap-looking lenses on these phones.

    Is this going to be an issue on these devices, or have manufacturers been able to mass produce high quality optics so that even 16 megapixel cell phones will be affordable and useful?

  • Cool, another camera I can't own because I can't take it to work for security reasons. Thanks Samsung!

  • 5 MPs is bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:09AM (#10586157)
    Tell me - if you put a black panel against white wall and snap it in the focus - how many _pixels_ would the border be? 10? 20? 100?
    BTW - the simple rule is that you need only 1 MP per 10 sq.in. of print for _critically_ sharp images, i.e. those that best of modern printing equipment can realistically produce. For printing in your photolab (moreso inkjet) you can divide that by 4 safely. The question is that all those MPs from the camera are somewhat fake, see above.
    PS: What's the matrix size of that phone, anyway?

  • Lens? (Score:2)

    by ceeam ( 39911 )
    What about the lens? How many glasses does it have for instance? What's the speed?

  • Megapixels don't matter! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nmg196 ( 184961 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:24AM (#10586375)
    Adding a 5mp camera to a telephone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 5mp CCD. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.

    Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 5mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 5mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if said lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!

    If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens.

    Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.

    I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com] for reviews of digital cameras.
  • Given the prevalence of camera phones in Japan, does anyone there try to ban their use in places like washrooms, change rooms, movie theatres, etc? Is it even possible to get a "pure" cellphone (no camera or fancy extras) in Japan these days?

    Eric
    See what information your browser is sending [ericgiguere.com]

  • Quality Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mintrepublic ( 821683 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:11AM (#10587177)
    If I had a 5-megapixel camera-phone, there'd be two things I'd worry about: 1. Vibration- It always seems I can't keep my hands still when I photograph, and I can't imagine using a monopod or even a tripid with a cellphone. 2. Flash- It always takes a lot of battery, so I can't imagine the life would be very long. 3. Zoom- You're not going to have a very good zoom on something fitting in your pocket. Of course, with a camera phone you're not trying to take good pictures, just those spur of the moment ones before I get the good one out.

  • Even if it is 10 MP. If you have 5 MP and a crap lens with small aperture, little or no zoom, made of plastic, one or 2 elements, your pictures will still be crap.

    A phone does not lend itself to a good 3X lens because of the bulkiness, complexity and cost of such a setup.

    The only good news here is that the price of 5 MP CCDs is dropping to the extent that they made their way to phones.

  • Digital zoom suddendly becomes possible (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:27AM (#10587442) Homepage
    Ya know, with 5mp, suddenly a decent-looking digital zoom (when the output stays 640x480) becomes possible. You can't zoom optically in something this small, but you sure can digizoom it. Even with cheesy optics, that's got to be a selling point.

    After all, it'll be a while before we regularly trade 2Mb photos with our pals on their cellphones with 120x240 screens.
  • Five megapixels? Who are they kidding?

    Other Slashdotters have rightly pointed out that this is approaching the absurd, given that the camera has a) a weak flash; and b) very little glass (small and likely low quality lenses).

    It should also be noted that the CCD is probably pretty tiny, too.

    Question: What do you get when you combine low-to-moderate ambient light levels with a poor flash, a fairly small aperture lens, and a tiny, overdriven CCD with miniscule pixels?

    Answer: Crappy images. I shudder

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close