Nokia Shows Off Megapixel Camera Phone 256
Anonymous Coward writes "According to PC World, the Nokia 7610 has been announced at Cebit in Germany - it boasts a megapixel camera (1152 x 864 pixels), 65,000 color screen, and 4x zoom, along with an MP3 music player and smart phone features that allow users to manage and edit digital images. It can also create short films of up to 10 minutes and with the Movie Director application users can add special effects and music to the video clips." Other readers point out a picture of the phone, which comes with the LifeBlog software "to help people organise the information they capture about their lives on handsets."
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
You joke, but municipal swimming pools in my county have banned camera phones from their changing rooms, for the stated reason that paedophiles might use them.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I just report it, I don't agree with it
More to the point, neither a ban on on cameras nor a ban on camera-phones keeps a determined person from sneaking in either. It's not like they have security personnel at the door.
It's knee-jerk pointless policymaking.
(c.f. prohibition of drugs completely failing to solve the problem... but that's offtopic so I'll stop now)
4x digital zoom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4x digital zoom (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,54962
Still no flash, though. Guess I'll stick with my Pentax Optio S4 for a while longer.
I wonder when digital cameras will have bluetooth in them so I can take real pictures with a real camera and send them through the phone.
Re:4x digital zoom (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd really like to be able to use 1 data source for my phone/pda/camera/mp3 player. Convergence devices are cute, but impractical. Removing storage from each of those items listed would let them shrink to about the size of a sharpie (real digi camera excluded, but getting there), and would let me
At the gym I like to have mp3s without the phone, and I'd like to not violate the 'ban' on digital cameras.
Pictures I take with my real camera, I'd like to be able to email.
Songs I get from iTunes i'd like to be able to email, or directly, wirelessly, share.
contacts in my pda i'd like to have access to on my phone - but I really don't need/want the power drain of a palmOS or winCE just to make a phone call.
Re:4x digital zoom (Score:2, Informative)
My Sony digital video camera has it.
this was SOOOOOO 2002... (Score:2, Informative)
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-FX77 [dpreview.com]
A pretty sweet camera... great design... i'm STILL using the earlier model with the same design...
Re:4x digital zoom (Score:2, Funny)
(D505i: 1.3MP digital camera(SVGA images), modified 16MB sony memory stick slot for easy storage and transfer of data, 8x digital zoom, 256,000 TFT display, full blown on phone email support [not this gay SMS text messsaging crap], Java powered with an open spec API so I could write my own stuff, all the features of my old Palm pilot, and kick @$$ games by Sqare S
Re:4x digital zoom (Score:3, Informative)
The rest of the Nokia kit from ceBIT is visible at http://www.nokia.com/cebit2004/new_releases.html [nokia.com]
short films? (Score:4, Interesting)
Best stick with the mobile phone that's also a low-res video camera aspect I think instead of making wild marketing claims about how the phone can make you the next Steven Spielberg...
like watching scrambled p0rn (Score:2)
So, what your saying is that what you shoot with this camera will look like scrambled p0rn we used to watch. you hope on occasion there is a boob or something you can make out.
Re:short films? (Score:2)
Compared to other consumer electronics, the res ain't that bad - it's comparable, or slightly better, than the mid-range camcorder I bought early last year.
Sure, it won't turn you into the next Spielberg, but it's certainly better than the old "Hi-8" camera I was using until last April.
Re:short films? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a Nokia 3650, and yeah it has a movie mode. Yeah it's postage stamp sized. Yeah it's pixellated. You know what? I have a video of my phone of my dog and cat playing together. It is low res and pixellated, yet you can still tell what's going on in the 'movie'. I captured a cute short-lived moment that would have been missed if I had r
That's not a megapixel... (Score:4, Insightful)
Megapixel rating is on entire sensor, not output (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's standard for digital camera manufacturers to quote the megapixel rating based on the entire sensor, rather than the output resolution. The sides of the sensor are blacked out, for calibration, and don't appear in the final image.
1600x1200, for example, is the standard 2.0 megapixel resolution (but 1600x1200 is actually only 192k pixels).
Re:That's not a megapixel... (Score:3, Interesting)
True. Workstation framebuffers always used to be 1152x900, which gave just over a million pixels (that resolution was chosen to maximize the display area for cards with 1MB of video memory). However, when the PC world finally caught up with workstation resolutions, they opted for 1152x864 instead, in order to preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio[1], thus it's slightly less than 1 million pixels.
[1] No, I don't know why they did this either, as they were quite happy to use a different
Crappy Lens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crappy Lens (Score:5, Insightful)
> is going to suck even more because of the crappy little lens used in them.
When that becomes a problem which will lose more sales than it generates I'm sure it'll be addressed. Until then, a camera on a phone is still just a bit of a giggle and better than nothing. The quality of pictures on my phone (SE T610) is great, considering what I paid for it, which is nothing!
Re:Crappy Lens (Score:2)
I'm a Luddite. I don't want my phone to take pictures, play movies, hook me up with AOL Instant Messenger, play stupid little games, or sing the "Happy Days" theme song whenever someone tries to call me. I'm even iffy about the text messaging thing. I don't even want to think how I'll react when my camera asks me to edit a movie.
Just give m
Re:Crappy Lens (Score:2, Informative)
> someplace.
I pay 15 UKP a month. For that I get 750 mins of off peak calls to any land line and T-Mobile (my supplier) mobile. I also get 50 text messages. I also get the phone, which is pretty neat (it supports java, has blue tooth, infrared, 65,000+ colour screen, camera, voice recorder, plays midi files etc). At the end of 12 months I sign up for another year and get another phone free (well, technically I've actual
Re:Crappy Lens (Score:3, Informative)
But you are correct the higher pixel counts is worth nothing unless they improve the lenses.
The 640x480 I have in my old Nokia phone could have produced a good picture if they had installed a proper lens. I guess they thought that since it was so low resolution it didn't matter,
actually (Score:5, Informative)
Re:actually (Score:3, Interesting)
Megapixels (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Megapixels (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Megapixels (Score:5, Insightful)
Weight is the most idiotic dimension measurement system ever. Quick, what dimensions do 3 kg equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE IRON SLAB HAS DIMESIONS OF 10x3x7 cm, just fucking say so.
My point being: Absolute resolution is one thing, but megapixels are quite useful for a quick quality approximation. Just as you know that a 20 kg backpack will be a hell of a lot more back-breaking than a 5 kg one, megapixels can give you an idea of what to expect from a camera.
I'm not saying megapixels tell you everything, though.
PS. My appologies to the metricly challenged.
Re:Megapixels (Score:2, Funny)
Besides,
Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?
Re:Megapixels (Score:2)
Granted, physics is not a strong point of mine
Besides,
Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?
A density is to a mass what a resolution is to a megapixel, given certain dimensions. An N-megapixel image will end at at a certain DPI when displayed at given dimensions.
Pixels-per-inch is pretty analogous to weight/mass (which?) per cubic inch, which is what a density essen
Re:Megapixels (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose you'd also prefer if auto manufacturers told you that a cars engine was a 84x90 vs simply stating that it has a 3litre engine? Point is that most people don't give a crap if its 1152x864 or 1280x768, 1MP gives a more than close enough approximation.
Re:Megapixels (Score:2)
To the majority of people yes, but that is exactly my point. When purchasing a digital camera, the majority of the market does not care about the exact dimensions. Just like for a car, MOST people don't care about the exact bore and stroke, just the size. However, a few DO care, as bore and stroke often will give you a good idea of the engine characteristics (e.g. shorter
Re:Megapixels (Score:2)
Why bother, just create a single pixel, use a high sample rate, and market it as "5 megapixels per second", just like optical-mouses
Re:Megapixels (Score:4, Informative)
The real annoying thing is the definition of pixel itself. Since sensors for 3 colors are needed most manufacturers count one sensor for one color as a whole pixel - although normaly three of them are needed to cover the whole colorspace. This is like tripling your monitor resolution by not counting pixels but phosphor/lcd fields for every color! Furthermore the sensors for every color are not lined up as on a monitor but arranged in a checkerboard pattern like this:(I don't now anymore if the color used twice is red or blue. This increases the SNL for this color.)
Now for each quadruple of sensors the data for one pixel is generated. There is no more information to get out of the CCD than this. After this the camera interpolates the data to increase the number of pixels used in the actual file the camera stores. What interpolation algorithm is used and how good it works is bound to the camera manufacturer.
This will go on until multi-layered CCDs emerge on market. These use one spot on the chip to measure all three colors by layering the sensors. My guess is they will use marketing-speak as for example using 'triple' as prefix for everything.
Re:Megapixels (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Megapixels (Score:2)
And you call yourself a geek?
You can safely assume that these are square pixels in these sensors (they are). You can also safely assume that the aspect ratio is going to at least approximate that of 35mm film,
Re:Megapixels (Score:2)
Who, outside of the techie nerd community, wants to memorize such petty numbers?
I think it is annoying when people say 1024x768 when they could just say XGA, it is pretty established in the digital projector industry and community. Or 1280x1024 (or IMO better, 1280x960) when they could just say SXGA. Geeks like flapping their mouths to say large numbers to the last de
blah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:blah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:blah (Score:2)
Problem is that with the "little guys" making it possible for you to have a cell phone essentially for the purpose of having for the proverbial reason "just in case", while your calling plan might be dirt cheap, you have to buy the phone at
Er... (Score:4, Insightful)
But, honestly who buys a phone for the CAMERA? Now we're packing in video editing software and whatnot. Is this really necessary? The quality is usually so poor that it's not worth the small size...
Yea, I own an LG-VX6000, and I tell you this...I bought it for the actual features it has as a phone and not the camera. I've taken a few pictures with the camera, and put simply...there can be no replacement for film and digital cameras anytime in the near future.
If you want to take pictures..buy a camera! It will be a better investment of your money.
newshounds (Score:2)
also consider that broadcast quality tv has about 500 lines of resolution.
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Er... (Score:2)
But most people who own a digital camera do not. And since you would be carrying a phone regardless, why carry two devices if you could carry just one device? Of course, if you are planning to shoot some pictures, carrying a regural camrea is better, but cameraphones excel at those ex tempore pictures you weren't planning to shoot.
Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of phones on cameras is that people bring their phone everywhere. People don't bring their camera everywhere, no matter how small it is. Of course a tiny fixed lens is going to be worse than one with real optical zoom, but it's plenty good enough for a lot of things.As you should. It is after all primarily a phone.People said the same about digital cameras when they first arrived, but now you are including them with film to make your point. This Nokia phone has the same resolution as the Kodak that I bought 5 years ago. That's not such a long time really. Other manufacturers have already 2 and higher megapixel phones, and I can't see them stopping competing with each other anytime soon.
Re:Er... (Score:2)
>30% of the phone market if the Sony Ericsson are to be believed.
That's not what Sony-Ericsson said, they said they expect 30% of the phones sold to HAVE a camera in them. You make it sound like they said all of these people are actively seeking out camera phones, when that's most likely not true.
There are plenty of people who want other features that don't come in phones that don't have cameras. I just upgraded to a T616, but I didn't want the ca
Re:Er... (Score:2)
That's a lot of features... (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Find real time deal updates from multiple sources [dealsites.net]
yes, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't want an arpanet with scifi mailing lists, I just want to exchange military information!"
"I don't want a computer that plays pong and does spreadsheats, I just want to crack german codes!"
"I don't want to melt rocks and make tools, I just want a nice heavy one to throw at my enemies!"
For crying out loud...
Re:yes, but... (Score:2)
1) Nobody who isn't using the RAID support notices the RAID support. The kernel can be cluttered up with all sorts of features, and nobody would notice.
2) The ARPAnet was never intended to reflect the needs and desires of a single user.
3) You can delete any software you don't want.
4) Huh? Okay, I think I get it now. If you want to stick with throwing-rock technology, there's no end to the supply of pristine, unmelted throwing rocks. The supply of rocks
Re:yes, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:yes, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yes, but... (Score:2)
i much agree to him. there are some phones out there that they focus more on features that it is quite difficult to call a person with a *few* keystokes (excluding speed dial.)
i know a couple of people who call a lot do not use the flashy phones as it is very inconvenient to call when you have to move through a joystick, or a jog dial or other features of a phone. you also have to navigate a couple of links before being able to dial a person.
way off fro
AAC Support! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mobitopia.com/20040317.html#155506
Re:AAC Support! (Score:3, Informative)
Nokia and mobiles (Score:5, Informative)
I bought a new phone less than a month ago, and I looked at all of these. Then I saw the Nokia 6820. It is the same size as my old cheap-o basic Nokia phone, so it fits easily in any pocket I care to put it in...but it folds out - with a full QWERTY keyboard. Although I had to compromise in screen size (standard mobile phone screen) to have a genuine pocket-sized phone, the fold-out keyboard more than makes up for it: texting is fast, if I'm waiting for a plane, I can go onto IRC (using a neat little open source J2ME IRC client), I can ssh into a server if I get the call saying there's trouble and do some basic troubleshooting all with a keyboard. I couldn't care less about cameras particularly.
The camera in my 6820 is useful in case of emergency, or if I really need an image right now and to hell with the quality because it means I now always have a camera with me. If I get rear-ended at traffic lights, I can take some photos of the incident to supply with the insurance forms as an example.
Re:Nokia and mobiles (Score:2)
What client do you use for IRC over J2ME exactly? Do you have any recommendations for a good J2ME IM client? Cheers...
Re:Nokia and mobiles (Score:2)
Re:Nokia and mobiles (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nokia and mobiles (Score:2)
That's why I keep a film disposable in the car. Basically free, always ready to use, no questions about digital editing.
Product details with more pics (Score:5, Informative)
Driving (Score:2, Funny)
Poor design... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at the numeric keypad portion of this new handset. Then look at the numeric keypad of any handset you have to hand. Unless you own a quirky model, the odds are that your current numeric keypad is little different to that on a wired phone: four rows of three (1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8-9, *-0-#) arranged in a grid-like fashion with similar-shaped and -sized buttons.
This traditional configuration is great, because it allows you to dial numbers easily by touch alone, even in very poor lighting or total darkness. Now tell me how you're meant to do that on this new handset? 3, 6, 9 and # are pretty well vertically aligned but 1, 4, 7 and * are pratically sloped at 45 degrees.
Now I don't know about you, but if I was dialling without looking (something that's child's play on most phones) I'd expect the 7 to be two buttons directly below the 1, but on this handset, if you drop two buttons vertically down from 1 then you're hitting 8. Which means that to dial a number on this handset you're pretty much forced to look at the keypad as you dial. That's poor design.
Sure, sure, it looks pretty enough. But if how a handset looks even comes in your top three criteria when buying a new phone (above, say, features/functions, battery life and size/weight) then you're a fool.
The unwritten first rule of useability and ergonomics is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The traditional keypad layout works, and it works damn well: it looks like someone needs to remind Nokia of that.
Re:Poor design... (Score:2)
That said, I think I agree with the spirit of your post. Nokia's designers are having a bit too much fun with the shape of their phones for my tastes. Luckily for them, I don't decide what's hot or not.
Re:Poor design... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you hold your currenly phone in you hand anything like me you dial with your thumb most of the time with the rest of your hand holding the phone. Now try pressing the '3' key on your current phone - by far the hardest key to hit on the whole keypad because of how you
Ergonomics are meant for everyone... (Score:2)
including for an important part (and this is not meant discriminative, nor stereo-typing) women .
And they happen to fancy phones that look nice, rather than those with pure functionality.
As research shows that more women own mobile phones than men [infosyncworld.com],
you better be giving that group the advantage.
It'll probably be a temporary thing though.
Once every phone is fashioned with a touchscreen like the SE-P900 [mobileburn.com], you can make your own key-lay
Design for right handed people? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you move your right thumb up and down like you were dialing a number, it can be somewhat natural to move down and to the left at the same time. I think the keypad shape reflects this movement. It might be more natural than expected to dial numbers with the distorted keypad shape.
Guess I gotta go to a shop and try it out first.
Re:Poor design... (Score:2)
1. Have you looked at the pictures of this model?
2. Do you have any design or usability experience at all?
This isn't a r
Convergence (Score:4, Funny)
Phone(t) = Watch(t) | t->infinity
Re:Convergence (Score:3, Insightful)
I apologise for luddism. (Score:4, Interesting)
Britain recently passed drive-phoning laws - which bans using a hand-held phone while "driving" (including when stationary - say in a not-infrequent motorway hold up) and I decided a legal hands-free kit would be needed. Blue-tooth seemed to be the perfect answer to the problem - a simple system wired into my car so that whenever my engine is running, the in-car hands free kit takes control of any phone calls - allowing me to legally use my phone without taking it out of my pocket. Off I trooped to the mall now obscenely cluttered with mobile phone shops. To say I was surprised is an understatement!
Phone size - if I want blue tooth then I must have a larger phone (very undesirable) but that it would have a camera in it (no use at all thanks - maybe even a hindrance as I might not be permitted to take it with me everywhere I go) and a snazzy colour screen (Why!?! I just want to make and receive calls!) and a dramatically reduced battery life to boot. As for wireless connectivity - the vendors advise it is normally turned off, and activated only for the duration I'm using a particular blue tooth service...( What's the point then!?!!! ) and that using blue tooth would dramatically reduce battery life again!
Don't get me wrong I've been very impressed with my current Nokia 8310, but can't help feeling that more modern phones have become feature crazy and now neglect the primary requirement to make mobile telephone conversations convenient and reliable with minimum effort. Nokia - PLEASE - stop concentrating on the gimmicks and get back to making solid reliable phones for business use.
Good point (Score:2, Funny)
It's true... camera phones are really useful for looking up the noughties.
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:2)
Phone size - if I want blue tooth then I must have a larger phone (very undesirable) but that it would have a camera in it (no use at all thanks - maybe even a hindrance as I might not be permitted to take it with me everywhere I go) and a snazzy colour screen (Why!?! I just want to make and receive calls!) and a dramatically reduced battery life to boot. As for wireless connectivity - the vendors advise it is normally turned off, and activated only for the duration I'm using a particular blue tooth servic
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:3, Insightful)
My observations have been different... while the 2-3 year old design works well, I would have hoped that a phone company would have extended an excellent design such as the 8310 to provide robust wireless integration to motor vehicles. It seems that developments in mobile phones these days have become more concerned with style than substance. The reply about the 6310i is interesting but still makes me compromise on size - and leaves me wondering about issues relating to
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:2)
I agree on the ergonomics thing. Thats why my current phone isn't a nokia even though I liked their old models. Not on the more features thing though.
Phones need to be a certian size, several years ago they reached a point where technology would allow them to go smaller, but the phone became less useful. They have all this extra space, why not use it. A few people want cameras, it doesn't cost much to add one, so why not give them one. A moment's thought latter reveals that inventory management becom
If you're prepared not to go Nokia... (Score:2)
a) It's fairly small
b) It's got a good battery life
c) It's got bluetooth and GPRS
d) Okay, it's got a colour screen, but it's small and doesn't have a camera or anything
e) They're really cheap and easy to get hold of nowadays
I have heard of people having reliability and speed problems with them, but mine's always been fast and rock solid, so I'm guessing it's something to do with the older firmware revisions or something
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:2)
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:2)
1) Do I need to place it in the in-car holder to use it wireless, or will the car kit work with it still in my pocket?
2) Assuming it will work from my pocket, do I need to press buttons to turn Bluetooth on and off, or is it reasonable to just leave it to the phone and the car to negotiate between themselves?
I wonder why this isn't offered at any of the retail outlets? Hmmm... maybe I just wonder why the retail phone shops are so pathetic
Re:I apologise for luddism. (Score:2)
If I get into my car leaving my phone in my pocket, will the phone negotiate with the car to allow me to answer/make calls legally, or must I somehow enable the collaboration by pressing buttons on the phone (which would be illegal once I've set off and annoying to do before I set off - especially for short journeys)?
If I need to do something special - then there is no advantage to Bluetooth and I would be better off slotting the phone into a cradle every time I get behind the w
Non-slashdotted picture of the phone (Score:2, Informative)
Who cares as long as the quality sucks. (Score:3, Informative)
Here in Norway clerks in several stores where asked if they would recommend Nokia to their customers and almost everyone said no! They have too much customer complaints on Nokia phones. Every third Nokia phone sold in Norway has to get service within 6 months...
The most recommended phones where Siemens and Sony Ericson. They only have to have one out of ten phones into services within 6 months.
Re:Who cares as long as the quality sucks. (Score:2)
What happened to cell phones?!!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Only 1 megapixel? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess now would not be the time to mention that Japan is already up to two [nttdocomo.co.jp] megapixel [kddi.com] phones [vodafone.jp] . . .
I like my camera phone (Score:2)
Oh year, and for the occasional Microsoft bluscreen on a information of billboard sign somewhere.
While I can live without my camera in my phone, it has helped me from time to time.
Camera phones are old news (Score:2, Interesting)
Camera phones are a terminatible offense (Score:5, Informative)
For the employee friends, visitors, vendors and contractors, this means they are immediately banned from any and all sites for a duration of 3 years. The employee who has friends onsite using a cameraphone is immediately terminated.
They are being very harsh, but these are the rules. Having someone walking around with a miniature camera in their hands inside labs, through buildings, etc. is an ENORMOUS risk to them.
Check with your employer first, before you invest in one of these phones, or you could find yourself out on the curb without a job.
Cellphone vendors need to be very careful with their product lines, and includes phones that do NOT include these features, so that they can continue to sell product. Don't just cater to the teenagers who think having a camera and a phone is "cool". Cater to the people who actually have to pay for those cellphone bills... the parents, and the businesspersons who actually use the devices for what they are.. a phone.
Exporting pictures (Score:5, Informative)
I know a number of people who have to send a costly email/photomessage for every picture they want to move off their phone, because their network operator (from whom they bought the phone) has disabled the functionality to transfer a picture over a wire/bluetooth/IR.
Movie Director's creator (Score:2)
For better or for worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard enough to pry some people off a computer and make them, oh let's say, take a walk outside. I don't know if I could handle seeing every other person sitting at a park bench "appreciating" the scenery by listening to an mp3, taking pictures, and posting them in their blog.
It's probably inevitable. I just hope we don't let technology govern what little part of our everyday life that we have left that isn't affected by technology.
The Phone Event Horizon (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, it fits the pattern. Every second store on the high street is a phone store. Phones are made increasingly more difficult to use, and are replaced more and more frequently until eventually it becomes uneconomic to open anything other than a phone shop.
I warned you. Don't say I didn't warn you when the Phone Warriors are sent in. Relax and enjoy your phones. They are very stylish and fashionable...
Cheers,
Ian
Phone Calls? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst in Japan ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nokia keypad design... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with the good old squarish design with all numeric keys being at least approximately same size & shape?
Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times (Score:4, Insightful)
Nokia is not so much behind the times but, much as every other vendor, is is behind Japanese phone technology.
]{
damn (Score:2)
I understand they have a different network, but is there any level of compatibility?
at 25000 yen (~$240) that v601sh is a hell of a deal even
Re:Siemens trumps Nokia (Score:2)
Re:Aaaactually.... (Score:2)
Think about it like the CRT monitors are sold as 19" actually have a viewable area of 18".