Megapixel Cameraphones Compared 127
prostoalex writes "MobileBurn published a 'horribly un-scientific' test of three megapixel cameraphones. The contenders are the Sony Ericsson S700i, the Siemens S65, and the Motorola V710." Sadly, none of the phones seem to be able to perfectly capture a mere school bus in image form.
Not the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
I use mine to take VGA pics [vidovic.org] and I am very happy with their imperfections...
Re:Not the point... (Score:1, Redundant)
* Has limited battery life because of it's required small size
* Ends up getting replaced every two years
* Marginalizes the performance of each feature (i.e. lenses)
* Reduces cnosumer choice through bundling features
Re:Not the point... (Score:2)
With diminishing returns because people don't want to pay a $50 cel phone bill, they are building-in features that you don't need but are forced to pay for.
I challenge anyone to provide an example of a basic cel phone.
Anyone?
Re:Not the point... (Score:5, Informative)
Mono screen. Monophonic ringtones. Phone calls and SMS text messaging only - no MMS, no WAP, no internet. No camera. The only "toy" feature is a white LED torch on the top.
Small without being fiddly - keypad is pretty decent, menu system is Nokia's normal pleasant low-end-phone one again.
Most importantly - my mum has no problem using hers at all.
link to nokia's product page [nokia.com]
Nokia 8265 is one (Score:2)
The problem is that when you can get a "free" cameraphone with a color screen and polyphonic ringtones and downloadable games, why would anyone want something that d
Re:Not the point... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not very nice to carry around camera, pda, phone, mp3 player, radio and usb memory everywhere you go, pocket space is sometimes limited.
Normally embedded devices with multiple functions are designed to last atleast a day without recharging.
Of course the battery is going to run out if you speak 5 hours straight with the phone or take 100 pictures with the camera, but modern batteries are pretty good and last longer than say, the ones
Re:Not the point... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.vidovic.org/ [vidovic.org]
If that's a pic of your family its got "serial killers" written all over it.
This one time.... (Score:2)
Lenses (Score:5, Interesting)
For several reasons:
1) They have to be small (it's a phone, it has to be easily pocketable)
2) They have a very hard life compared with a "real" camera.
3) Most people now view mobile phones as disposable items, replacing them every year or so, so there's not a whole lot of point in spending a lot of money on a decent lens.
(Could this ever be the first RELEVANT first post on slashdot?)
Re:Lenses (Score:2, Funny)
Not a chance.
Re:Lenses (Score:5, Interesting)
"1) They have to be small (it's a phone, it has to be easily pocketable)"
1. Sure, they have to be small, but so do digicams... putting the same lens system as that used in good "credit card" cameras couldn't hurt any.
"2) They have a very hard life compared with a "real" camera."
2. Once again, they could bother to learn from the real camera manufacturers. Would it kill them to put a cover over the lens - one that opens/shuts automatically like in most modern cameras.
"3) Most people now view mobile phones as disposable items, replacing them every year or so, so there's not a whole lot of point in spending a lot of money on a decent lens."
3. I am unsure about you, but I only buy a new phone every time my contract runs out, which is ~ every two years. The difference between a 1 and 2 year timeframe is significant, as in 1 year, technology hardly evolves much in phones (from the first cameraphones in 2k3 to the MP cameraphones - simply an enhancement, not a revolution), but in two years enough has changed to make the transition worthwhile. Besides, I hardly consider something I'll use for two years "disposabe"... as a matter of fact I've yet to dispose of a cell phone - most of them go to my family or as spare parts (LCD mod for my PC, for example)
Anyway, I hardly have $250-500 per year to spend on the latest phone, so my current one had better be good enough to last me two years or more.
Re:Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lenses (Score:2)
Sure, they could put the quality lenses used in credit card cameras in the
Re:Lenses (Score:3, Informative)
No, but it *would* increase the unit-cost. Most mobile phones now (apart, obviously, from the high-end smartphones such as the Sony Ericsson P800/P900/P910 or the Nokia 9xxx series) are built & sold on the "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" philosophy. Increase unit cost by, say, $5 a piece and they'll lose market share to those that don't do so. I know this because, up until very recently, I worked for a company which provides operating systems for hi
Re:Lenses (Score:1)
3. I am unsure about you, but I only buy a new phone every time my contract runs out, which is ~ every two years. The difference between a 1 and 2 year timeframe is significant, as in 1 year, technology hardly evolves much in phones
"""
The business model of all major cellphone manufacturers is for customers to buy a new phone every 18 months.
(I have worked for a GSM consultancy, with tier-2 clients, and also for a tier-1 company in the last few years, for reference.)
You are entirely right - it's almost
Re:Lenses (Score:3, Insightful)
Colors (Score:2)
Re:Colors (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Lenses (Another reason) (Score:2)
4) Mobile phone screens are pretty poor and small - whats the point of having beautiful lense/photos when most camera screens only have tens of thousands of pixels (I know you can sync photos with your PC but I guess most users don't).
Re:Lenses (Score:2)
No. [slashdot.org]
SE S700i... (Score:5, Informative)
Phone [mobile-review.com]
Phone's camera [mobile-review.com]
At what price ? Re:SE S700i... (Score:2)
I have just played with it at a local store. Yes it's nice but the price was 800 euros. That's an insane price for a mobile phone. With as much money, you can buy a very good small digital camera AND a very good mobile phone.
And if you ever lose it or have it stolen
It does have decent images, but... (Score:2)
While the size wouldn't bother me at all, especially given the halfway decent quality of the pictures, I know a lot of people wo want the absolute smallest phone possible, so this probably wouldn't appeal to them. Looking at the pictures, it's almost like a camera with a phone built in, rather than vice-versa. Now, if I could get something like this that had th
Re:SE S700i... (Score:1)
Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I'm pretty sure that if Nokia wants a few milion batteries with certain specifications, battery manufacterors will gladly comply, so your argument does not hold.
2. The amount of features in modern phones requires them to be more powerfull and contain more electronics and as a result use more power then needed for simple phone and text messaging functions.
So yes, it is quite in the control of phone manufacterors.
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:3)
The camera uses little/no power when not in use. The major power consumers in a mobile phone are the display and the RF transmitter. Both are essential to the basic performance of the phone.
Also, don't make the claim that there's a marketa
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:3)
They are bound to what is physically possible, but when they pay for it, they can definitely also get better batteries developed. Mobile phones and laptops are the main reasons why we are no longer stuck with nicads as the only viable rechar
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:1)
Sure they can. But they don't. What they do say is:"Let's save some money on the battery and put that dough towards a bigger screen. That's what sells phones. And if the battery dies, let's just sell them a new phone."
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:2)
phone conspiracy? (Score:2)
- How often do you have difficulty hearing on a mobile phone?
- How often have you seen this portrayed on TV and in film?
I'd say it's 90% for the first and 0% for the second. (I haven't seen that Kim Basinger film yet; maybe it will be the first?) Can it be an accident that visual media producers do not portray this commonplace of our lives? Or are these folks getting rewarded by the mobile-phone industry for keeping the terrible sound quality a sort of unspoken secret?Re:phone conspiracy? (Score:2)
Never.
2. How often have you seen this portrayed on TV and in film?
Never noticed.
Maybe you should get a decent phone.
Rik
Re:phone conspiracy? (Score:2)
Never.
First day as a cell phone owner, I assume?
2. How often have you seen this portrayed on TV and in film?
Never noticed.
Maybe you should get a decent phone.
Maybe you should quit being so condescending. This is a common complaint among cell phone owners, especially in the United States, which being a UK resident is obviously not something you can understand.
I've owned around 10 different cell phones in my life, from the top of the lin
Re:Perfect Basic Functions First (Score:2)
If a modern cell phone cannot remain mobile for more than a week then it is not worth having.
There is a reason why old farts like me dont early adopt flashy new technology anymore like they used to in their youth - its because a lot of flashy new technology is flaky.
What worries me is that it has become the norm for cell phones
Word of advice... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Word of advice... (Score:3, Funny)
Especially if you're of Arab descent.
Re:Word of advice... (Score:2, Funny)
No important stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
and most importantly
Re:No important stuff (Score:2)
Finally someone who sees the big picture. I mean, cameras in phones are just another gadget toy. The primary use is still a phone. It's like the little shitty games (snake, dots, whatever) that are in the phones. Slashdot doesn't put a front page review of 'Snakes' up for all of us telling us that the graphics are poor, and the replay value is zero. That's because the games are just something to do while you're bored, not the primary use of the phone.
The same goes for the web browsing capabilities of
Re:No important stuff (Score:2)
Re:No important stuff (Score:1)
Re:No important stuff (Score:2)
Why would you need that memory when it doesn't take decent pictures to begin with?
Good question.
Hmm, USB 2.0 would do as well, it is just a lot more
Re:No important stuff (Score:2)
Picture Intensive Site = Mirrors Obligatory (Score:1)
Why can't submitters put mirrors up before before the actual slashdotting? Mirror sites can't do their job when the worse has alread happened!
Re: (Score:2)
mobileburn (Score:2)
too objective (Score:1)
Cars are, uhm okay, but how about OCR? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cars are, uhm okay, but how about OCR? (Score:3, Informative)
And, even if you did get the resolouting by stitching multiple photos together, the lighting would be no where
Re:Cars are, uhm okay, but how about OCR? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cars are, uhm okay, but how about OCR? (Score:1)
What is more important with digicam pictures is the actual sharpness and contrast of the picture. You may find that at times converting to greyscale helps a lot while in other cases it makes ocr near impossible etc..
Third time's a charm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:2)
I want a phone that works perfectly as a phone.
Within my coverage area, I want perfect reception and clarity; I want multi-tower switching *while* in a long phone call, etc.
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:5, Informative)
But does have:
- A prefix search of your contact list one button away from the home screen. Some phones hide this away, and it's the most important feature. Other phones I've seen have a substring search - if you hit 'C', you get every entry with a C in it, rather than moving to the ones starting with C. And this one lets you enter more than one letter in your search; some start a new search if you enter a second letter. Handy if you have lots of numbers.
- Several phone numbers for each entry: Home, Home2, Office, Office2, Mobile, Mobile2, Pager, Fax, Fax2, None. Handy; for a lot of people I have an apartment number, a parents' house, a cell phone, and an office number. My last phone only let me enter three numbers per contact, and I had to name one of those something completely inappropriate. (Calling the parents' house a "Fax" number or something.) I wish it let you customize the labels, but oh well. The only phones I've seen that do that are these huge Motorola things.
- A flip cover. Protects the display, provides longer battery life by allowing the display to shut off, and makes good UI sense - never worry about forgetting the key lock and dialing numbers from your pocket.
- A speakerphone. Handy if you have to call tech support and end up on hold forever.
- Analog service.
- Good battery life.
- Caller ID-based ring tones, so you can know who's calling right away. (And they're downloadable, I think.)
- A "recent calls" thing a button away. Hit send-send from the home and you call the last person in your dialed, received, or missed calls.
- An alarm clock. The only non-phone tool I use all the time. Handier than a true alarm clock because you can set it quickly with the numeric keypad. Plus the act of flipping open the phone and hitting the button is a little less reflexive than hitting a huge snooze button, so it's more likely to wake me up.
- A speed dial, one two or three digits. Either hold down the last one or hit send. I don't use it much, though - I can never remember which number is which.
It's a good phone and fits me well. LG really has the best UI. My only real complaints are:It has a few other features (schedule, voice memo, notepad, ez tip calc, full calculator, world clock) that I never use but someone else might find helpful. And a couple stupid "my pictures" / sounds / animations things. Also voice dialing.
I don't see any way to block numbers at the phone level, though. Sorry. Similarly, it'd be nice if a phone could have contact entries that don't show up in the main phonebook. I admit it, I've got a few phone numbers in there that I keep only to know I shouldn't answer the phone if they call. I want to see the name on the caller ID, but I don't want to have to scroll past it. I'm picky about the number of button presses to make a phone call. It has contact groups, but the main phonebook always shows all groups. You have to hit several more buttons to see just one.
What also has that and more? (Score:2)
The N-Gage has prefix search, several phone numbers for each entry (completely customizable with thumbnail and full picture, too), speakerphone (no side talking required!), no analog service (GSM rocks, baby!), good battery life, caller ID-based ring tones (which can be a recording with the mic, a midi, an mp3, etc), a "recent calls" button away (hit dial from the main telephone screen), an alarm clock/PDA calendar, and speed dial.
Unlike your complaints, the reception and battery life icons are
Re:What also has that and more? (Score:1)
The phone's gotta be CDMA + analog for me to use it. CDMA is what we've got around here, and if I wander around Iowa, sometimes there's only analog service. If I'm 30 miles out on a bike ride through Amish country and crash, I want to be able to call home.
Plus my phone was cheaper. $50 after rebate. I think if you sign up at the right time, they give it away.
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
That would concern me if there were any reproducible evidence that RF radiation harms humans. Since there isn't, I'll just take it to mean that the thing has good reception.
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
If you drop it down an elevator shaft while it's open or something, yeah. But when it's closed, I don't think that will be a problem. (Never has been.) You're right about the external display - the VX4400 has one, though. How does the automatic keylock work? Idle
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
This is Slashdot, News for Nerds. We like gadgets. We don't generally say 'I wish they'd stop adding new features to things, my calculator twenty years ago worked fine!'. We don't expect to see a review of an 80s style calculator making the slashdot frontpage, unless of course the editors are having a really bad day
If you want a phone that is just a phone, go to your local pho
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
A rant like yours is just a bitch. And here's my bitch: after I got on AT&T last year, every time I go into their stores, they don't have anything that looks as sturdy as my current v60i. I share some of the sentiments of people here - a phone is a phone, gimme features that make my life better, like pda style functions, not cameras.
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:1)
If they neglected the basic calculator functions while adding the new features, I expect we would generally say that. See my sibling post to yours for specifics of why I like my simple phone, but broadly it's because it has a good UI that makes it possible to make calls, see who has called me, etc. with few button presses. That's not true
Re:Blocking calls (Score:1)
You can always set a 'muppets' ringtone so you know that a call is from someone you would prefer to ignore.
The new phones have a little OS in them so maybe you could delete all the junk you don't like. Or at least hide them.
I never use the organiser functions or the browser but it doesn't bother me thaat they are there.
Many peopl
Re:Third time's a charm... (Score:4, Informative)
Not trivially, no. There are many reasons for this. First, "just a phone" is a term that is in flux. Certainly 15 years ago, that meant a device that was attached to a wall either directly or by a short cord, and converted your face-noise to analog signal on a copper wire.
So, what you're saying now is you want a wireless phone-like device. Then you say you want to block numbers... well that's not really a phone-like thing at all. Certainly not a phone-like thing when measured against what phones have done for the last 50 years!
You're asking for a new device. While your wish list is nice, to ignore the wish list of the vast majority of other customers would be neglegent on the part of the management of the cell phone manufacturers.
No I don't want a crappy digital camera on my phone.
And yet, the idea of camera phones has caught on like wildfire, and is one of the single most popular modifications to the basic cell phone since user-downloadable ring-tones. I'm not saying you're wrong not to want this, but to act as if the industry is going off half cocked and ignoring the customer is putting blinders on to who the customer really is.
No I don't want a crappy music player on my phone. No I don't want a crappy web browser on my phone.
Granted, implementations of these features have been lame to say the best.
What the world really IS waiting for is a decent, way to manage contacts. Now that phones are portable, we NEED a way to have our numbers move with us as trivially as that note-pad that we used to keep by the phone pre-cell. Replacing a phone should not be traumatic, but because of the proprietary formats involved it IS. You usually need a for-pay version of Outlook on Windows just to read the data from your phone. This makes no sense.
I WANT A PHONE THAT IS A PHONE. Jesus christ.
Once again, define phone.
Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally couldn't have imagined someone paying for a ring tone on his/her cell phone; and the ring tone business is apparently worth billions of dollars these days. Those who saw this coming were quite clever I guess, but isn't it sad that people are spending money on crappy MIDI stuff for their cell phone?
So cell phone companies pack their devices with close-to-useless features like MIDI player for polyphonic ring tones (many people at my work call it polymorphic 'cause that's what they remembered of C++
But seriously, don't you think the majority of people will use those extra features a few times only, mostly to show others how cool and different their new toy is and then they'll forget about them because they are what they are: useless for a cell phone.
I wonder how this confusion will end? The difference between your average PDA and a cell phone is what now? They both play MP3s, take pictures, are organizers, are wireless cell phones, support bluetooth, are WIFI enabled, can act as vibrators; but generally speaking, they do one thing hopefully right: your PDA is probably (hopefully) a better organizer than the organize feature on your cell phone; the rest is useless crap designed to differentiate the device on the market.
When we received our new cell phone at work, everyone, for about a week, was spending countless hours on ring tones, taking pictures, playing that stupid mini putt game, enabling Bluetooth and wandering around for another Bluetooth soul willing to answer, etc., etc.
Now; yeah sure everyone has his/her own "personal" ring tone differentiator, but the damn cell phone is used a cell phone, the extra features are now what they are: useless.
Re:Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:2, Insightful)
The funniest thing about it is when people change their ring tones so often that they're never sure what they are, and everybody reaches for their phones anyway...
Re:Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:2)
I like being able to determine how quickly I get off my ass to pick up the phone by the ringtone. I like having a camera in my phone when a pair of boobs fall out at an unexpected time.
I hope this trend continues so that I can get a cheap phone with BT and Organizer functions here in backwards ass North Dakota.
Re:Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:2)
Re:Useless features worth billions of dollars (Score:1)
wrong object (Score:1, Funny)
Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the American market is like, but here in the UK, I got a Nokia 7610 for 50GBP (that's less than $90) on a very reasonable contract (500 free minutes per month and other goodies for 25GBP / $40 pm).
Although I have a much better PDA (Palm Tungsten T3), and a much better digicam (Canon Powershot A80) and a much better MP3 player (iPod Mini), guess how much of the time I'm carrying all of these around with me? Practically ziltch. But, I do almost always have my phone with me, 24/7.
So, the times I've forgotten my camera, the megapixel camera on the phone is great for a quick and dirty picture of something interesting or important. When I don't have room for my PDA, the phone is great for recording a memo or checking my diary (I sync both with the same desktop PIM, and it mostly works). It's also cool that when I don't have time to pack the iPod, I can take a short journey and still listen to almost a whole album at 128kbps from the 64MB SD card.
The phone is a great phone by itself, with excellent contact management, call management, logging and other features. Since it was so cheap, these extras are essentially bonuses. It's also hardly bigger or heavier than a "normal" cellphone. It also has the trademark Nokia battery life of several days. This is quite sufficient even when on the road, especially since every third person you meet seems to have a universal Nokia charger stowed away somewhere.
I look forward to the day when I can put my PDA, iPod and camera in the drawer forever, and I think we might only be a few years shy of it. Until then, I will enjoy my phone and its extras, using the additional separate devices when I want better quality.
And thanks to my contract, I get a brand new smartphone every year.
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not have that base-unit for your wireless keyboard and mouse also provide a (physically switched, thank you very much) speakerphone that speaks VoIP? Why do I need a second device on my desk?
Why should a car ever ship without a built-in phone?
Of course, much of the reason for this is financial. The cell companies fight hard against making it easy to move your phone between services, and if appliances came with built-in phones, people would demand that they be able to sign up or not sign up for a service of their choosing at their leisure, otherwise it's more of an extra fee, and they'll prefer devices without phones.
I think that can be overcome, though, regardless of how much the industry likes it.
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
1) the tech is still developing so fast, it would make things obsolete very fast. I drive a 1991 SAAB, and wonder what it would be like if it had a 1991 mobile phone, probably useless.
2) I do not like all this integration, if my fictional 1991 SAAB mobile phone would break, I suppose I could get another one at $2000 from their spare parts service in Trollhattan. No thank you, the spare parts I can not find second hand are expensive enough as it is.
Only if the tech has matured enough that a mobi
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
But having an old car doesn't mean having an old CD player.
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, yes I do, and it only has problems reading some CD-r's, but otherwise the system is still very usable. It's some quite expensive Pioneer system (sub-woofer, remote control, removable face, 4 individualy adjustable speakers, RDS) I bought the car for 2000 euro, but remember it was about 35.000 new (1991 prices).
It never skips, I can do speedbumps at 50km/h that make my friends players skip at 30, but not the Pioneer. I only regret that the original buyer did not buy
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
I don't see a problem with convergence in anything that you've said (actually, it sounds like a advertisment).
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
I would not like phone functions build into my car/toaster/etc. because I think the tech is immature and will be obsolete before the car/toaster/etc.
Car radio's are mature to the point that I can still use my 13 year old CD-player perfectly well. Next to that the format is standardized. I could swap my 13 year old system for a new one and vice-versa without problems.
I can not find a car-kit for my 5 year old mobile phone, let alone 13 years from now.
I am willing to consider this kind o
Re:Convergence isn't a bad thing! (Score:2)
Would you really be as happy about the fluff features if that's the amount you'd have to shell straight out? That's a whole lot of money for me, and many other folks... and the portion of useless camera in that is certainly not insignificant.
*cries* (Score:3, Insightful)
I have T-Mobile (work phone) and have 0 signal within a 1/8th mile radius of my apartment. AT&T, Cingular, MetroPCS, and Sprint are all terrible around here as well. Only phone that gets "2 bars" is a Verizon one, and even that's spotty.
I do *not* live in the boonies. I'm in an east SF bay area with over 250,000 people. Definately not BFE.
Instead, we get ringtones, games, and flippin *cameras* that take lousy photos.
GSM seems to suck in the US. I rarely had coverage problems with my old TDMA phone.
Re:*cries* (Score:3, Informative)
Re:*cries* (Score:2)
Re:*cries* (Score:1)
--bdj
Re:*cries* (Score:2)
I agree with this. Berkeley is one cities [berkeleydailyplanet.com] that has been fighting cell antennas tooth and nail. I don't suppose the original poster lives in that East Bay city. Does he?
Re:*cries* (Score:1)
going to cut-n-paste this for future discussions: (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Cellphones come in different models, some with cameras, some without. Happily, the ones WITHOUT cameras are usually cheaper, which is great for those that don't want "extra stuff I will never use."
2. Cameras on a cellphone are extremely useful because it's WITH YOU all the time, and with relative ease you can send a picture from where you took a picture to an arbitrary email address. Even on the low-end
3. The last thing you do before you die is crap your pants.
My eyes ache from rolling to the back of my head whenever I click on a slashdot cellphone article, because it always goes down this road (and yes, this post is part of that).
Are these the ones (Score:2)
right tool for the job (Score:4, Insightful)
School Bus? (Score:3, Funny)
Man, that's a real drag. I can't tell you how often I need to capture a mere school bus in image form. Not going to buy one of these phones.
Symbian owns the smartphone market (Score:2, Interesting)
Why Symbian? It gives developers more access to the phone than Java does. Things like:
-Fullscreen Caller ID
-Blacklist (sends anyone on it to voicemail)
-CallCheater (adds background noice to your call)
-Plays all N-Gage games
-3rd party IM program that supports voice & sending pictures over IM
-watch downconverted movies in widescreen
-NES emulator
-Sega Genesis Emulator w/perfect speed
That's just a tiny list o
I'm holding out for a phone-cam.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if someone would start selling cameras that can make a phone call... I'm there!
Mere School bus... (Score:1)
Each raw image goes through 4 processing stages before it is displayed on screen or captured. I've seen technical articles detailing the condition of the image at each stage, and the transformation from unintelligible blur to relatively clear image is astounding.
The image processing that takes care of white balance in particular is striking. On many occasions I've gone from very dark to very light con