Samsung brags that its latest imaging sensor has the ittiest-bittiest cam pixels in the world Samsung today introduced its latest imaging sensor, the 50-megapixel ISOCELL JN1, which it claims has the smallest individual pixels in the industry. Housed on a relatively small 1/2.76-inch package, each of the 50 million pixels measures just 0.64µm. For contrast, these are almost one-third the size of the iPhone 12's camera …
My work and personal mobiles both allow you to select 64 megapixel resolution, but default to 16 megapixel using pixel binning, so some Motorola and Asus android phones do let you choose. My previous personal phone (up to earlier this week) also allowed native 38 megapixel or 5 megapixel (though 38 megapixel also included a 5 megapixel version), it was doing this seven plus years ago.
The general theory is that you can use software to combine the data from X "mediocre" sensors into something which is potentially better than the data from a single "good" sensors.
Opinions and results vary, especially since companies these days insist on muddying the waters by claiming that their image-processing systems are AI-enhanced...
> That just sounds like "our software overcomes the laws of physics"
Not really. More like "if we average out the data from X inputs, we'll get a better result than if we just took a single value from 1 input".
And that's where opinions vary.
Personally, I went from a Samsung S10+ (12MP, 1/2.55") to a S21 Ultra (108 MP 1/1.33"), which does indeed default to mashing together 9 pixel blocks to produce a 12MP image.
And I had the two handsets for a few days - I traded in the S10+ against the S21U, but Carphone Warehouse gives you about a week's grace before you have to post the old one back to them[*].
So I did actually go for a wander and took some comparative photos. And for the most part, the results were pretty much identical - there were differences, but to my amateur eye, they were minimal.
Admittedly, this was just after launch, and Samsung has since done several rounds of OS patches, most of which have tended to have a generic "Camera Performance" comment in the release notes. So it'd be interesting to see if anything's changed for the better since.
But for now, the answer I'd give to the above is basically just a shrug and a "mebbe"...
[*] I think it's technically 2 weeks, but the clock starts ticking when you place the order, not when your new phone actually arrives!
The problem hasn't been the size/number of pixels, per se, for a long time. The restricting factor is the depth of the phone and the size/quality of the lenses.
There are reasons why a decent lens will often cost more than a high-end smartphone and are longer than a smartphone.
The 'phone manufacturers have to compensate with binning and software to make up for the lack of clarity due to the form factor restrictions.
Re: This is why, despite being the world's biggest Android fanboi, I've never owned a Samsung device.
Samsung announced this one, but all manufacturers have been doing the same for ages (since the "pixel wars began" - i.e., since there started to be cameras on phones, therefore starting competition for the most pixel count)
The trade off isn't simply size versus numbers: there is also the sensitivity of the cell to consider (and all the stuff that happens with the lense). This is why we have seen smaller cameras produce better pictures in a wide range of conditions. We long past what were once considered to be inviolable laws by combining the physics with software. We also do this with radio telescopes.
And Samsung has for a while been at the forefront of many of the improvements and innovations so you're missing out by avoiding them. That said, improvement over the last few years have been marginal and, therefore, easier to find in more devices. The factories in Shenzhen have not only got better at replicating (sometimes copying requires mastering some tricky new manufacturing processes, though industrial espionage definitely does go on) but are also working on their own. The Chinese market alone is big enough to make this relevant and why we see clever things from Xiaomi and other manufacturers.
We long past what were once considered to be inviolable laws by combining the physics with software. We also do this with radio telescopes.
That's generally used, in the latter case, where you struggle to make the physical any better. That's clearly not the case here whereby you're just trying to pack more into less. Better sensors are available i.e. ones that don't try and use vanishingly small pixel sizes to win a pissing contest - better radio telescopes, not so much.
This is why, despite smartphone manufacturers' claims, you'll have to pry my real camera with interchangeable lenses from my cold dead hands.
Smartphone cameras (regardless of manufacturer or OS) make reasonably good photos, but they will never match dedicated cameras with professional lenses, because physics.
A Swiss Army Knife or Leatherman might be able to saw through a piece of wood, but it won't make as good a job of it as a dedicated saw, of the correct type for the wood and type of cut.
It is the old argument of the tool (or camera) that you have on you is better than the correct tool that is at home in the toolbox, when you need it.
I do a lot of nature photography and, if I'm out walking the dog and see something interesting, I can often get a usable shot from my smartphone, but I'll always take my camera, with the correct lenses, when I do a photo tour. Even so, I might still take some snaps with the 'phone, if something sudden happens and I don't have the camera in my hand.
Each pixel has a significant border and wires to power. Binning may raise up the bits/pixel a little but it can't fix the overhead.
The usable bits per pixel is in the 2-5 range and the pixels keep getting smaller in the name of progress. I never thought GIF would become a viable RAW format.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
