How Many MegaPixels Is Enough?

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/entry/6796026482535671/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/entry/6796026482535671/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Dude, your cameraphone only has three megapixels? So weak. Samsung’s are already obsolescing the SPH-2300 (pictured at right), that three megapixel model they introduced a couple of months ago and have announced plans to have a five megapixel cameraphone out by the end of the year."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/images/Temporale-20041003-3MpSamsungCameraPhone.jpg" alt="User submitted image" title="User submitted image"/> <br /><br />How much is enough? If they could stop focusing on the MegaPixel count, and spend some time on the image quality, then I might actually care about this. :(

[Kris Kumar]

How much is enough? If they could stop focusing on the MegaPixel count, and spend some time on the image quality, then I might actually care about this. :(

I agree. This "all-in-one device" concept is making manufacturers emphasize on quantity and not quality. :-(

[surur]

How much is enough? If they could stop focusing on the MegaPixel count, and spend some time on the image quality, then I might actually care about this. :(

I agree. This "all-in-one device" concept is making manufacturers emphasize on quantity and not quality. :-(

This is a rediculous attitude! Apparently this *is* an attempt to address the quality of the pictures. Believe it or not, the resolutionof the camera IS an element in the quality of the pictures. Furthermore I believe this device has a high quality lens AND optical zoom.

Why are you not addressing that comment to the stand alone digital camera producers, who just anounced a 16Megapixel device recently.

I think this is a great move. Imagine always having your (2 years ago ) near professional grade camera with you, with no compromises at all!

Surur

[encece]

Because they're talking about picture quality on Camera Phones...and not on stand-alone cameras.

The quality of photo on Camera Phones still stinks even though they've gone from VGA to 1.3MP. You need alot of light on these phones to get decent pictures. MegaPixels "is" important but Lense is important. Which no phone that I've seen has a decent one yet....let alone optical zooms. CCD chip is important. It's not all about MegaPixels by any means. And many would argue that there is a limit to what is truely needed to compare to fine grain film. We may have already surpassed that limit in my opinion.

I dont think you see true decent quality in a phone until someone figures out how to cram all of this including the phone in a tiny device.

16MP is great, on a quality camera....but at the price tag that comes with....I'll be satisfied with 4 or 5MP for now on a regular camera.

As far a cell-phones...I'' be satisfied the day when they can catch up with that, with QUALITY lenses, lux, zoom, flash, battery life, etc. They i can truely carry just one device. In the meantime...I'm still keeping my camera in my bag for when I need it. (I currently only have a 3MP Nikon Coolpix).

[TimeHunter]

How much is enough? Actually, none, but that's because I am a photographer and a little "stuck up" about my cameras. What use is it if I practically need a supernova in the immediate neighborhood to get enough light for a decent picture. Heck, the CCD used on the Mars rovers is only a 1 Mp, but the fact that they use an great lens setup with it produces pictures that are nearly iMax quality. 16 Mp doesn't matter a bit if you can only focus the light gathered by a lens the size of a pea. Pixels is equal to film speed, but if you can't get enough light to the film by having a good lens, it doesn't matter how good the film is, you're still going to get a lousy picture.

Many places that I go to work don't allow cameras, so guess what; they don't allow camera phones either. What use is it if I can't even carry it all day because of that? All I'll do is annoy the guard who has my phone nearby in the locker ringing when he can't do anything to silence it.

[surur]

As far a cell-phones...I'' be satisfied the day when they can catch up with that, with QUALITY lenses, lux, zoom, flash, battery life, etc. They i can truely carry just one device. In the meantime...I'm still keeping my camera in my bag for when I need it. (I currently only have a 3MP Nikon Coolpix).

Why dont people read what I write?!!

This IS a camera phone.

It HAS a flash

It HAS a CCD sensor

It HAS optical zoom and a great quality lens.

Why are people thinking this is just another 5Megapixel CMos camera with a fixed focus plastic lens?

Do we have many blind people on this website who cant even see the picture?

Shees!!!

Surur

[encece]

People dont read what you write because you talk like a jerkoff.
That said....

I didnt see that was a phone....the picture doesnt depict that function AT ALL. But even though it's probably a cool camera....It probably sucks as a phone. And I'm 99% sure that it's not a Smartphone so it won't even be worth looking at for me. I dont need a camera with a crappy phone in it. I need a great phone with a good camera in it.

[surur]

People dont read what you write because you talk like a jerkoff.

Maybe its because I have had enough of this hostile attitude people have towards camera phones, and the lame excuses people make e.g. "I dont want them because the quality is poor", even when their objections have long been overcome, as exemplified by this quote:

How much is enough? If they could stop focusing on the MegaPixel count, and spend some time on the image quality, then I might actually care about this.

The fact is usually they dont want them because their boss wont allow them to have one. There is no need to employ congnitive dissonance and make up other reasons why "camera phones are crappy".

I didnt see that was a phone....the picture doesnt depict that function AT ALL.

At least I read (and understood) the article before posting...

Surur

[Mike Temporale]

Alright, everyone try and relax. There is no need for personal attacks.


The simple fact is that the majority of camera phones are poor quality. This particular camera phone is the exception. Samung has decided to focus on increasing the megapixel count instead of increasing the quality of the lower end embedded cameras.

The MPx220 is a prime example. Everyone was excited over the 1+MP camera until the first images trickled out on the net. Turns out the quality is just as bad as an existing VGA camera. So it doesn't matter if the camera is 1, 2, 3, or more megapixels unless the image quality has changed. This Samsung model is the exception. However it would be better to see them turn out a really nice quality 1MP camera. I think most people would be more excited to see that than a 5MP model.

[encece]

:wink:

[Kris Kumar]

This Samsung model is the exception. However it would be better to see them turn out a really nice quality 1MP camera. I think most people would be more excited to see that than a 5MP model.

I agree. :-)

[surur]

Samung has decided to focus on increasing the megapixel count instead of increasing the quality of the lower end embedded cameras.

Surely they have decided (in this model) to increase megapixel count AFTER already having sorted out the other factors. If they already have a good lens etc, increasing the resolution DOES increase the quality.

About 1.3 Megapixel cameras, there are some which have quite reasonable quality. e.g. the camera in the Loox.

The real point is though that, if camera phones want to suck in the digital camera market, they will increase quality, which of course means the lenses and resolution.

If digital cameras can be small, cheap and have reasonable quality, so can camera phones. What can be guaranteed is that in 2 years camera phones will be much better than now, and that the samsung is a precursor of this.

Surur

[yslee]

Eh, well, this is a camera with phone bits attached, rather than the other way around. If you look at the other side of the phone it really looks like the UI for a camera than a phone! I'd say this model is the exception rather than the norm (can't see many people who'd want it).

The reason why camera phones suck is not as much due to the lens but due to the electronics behind it. When you cram so much into so little something just has to go. Plus, it's just not the same as a real camera.

[Mike Temporale]

What can be guaranteed is that in 2 years camera phones will be much better than now, and that the samsung is a precursor of this.

I would agree with that. I'm getting sick of waiting for the future. It always seems that the best things are yet to come. :cry: