200 Megapixel Holiday Snaps

[John Seaman]

The latest super duper smartphone has recently been advertised on UK television as being capable of "200 MP holiday snaps". I would have thought that 6MP would be enough for those, being capable of A3 prints at a push. So do people really think that 200MP makes better pictures? And what are the implications for data storage when files are perhaps 20 times larger than they need to be?

[AJG]

This sounds like a great idea if you make hard drives or sell cloud storage, but not so much for the real world. But it will probably be a successful sales pitch since (at least in the US) more of anything is always better.

[mikemorrellNL]

Fiirst off, it's pretty meaningless to advertise x MB photos to potential consumers. Most consumers these days view or share photos digitally. Which requires lot less resolution than a good quality A3 print!

So FWIW, I think (hower it's worded in the ad) the photo dimensions in pixels and 'pixel depth' are much more relevant than the MB.

A very quick google search resulted in the following:

- An A3 print at 300 dpi requires (roughly) 5000x 3500 pixels = (see A3-size.com)
- 'pixel depth' on mobile phone cameras varis between 12 and 32 bits (see streetdirectory.com)

So just as a quick example - and assuming you really want an A3 prints at 300 dpi at 16-bit (=65536 color) quality, then you'd need

- to divide the '200 MB' by 16 (the color depth) = 12.5 'effective' color pixels

- to translate the 12.5 pixels into A3 size = 3135 X 2090 (3:2 ration)

So even at '200 MB', the digital image file is too small to produce A3 images at 300 dpi. Via the website Quill.com, it seems that 200 MB would - not quite - but do a pretty good job at producing an A4-size photo.

Everything I've written above I've just picked up via google in 15-30 minutes, So - like you - I'm just an amateur in this kind of stuff.

Thankkfully (as said) most people view and share mobile phone photos digitally. Even if they want to have an A3 or A4 photo printed, the 'viewing distance'  determines the (printed) resolution. So a poster on the wall of a cherished holiday photo doesn't need to be printed at 300 dpi. 150 dpi is probably enough.

I still stick with my feeling that ads should be worded in terms that make sense to consumers. 

 

[paddler4]

A shorter answer: for almost all users, it's absurd.

First, almost no one needs that much resolution. I have exhibited and sold roughly A3 and A2 prints (13 x 19, 17 x 22 inch) from 22 and 30 MP cameras, and the printing was superb at that size. I exhibited one 11 x 19 print from an 8 megapixel crop. Decent printing software does a good job of modestly increasing resolution if needed, and humans don't perceive the individual pixels in a print anyway. And most people display smartphone images online, which requires far less resolution than that. 

Second, more pixels for a given sensor size means lower light gathering, more noise, and worse difffraction.

Third, some high-resolution phones use pixel binning, combining a number of the tiny photosites into a smaller number of larger ones to lessen the problems of tiny photosites.

Fourth, smartphones use computational photography to impose fixes for these problems, which may or may not be entirely realistic.

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by paddler4

[Ken Katz]

While the top of the line Samsung phone can actually generate a 200mp file (about 30-40 mb file size), its default setting is binning 16 pixels together to generate about 12mp.  In general, I have to agree with paddler4 on this.  Still, the main camera has a 71 sq mm sensor, which has about 60% of the real estate of the Sony 1" sensor packed into many high end P&S cameras.

https://www.tomsguide.com/features/samsung-galaxy-s23-ultra-tested-how-good-is-the-200mp-camera

Not all that revealing, but an explanation of how it works.  Knowing its limitations, a better test would have been a landscape (or cityscape) in good light, letting the sensor do its best.  Phone also has a super wide angle camera, a 70mm (FF equiv) telephoto, and a 230mm (FF equiv) periscope type telephoto, plus up to 1TB of memory available (for a big $$ upcharge!). 

Not trying to sell this thing, but it is clear that when my 2 1/2 year old granddaughter is old enough for youth sports (like in 3 years), it is unlikely that my son will buy a dedicated camera, and will use the latest smartphone to take images.

[samstevens]

All one has to do is watch the series Madmen if they don't already understand what advertising is about. A certain soap has been 99-44/100% since 1895. 4 out of 5 dentists have been agreeing on a particular brand of chewing gum for decades. Advertising is about selling. It's often about creating and then fulfilling a need ... a perceived need and not necessarily a real one. Motorcyclists in the 1990s were told to "go big or go home". These numbers games and come-ons are about emotion, not rationality or practicality. What matters is the consumer buys and the companies clean up. And for those companies, it's good to the last drop!

[Jochen_S]

9 hours ago, John Seaman said:

... holiday snaps". I would have thought that 6MP would be enough for those, being capable of A3 prints at a push...

I 'd love to be able to fill at least an entire 4k screen with mine, so they should be 8-12MP. Taking a low res camera on vacation would suck, unless I made thumbnail publishing my profession. 

I don't want / buy cell phones but respect their capability. Its not my job to understand how computational photography benefits from even more blurred pixels, but I 'd guess it does, slightly, at least in some odd use case.

Data? - Why should those bother us? A 256GB micro SD sells for 15€. Phone shooters will most likely write JPEGs and why shouldn't their computational magic compress data junk to presentable results? 

If we could buy 200MP backs, for our MF (/LF?) beaters, to write RAW + JPEG, storage might become a bit of an issue but would still be dirt cheap, compared to film. 

[Robin Smith]

I wonder if people are truly wanting to look at their shots on a big TV. Most people watch real TV on TV screens. I don't really have any interest in doing that. I would point people to a website and they would look on a phone or tablet, and that is what my family do. Looking at your own shots on a TV seems slightly strange to me unless you are doing it with the whole family. Then it becomes a bit like the slide shows of yore (and we know what that means). The good thing about the internet is it allows you to explore at your own pace., and skip all the shots of you looking bad or the ones you find boring.

Comparing to film is pretty meaningless to most of us now and particularly for probably >90% of phone buyers. Like most people I am no longer even vaguely comparing these costs to film, so it is no consolation to know film is more expensive.

[Ricochetrider]

When convenience is king & ignorance rules the day, any one device that even roughly emulates many things will outsell everything it mimics. 

[Jochen_S]

@Robin Smith No clue about TVs, I have neither, nor family. But I'm kind of determined to build a lame "green" and a hotter gaming / editing PC, to use my 27" screen again, for image viewing, Retina iMacs feel outside my reach. But yes, tablets are great for infotainment, I 'm on one too. 

[David_Cavan]

We use the three TVs in our home almost constantly during awake hours to slideshow photos selected from our lifetimes of photography as a hobby, and a business. It ties well into our own music, or playlists from Spotify. It's mostly in the background, but now and then we see an image, and that turns into a 10-minute conversation about something from our memories. As far as I'm concerned the display quality is somewhere between good-enough, and excellent. JPEGs are somewhere between 2mb and 20mb, and they are sufficient to have sold a few prints to guests who see something, get curious, and end up buying an image for themselves. 

The point of all this is that there are so many options, so many ways to do things now. There's no right, or wrong, way. I believe in using our photos for us first, and others who see them as a secondary objective. But most important to me, using them, getting them off the disks and onto a device.

[Tony Parsons]

On 8/6/2023 at 5:22 PM, samstevens said:

<snip>

These numbers games and come-ons are about emotion, not rationality or practicality. What matters is the consumer buys and the companies clean up. And for those companies, it's good to the last drop! 

 

Not wishing to be sexist, but does this explain why so many adverts appear to be targeted towards women (and have been for decades), not counting ones for essentially feminine products (such as beauty products etc), hoping the emotional appeal will attract purchasers ? 

 

[samstevens]

3 hours ago, Tony Parsons said:

Not wishing to be sexist, but does this explain why so many adverts appear to be targeted towards women (and have been for decades), not counting ones for essentially feminine products (such as beauty products etc), hoping the emotional appeal will attract purchasers ? 

Not sure I agree that’s the case … and, unless you buy into the sexist notion that emotionalism appeals more to women, simply asking the question doesn’t seem sexist. Just as well as one can’t wish sexism away though one can work at it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/13-brands-that-use-sex-to-sell-their-products-2012-2#nissan-takes-from-the-old-playbook-and-features-bikini-clad-women-in-its-ads-11

[PapaTango]

In 1899, sociologist Thorstein Veblen (one of my favorites) wrote "The Theory of the Leisure Class."

Certain elements continue to manifest in capitalistic consumer societies, most noteworthy for this discussion are the following:

• Invidious Comparison
• Pecuniary Emulation
• Pecuniary Struggle

Short version, people of greater wealth seek expensive things that demonstrate their wealth and status publicly, and the rest of us work our asses off to procure some version of that stuff to claim that our own class looks like we hold a greater status.  Sadly, this 'stuff' we often buy is a functional simulacrum of the coveted object.  Handbags, automobiles, and electronics come immediately to mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

Although over 120 years have passed, little has changed.  During a recent vacation, another photo bug proudly waved their Sony whatsit in my face and said I should have considered that over my new and shiny Fuji X-T5.  

Whatever.  

I am not even going to start with comments about my lovely Samsung A54 phone--delivered by folk who tote about the Galaxy S23, and will stand in line later to snap up the next version.  

Whatever...  🤡

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by PapaTango

[Nick D.]

People pay for that, it's like commercial, users don't know how to use it , but want still more of it.

[AJG]

4 hours ago, PapaTango said:

In 1899, sociologist Thorstein Veblen (one of my favorites) wrote "The Theory of the Leisure Class."

Certain elements continue to manifest in capitalistic consumer societies, most noteworthy for this discussion are the following:

• Invidious Comparison
• Pecuniary Emulation
• Pecuniary Struggle

Short version, people of greater wealth seek expensive things that demonstrate their wealth and status publicly, and the rest of us work our asses off to procure some version of that stuff to claim that our own class looks like we hold a greater status.  Sadly, this 'stuff' we often buy is a functional simulacrum of the coveted object.  Handbags, automobiles, and electronics come immediately to mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

Although over 120 years have passed, little has changed.  During a recent vacation, another photo bug proudly waved their Sony whatsit in my face and said I should have considered that over my new and shiny Fuji X-T5.  

Whatever.  

I am not even going to start with comments about my lovely Samsung A54 phone--delivered by folk who tote about the Galaxy S23, and will stand in line later to snap up the next version.  

Whatever...  🤡

 

My reply to equipment "experts" is usually:  show me the prints.  This isn't the kindest response, but if the prints show me something good then I am willing to listen to the gear talk.  Needless to say, this hasn't happened  often.

[PapaTango]

This screen gem says a lot...

 

[rodeo_joe1]

I call BS on the whole pack of 'inexactitudes'. 

On 8/6/2023 at 4:16 PM, Ken Katz said:

Still, the main camera has a 71 sq mm sensor.. 

So, they've squeezed a 10*7mm sensor into a phone body about 6mm thick? That's some ray angle required from the lens! I'm surprised the corner vignetting doesn't fade to pitch black. 

And even if the sensor really is that size; that gives a pixel pitch of under 590nm. Needing a diffraction-limited f/1 lens to make any use whatsoever of the supposed pixel-density. 

Whatever. The sample pictures given at: 

https://www.tomsguide.com/features/samsung-galaxy-s23-ultra-tested-how-good-is-the-200mp-camera

All look like total crap to me. The JPEG compression and sharpening artefacts alone make any claim of a 200 Mp 'resolution' totally derisable.

Is there no regulatory body to prevent utter science-bending tr(hype) like this making its way to the public domain?

If they really could produce stuff like that - where's my time-travelling hover-scooter? 

Edited August 22, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[za33photo]

Don't forget , the general public's mantra , "more , or bigger , is always better"🤣.

 

[PapaTango]

It doesn't make any difference unless we are using it.  This goes both ways...  🤔

Last week I was shooting at the county fair.  This resulted in acquiring two rabbits, but that is another story.  An older lady honed in on me, with evil intent.  Now here I am with my fine Fuji X-T5 sporting a Nikkor 18-300mm lens, smartly accented with various SmallRig accessories.  She asked me how many pixels I had.  Certainly no double entendre there?  I tell her 40mp, and she proudly waves her bejeweled iFarce in my face and tells me she has better!  Why, hers is 2 gigabytes!

Frankly, I am not really interested in such a big storage area.  Thankfully my partner reappeared with our sausage sandwiches and salt potatoes and allowed us to make a hasty retreat from the evils of the mega smartphone camera sirens...  🤡

Anyone interested in the dimensions of my sensor?

[samstevens]

 

[Ken Katz]

The 200 MP claim by Samsung is correct, but with regard to getting anything near that in useable resolution, its utter BS and total marketing hype.  But at the end of the day, do most folks who just want images of family, friends, and vacations need much more than a late model smartphone?  These are not PN readers and do not have a subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud.  We are going to Europe next month with friends, and they will be leaving their 18 mp Canon Rebel + Tamron superzoom at home and rely on an Iphone 14 pro for imaging.  I am sure they will be happy with the results. It call also be used to look up restaurant reviews, call an Uber, check on the weather, text, email, and even make calls.

[Ricochetrider]

Speaking of grand claims by marketing department, I’d like to see sellers of “smart” phones advertise their products’ perfect & unwavering signal reception and amazingly clear audio quality during phone conversations, 

 

 

[samstevens]

23 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

Speaking of grand claims by marketing department, I’d like to see sellers of “smart” phones advertise their products’ perfect & unwavering signal reception and amazingly clear audio quality during phone conversations, 

 

 

If you’re having trouble with reception, get your husband, wife, partner, child or a good friend to put some aluminum foil on the rabbit ears and hold them in just the right position. Oh … wait …

[pavel_l.]

If this 200 Mp sensor truly delivers this resolution w/o noise, than samsung may not need the multiple zoom lenses.