Damian Dinning Discusses the 808 PureView Pro approach v the Lumia 1020: Intro (part 3 of 3) ...
Sharpness, detail and noise:
This I knew would be the toughest aspect for Nokia to get the balance right, given the module is smaller, the pixels are smaller and the height of the module is smaller compared to the 808. Most of these are mitigated by one or more aspects. E.g. pixel size in terms of light gathering through the use of a larger aperture so more light reaches the sensor and the use of a BSI sensor so more light reaches the pixels themselves.
Referring to our two groups again, for full screen viewing I would argue Nokia have it close to bang on in terms of noise, sharpness and detail.
However, for the pixel peepers amongst you, based on multiple forums and comments provoked by reviews, it’s clearly considered to be noisy and over sharpened when comparing against DSLR’s or even Nokia’s own 808. Some commenters even expressed the view that images are not truly ‘PureView’ as a consequence of images exhibiting noise.
I therefore spent quite a bit of time looking into this. Here’s what I found:
Comparing full resolution images of the 808 with those of the 1020, noise and sharpness/detail are IMO broadly speaking quite close, with possibly the 1020 having a little more detail in some situations. With hindsight perhaps there were not enough oversampled images shared at the launch and too many full resolution images. After all, even the 808 has some noise at full resolution. As said at full resolution there’s little difference between them IMHO.
When looking at the ‘oversampled’ images, yes, the 1020 appears to be highly detailed and very sharp, but on closer inspection (pixel peeping), when compared against DSLR images and those of the 808 shot at the same time, the sharpening (edge enhancement) is perhaps for some too aggressive and as a consequence noise becomes visible at high ambient light levels where the 808 provides zero noise.
I don’t have access to RAW images as Nokia would so I’ve had to work with my already processed images, but even so this proved to be a very interesting exercise. I took the full resolution image captured at the same time as the 5mp oversampled version and then resized it to the same resolution as the 5mp output image using Photoshop’s various resizing tools.
Whilst not the same as oversampling as well as being applied to an already compressed and processed image, it does suggest that 808 like detail and noise reproduction would be possible. In fact in some cases I would perhaps argue that the image from the 1020 provided more detail.
If you’re currently using a 1020 and prefer the 808 style oversampled images you could use Photoshop as I did to relatively easily reproduce such images. Select one of the bi-cubic options (try all three and decide which gives the best balance of noise and sharpness for you) and then type in the image resolution you want to ‘oversample’ to.
In the example crops shown here you can see the difference in sharpening artefacts, detail and noise when significantly less sharpening is applied in the 5mp oversampled images vs. Nokia’s current ‘oversampled’ original and the 808’s 5mp oversampled images.
If you click on these images (in the original article at link above), the original will open in a seperate window (in the original article) you can hover with your mouse over the shots to see the caption).
On this basis it may make sense for Nokia to provide some form of option for sharpness handling. For arguments sake let’s call it sharpness with at least two options, one being high or enhanced (the current) with another being low, minimal or natural. This setting would provide roughly the net level of sharpening applied to the full resolution images but for 5mp oversampled images.
The goal I would recommend being skies with little/zero noise and no obvious sharpening artefacts when viewed at 100-200% when using 1x zoom. Based on my limited and restricted Photoshop trials, this should provide ‘808 like’ image quality, possibly even slightly more detail than the 808 in some situations. What’s your view?
In low light, I think Nokia already has the balance about right for sharpening, detail and noise handling where it seems a significantly lighter touch has been applied to sharpening. My above recommendations are therefore for good ambient lighting levels and enjoy the benefits OIS provides in low light.
You may be wondering, of the outlined recommendations, which would I use myself? For colour handling, in most situations I probably would use the default (although ideally as said with a little less saturation/colour vibrancy) but at times change across to a more natural setting.
With regard to sharpening, I would use the setting which provides the lowest sharpening, for me, I like the low/zero noise and smooth clean details the 808 produced, even if the images ‘look’ less sharp at lower viewing magnifications. However, I can also see for ‘snapshots’ myself using the super sharp setting. Viewed on our projection screen at home, they do look rather awesome!
Which would I use, 808 or 1020? Definitely the 1020, even as it is today. I love it (especially in yellow! :-)
- Damian Dinning -
# # #
- Eric L. |
