Samsung in the press release boasts that it has developed a matrix of pixels, the smallest in the world. I do not know whether it is a source of pride because it means literally that the matrix will generate weakest picture quality. What’s more, there’s a good chance that it will look to the future flagowców.
This morning I got on mailboxes press release talking about that “Samsung first 1.0 microns produces dies for cameras in mobile devices.” After reading the headline pretty much I was surprised, because it is a whole lot of manufacturers who offer a much larger matrices of pixels. For example, Apple on its website boasts that iPhone camera 6 is a matrix in which a single pixel is 1.5 microns.
Achievement Samsung has not given me so particularly impressive, and certainly not enough to brag about it in the press release. The true surprise came to pass, when he bit into the content of the message.
It all boils down to the fact that Samsung boasts of the matrix creation of the world’s smallest pixel size
It was not a mistake. The article is quite intricate and places it looks to translate a person who has not fully familiar with the topic. OK, I am able to understand this, because we rotate in a fairly specialized, which can be a challenge for PR the editing Polish text (and I write this with no malice). The key, however, is this sentence:
“The smallest on the market size of pixels possible to reduce matrix module, including its height, which is ideal for manufacturers getting thinner mobile devices. “
Figuratively speaking, it is the textbook definition image quality deterioration
The relationship is simple: smaller pixel is a losing position because they simply falls him less light. This is true from the very beginning of digital photography. It is precisely for this reason full frames give today phenomenal picture quality and the best performance in low light. They have a very large matrix, which in a straight line translates into a considerable size of a single pixel.
>
So far, the pixel size reduction translates into a greater noise, less dynamic range and generally poorer picture quality. This is demonstrated megapixel fighting, especially on the shelf compact. Manufacturers of these devices rarely opt for a larger (physically) matrix, but on each occasion forcibly packing on it more and more pixels. The result is that they are smaller, so paradoxically, the image quality is worse. At best, standing still, as long as developers make up for this shortcoming better software matrix.
Samsung asked to comment on the matter
I was interested in why Samsung boasts a decrease in pixel size and how it intends to take advantage of this fact. In a telephone conversation Olaf Krynicki, PR Manager, Samsung Electronics Poland, explained to me what the benefit is. Smaller size matrices will translate into a smaller size camera module, making future flagship Samsung may lack the characteristic tabs at the site of the camera. And just to flagowców have hit new matrices.
When asked about the quality of this matrix, I heard only a fairly brief ensure that Samsung will maintain the highest possible quality, well-known from current products.
I do not want evaluate product that does not yet exist, but this announcement is very courageously. I do not associate the history of photography until the manufacturer decides to change the matrix size smaller. The market is exactly the opposite trend, in search of a better quality image. Dies smartphones and advanced compacts are constantly growing, which is a very good phenomenon.
Miniaturization the expense of quality?
Samsung has set the bar very high, because the camera of Samsung Galaxy S6 overhaul. However, if Samsung engineers have not developed some revolutionary imaging algorithms, reducing the pixel simply worsen the image quality, and yet not the way to go.
I am afraid that no PR-these spells will not change that. For now, I abstain from evaluation because secretly I hope that Samsung does not shoot itself in the foot by using a weaker matrix Galaxy S7. May I just did not have to loudly say “I told you so?”.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment