reminder that there doesn't exist a single phone with a higher megapixel count than 12mp. samsung, google, apple, sony and all other manufacturers use software and other hacks to create fake megapixel counts they can use in their ad campaign. in reality every 48mp phone you see is actually 12mp. there's not a single phone on the market capable of producing a shot higher than 12mpdon't fall for the marketing kikes
megapixels do not determine the quality
>>102506010megapixels are one of the determinering factors that decide the quality of a photograph. and even if it didn't, why would manufacturers lie about the numbers?
>>102506010They kind of do but only when you factor 50% scaling. So a dogshit 48 MP image will produce an okay looking 12 MP image.>>102506065Not all megapixels are created equal. Same reason why slapping a "4K" sticker on a laptop doesn't automatically mean it looks better than a 1080p laptop. For all you know that 4K screen might suck so much ass that the 1080p one would be an improvement.
>>102505993I just bought one of those nasa phones that don't have a camera on them
>>102506146image size decides fidelityand no phone has the sensor size to accommodate 48mp. you can't conjure up megapixels out of thin air
>>102506247there doesn't exist a phone with a true 48mp sensor. they're all 12mp
>>102506180see >>102506117
>>102506278The sensors are true 48MP.They just group 4 pixels into 1 to make a 12MP image which is plenty.Also remember that sensor "pixels" are single color.So 4 into 1 means 1 red + 1 blue + 2 green => 1 RGB pixel.Not much information is lost in that conversion.
>>102506117>Not all megapixels are created equal.a megapixel is a megapixel. nothing more nothing less. you know how many megapixels the new iphone 16 pro has? 12 megapixels. nothing more nothing less
>>102506278my 8 year old phone has a 16MP sensor, and it's not just upscaled 12MP or less either, the raw, still-bayer-patterned dng's i get out of it are 4640x3480, or 16.15MPi have no doubt high MP phone cameras are what they say they are, however i also know that often by default they will generate 12MP or otherwise smaller jpeg's as the final image to save space by default, basically creating supersampled images, or providing additional headroom for digital zoom
>>102506369>to make a 12MP imagewhich is not 48mp, thanks for proving my point
>>102506382Read the rest of my post.
>>102506372>i have no doubt high MP phone cameras are what they say they are,you're an idiot
>>102506406Doesn't prove anything.
>>102505993>too stupid to understand how supersampling works
>>102506434>supersamplingaka software hacks to compensate for poor hardware.
cameras stopped evolving like 20 years ago
>>102506372The tiny lenses can't resolve more than about 8MP.So anything higher is a bit pointless."supersamping" (I think binning is the technical term) still makes sense to get better color information for each pixel (vs interpolating which is what your 16MP camera does to make 16MP images).And it doesn't really add cost since it's still the same sensor size and same processing power required.
>>102506453good goy, trust the marketing kikes.
>>102506460>cameras stopped evolving like 20 years ago>The tiny lenses can't resolve more than about 8MP.this
>>102506453
>>102506468you're right, actually keeping super high resolutions makes little sense with such small lenses, which is why they do binning to turn the final image into something more reasonablethe point is not whether they make good 48MP pictures, but whether they have 48MP sensors, which they do
>>10250646020 years ago the legendary Canon 5D wasn't even out yet.Maybe camera evolution slowed down in the last 10 years but 2005 to 2015 was amazing.I still use my Nikon D800 from 2012 and it's still a fantastic camera.But I wouldn't use a digital camera from 2004.
>>102506446Nope. In the case of S23U, the sensor takes a 200MPx shot, then downsamples it to 12.5MPx (combines 16 pixels into 1), then the bayer filter applies the colour data - this one is indeed 12MPx (or rather 12 million filter lenses). Which is why the 12MPx shots look the best., there isn't enpugh colour data for higher res shpts, but there is enough pight data. With that light data, once downsampled it produces a sharper image than a native 12MPx, same-size sensor.
>>102506518aka software hacks to compensate for poor hardware.
>>102506430If you don't understand pixel fill then you understand nothing. Not the guy you've been arguing with.
>>102506473you're a faggot
>>102506512>But I wouldn't use a digital camera from 2004.Which is basically what a phone camera is. Binning or not
>>102506550The difference is marginal. And they only do it so they can brag they have as many megapixels as a DLSR (which they don't)
>>102506460not true, but you aren't extremely wrong either. it was like 2014 or 2016 when the backlit sony 35mm sensor came out in the sony range and nikon range and ever since that nothing has evolved. my D850 still shoots pretty much exactly similar images as the newest top dogs do. there has been literally nothing but steps backwards with the mirrorless camerasif having a mirror was bad, why do the top 35mm's still use it?
>>102505993How come iPhones take better photos than samshit or snoy shit with gorillion mega pixels?
>>102506629iphones use a sony sensor
>>102506640So do Xperia phones but they're all shit
>>102506559Well, I don't use my phone camera either.But with enough light a modern phone camera does look better than a Canon 5D (which was by far the best digital camera in 2005).
>>102506629Not really, they all suck in general. It's just software trickery fooling you.
>>102506583ok so 10 years
>>102506537it's more of a hardware hack to compensate for small lensesit does technically have 200 million photosites, but these super high res phone sensors don't work the same way as traditional sensors, so it's not accurate to compare them using only the megapixel count
>>102506753>so it's not accurate to compare them using only the megapixel countExactly. But phone companies still try to take advantage of this to trick dumb consumers. As per usual.
>>102506753if the picture needs explaining, as i understand it the middle is what the sensor actually is, each photosite lens has 9 photosites under it. on the right is the 12MP combined picture you usually get outside of bright conditions, and on the left is a picture that is the full resolution, but with less colour detail (or rather, the same as a 12MP picture), which requires bright conditions as the photosites are so small individually>>102506780well if you're expecting a 108MP to be "9x better" than a 12MP one... yea no, it doesn't work like that
>>102506812>yea no, it doesn't work like thatApple among others want you to believe it does
>>102505993>he doesn't photomaxx by carrying a mirrorless with a couple of lenses in addition to a smartphone for fun snapshots and stress-free video capturesmdh
i can take better super dark shots on my old oneplus 3t than the s21 ultra i have here, just because the s21 doesn't seem to allow taking exposures longer than 200ms (1/5)it's also got a regular 16MP sensor rather than 108-but-actually-12MP-lenses sensor, though that doesn't really matter at the end of the daypic related, s21u compared to op3t of my wall, in a room lit only by my computer monitor (dark enough that the light switch is barely visible by eye), both were taken raw, heavy compression because size limitthe s21u is great for ai-manipulated snapshits, but not as flexible in terms of full manual use
>>102507288and here's using the s21u's normal camera app with whatever post-processing stuff it doessure it takes the picture faster... but do you even want it to?
>>102505993You just need to press one button to get a 50mp shot. It's pretty useful for well lit daytime shots for more detail.
>>102506813>consumers are well aware that even though the s24 ultra had a 108mp camera it still produced dogshit.no, they really aren't.
>>102505993Actually, there were 16mp and 20mp bayer sensors in phones in the past.
>>102506180lens quality dictates fidelity
