Even they say phase 1, the phase 2 missing all the MAIN key feature, it doesn't make sense.

Phase 2, by right should be IMPROVEMENTS over PHASE 1 or at least, a better version.

AND more importantly, it should have something similar, like a base. If there's no relation or similarities, they should use a totally different name. By using the similar name, AND loosing all the features, it's more like... using the NAME to promote their new product.

IMAGIE if sony come up EXMOR2, but totally different concept, using totally different style/idea, etc and achieveing DIFFERENT result. Why call EXMOR2?
Of Canon Digic processing, Nikon Expeed processing.... the newer versions are improvements over previous.

Lumia fakeView is totally different thing and achieving DIFFERENT result. PureView? Where?
In the first place, why people excited and bought a 808 PureView?

BIG QUESTION:
If Nokia come out with 909 PureView running Symbian, 8MP, no lossess zoom, all missing. Can you call it PureView and Phase 2?

This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 6 2012, 11:38 AM

Just think of this, added to above post already:

BIG QUESTION:
If Nokia come out with 909 PureView running Symbian, 8MP, no lossess zoom, all missing. Can you call it PureView and Phase 2?

That's why initially, the PureView Lumia is to be available in near future, not the first WP8. It was obviously very impromptu, rush or forced. They most probably working on something.

I don't think 12MP is not enough, the oversampling can be less, just like when you use 808 PureView, as you zoom, less area of the sensor is use, thus reducing the effective megapixel and less oversampling technology.
When you zoom to MAX, there is NO oversampling.
So, even with 12MP, it can provide lossless zoom by utilizing the sensor size at 2MP, 3MP or 5MP.

In theory, there key benefit and PureView is STILL there.

BUT then, it probably cannot be done YET on WP8 due to certain restriction as it cannot use the same imaging processor....

No improve, should it become worst or loose most (or should all ALL) of the characteristic or key features?
Firstly, what make it a PureView? There must be something that makes it qualify to be called a PureView.
Even cars, how do you identify it as a Honda? Or specific models? Can I take a Ford and badge it Honda and call it a Honda. Well there is such thing as rebadging, but is it a Honda?
Or let's say V-Tec, what makes the technology V-Tec?

Wait; Do you agree it should still be called PureView?
Honestly speaking, it's not about prejudice on Nokia or anything. If they actually have PureView technology, I'll be happy about it, but it's really shocking to see nothing is there and they call it PureView

Just as I said, if Nokia come up with a 909 PureView with 8MP, no lossess zoom, no pixel oversampling; BASICALLY, just another phone camera. Can it be called PureView?

If Lumia PureView is PureView technology.... Can I call N8 PureView? What does Lumia PureView has that makes it a PureView? The BSI sensor?
Nokia Image Processing algorithm? like Canon's Digic or Nikon Expeed? That's Pureview? Wait, if it's software, maybe they can provide it to N8 and their older device, and BOOM, they become PureView Phase 2. Yay~~~
Then 808 become Phase 1 + Phase 2.... wait? Then call what? PureView1 with PureView2?

---

Added on September 6, 2012, 11:59 amHuh? I think that's due to the BSI sensor? Or the improved image processing?
That's PureView? PureView is image processing?
Let's update it to N9, N8, etc. we all have N9 PureView, oh yeah~



This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 6 2012, 11:59 AM

No, you start with 8MP, 5MP, why not, it's just HOW many X zoom you can achieve.
It's about utilizing the sensor size like cropping base on the sensor, without any interpolation or resizing, etc.

Yes, they can. We also can say they shouldn't do that right? They can continue to use, but people can feedback, comment and critisize.
FYI, this is actually to help them, what they do now is not good. If they come up with different name for a different technology, it wouldn't tarnish the image of PureView.

Let's say they call this technology as "ABC". Later when they finally apply PureView in WP in future, it means there is PureView + "ABC".

It's like Sony EXMOR, then they come up with something similar with PureView technology, with oversampling, lossless digital zoom. So, they have both EXMOR and similar PureView technology.

I just disagree and with what they do, and obviously, they're using the PureView name to boost their Lumia sales.

I got read, that's why I comment, because I cannot find any PureView characteristics, and why I mention the BSI sensor and Nokia Image Processing?
Larger F number? The sensor is smaller to begin with.
It's using BSI sensor which does help in low light.
Image Stabilization and longer shutter speed only works for shaky hands, but not for moving subjects.
N900 with FCam can have 1sec shutter speed. 808 using ND FILTER also can have show shutter speed.

Image processing does help in lower the noise and improving image quality, else, we don't need to update our phone imaging software.

So, now F2.0 + Optical Image Stabilizer + Longer shutter speed is PureView?
Then I think those camera manufacturers have nothing to worry about since they compact camera can do it and automatically makes them PureView camera?

Why PureView created such big response? It's not the f/2.4 aperture, it's not about optical image stabilization, all these are not new or unqiue at all, not an innovation.

Just as I said, they can call it a PureView, just like a Ford rebadge to Honda, they can call it a Honda, but is it really a Honda?
You can take a normal engine with normal "VVT" technology, and stick a V-TEC there and call it comes with V-TEC technology. But is it really qualified to be having V-TEC technology?

This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 6 2012, 12:30 PM

Let's be fair.

Let's really treat this as Phase 2, now imagine this; Does it sound logical or not:

Let's change the table and not look at Lumia, so it's a much more clearer picture:

PureView Phase 1:
Introducing the Nokia 808 PureView, comes with 41MP sensor, Pixel Oversampling technology, TRUE Lossless Zoom giving similar like Optical Zoom with constant aperture, etc.

PureView Phase 2:
Introducing the latest Nokia 909 PureView, the successor to the best Camera Phone of 2012, comes with 8MP sensor, OIS!!!! f/2.0 aperture!!! Nokia Image Processing!!! BIS sensor.

Can anyone see the clearer picture now.
Tell me it doesn't sound ridiculous?
I just cannot get any logic there. It's just way too obvious.
Sincerely, I never thought Nokia would do this; I thought there will really be some sort of PureView, should I say everyone think the same. When I saw the Lumia fakeView, I was totally like.... I feel like an idiot to be fooled around, just as how Apple treating their customers.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 6 2012, 12:56 PM

Yes, it cannot fully utilize but doesn't mean it can't.
For 808, when you're at 2X zoom, the pixels are much less yet stilll can oversampling
When you're at 2.5X zoom, the pixels is even more less, yet still can have oversampling.
Even it cannot fully utilize the oversampling, it's still there, MOREVER, there's lossless zoom.

OK, let's say really for some reason the oversampling can't be done (which I do not believe the reason is not enough MP, but more like, it will requires the image processor?), there's still lossess zoom? Why Not?
When fully zoom out: 8MP
As you zoom, less MP due to smaller sensor area. This are simple and can be by done any manufacturer.
Then if you want to say that, no point why user want to reduce the MP. Well.... give user choose lor... Digital Zoom or PureView zoom.

In short, it's obvious what's happening. They're simply using the PureView name and then creating many excuses for it.

You know what I feel when I read the white paper for Phase 2? I keep cursing "rubbish" or 'bs"; I feel like they're twisting and trying VERY HARD to proof this is Phase 2, this is PureView. Yet, I don't see ANY relation.

The white papers says this:
"PureView is a promise of versatile capture capability and leading edge innovation"

So, can say previous flagship Nokia imaging smartphone is ALSO PureView? Right? Most of them have "leading egde innovation".
What's Lumia PureView leading edge innovation? The "special" OIS technology?

So, what's Phase 3? Another totally different thing? maybe some super zoom lens which doesn't extend?

So, PureView actually have many different forms? It's not a technology, but just whatever new leading edge innovation that Nokia invented which promises versatile capture capability?
What, so, it's no longer a technology, but more of a team or motto or something like that? Instead of using a long definition like "PureView is a promise of versatile capture capability and leading edge innovation", they use short name like "PureView"?


Do they need to confined it? What's a technology?
I still cannot relate it, how a technology can change to a totally different thing but still is the SAME technology.

I think people are biased because of Lumia. That's why I put a 909 which is a Symbian, instead of a Lumia. Isn't the picture so much clearer? The 909 I mentioned is basically using the same imaging technolgy as Lumia, how come you say it's the same one form?

Honestly? I care the new tech works, It doesn't matter if it's something different, but with respect, it doesn't live up to the PureView impression and it doesn't have the characteristic of the real PureView. Just as I said, you can take an engine with "VVT" put a V-TEC badge, it doesn't have the V-TEC characteristic/technology.

If they give a different name, the picture will be totally different, obviously. It's a new technology, the new OIS as explained in white paper is interesting, and why they choose the BIS sensor, etc. But, again, honestly, why PureView. It's obvious that they're using this name to boost their Lumia sales. Do you even have the slightest feel that it might be true?
Giving a new name is a simple job, but can it do anything? Its obvious the needed something to market their device badly.


Yea, very lame and disappointing.

Anyway, my highlighted bold words is enough to explain all, haha.

Yes, they can redefine and do whatever they want. So, I'm saying here is, they're using PureView BECAUSE to market Lumia.

First, you must know why it's not happy.
If the Lumia is using the PureView technology, why would people not be happy? Even if it's less megapixel, but the key features are still there. There's a BIG difference here.
Of course, it's just name, they can even call their whatever technology that is unique as PureView... IF THEY WANT.
The question here is, is it appropriate or I also dunno how to put this.

As I said,
808 PureView with 41MP sensor, oversampling, lossless zoom, etc.
909 PureView (next generation), 8MP BIS sensor, OIS, BIS.

Why not call 909 PureView as a new thing? Like Sony using EXMOR for the BIS
OIS is just Optical Stabilization, if Nokia one is unique, they can patent it and give a special name. Canon, Nikon, etc all have their own naming.

If it can, then it's good, but if taking low light photo is PureView, next time they come up with camera with super HDR capability, also PureView.
So each PureView is DIFFERENT
Previous PureView is about Pixel Oversampling and Lossess Zoom
Today PureView is about low light capability
Tomorrow PureView is another different thing.

Why not, change the name for a new different technology. Simple as that. Why NOT? Well, one main reason, again, MARKETING for Lumia.

One more thing, if PureView is about leading edge innovation.
So, this is not a Nokia technolgy or product.

Wahhh, like that so many thing also is PureView.

Yes, but does it matter? Even with full PureView oversampling, is it noticeable? Same thing actually; In fact, with 808 PureView and Full Resolution, most people cannot see the difference, it's very minimal and depend on situation. You can check GSMArena and DPReview which does extensive testing. On some occasion, the PureView mode actually produce more poor result compared to Full Res mode downsample to similar resolution.
Beside the oversampling, as I mentioned, the key benefit here is the Lossless Zoom.
Actually the lossless zoom is just utilizing part of the sensor, they could easily add it in through firmware update I believe, even other manufacturer's can do it, it's nothing spetacular, but it's an idea Nokia come up for mobile imaging.

As for going backwards, that's another debate, that will NOT be about not using PureView already. But then, it's not 808 replacement, so you can't really say backwards because it's another product. Just like N8 and other Nokia Camera phone. It they release a Lumia Flagship Camera phone, then of course, it needs to have something as good.


Then as I mentioned, PureView can be anything else. They did very wrong by giving it a marketing term. N8 is also PureView, and many many more.

The way I see it, it's just not logical.

They marketing 808 with PureView technology. I was impressed and supported them, now it's more like a marketing tactic.

Sure, they can do what they want, but they definitely will upset many people and create many problems to themselves; And for business, it's not good. So indirectly, our upset is also for Nokia, not with bad intentions.

---

Added on September 6, 2012, 4:34 pmIf possible they should make a phone that we don't have to charge, just use until it's lifespan is up or weak. Maybe a 2 batteries inside the phone will will power and charge one another, that sort of thing, but to charge another battery with a battery, it requires more power. It they can somehow come up with something and at small size, it will definitely be a breakthrough, and tell people "This TRULY changes everything".


This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 6 2012, 04:34 PM

Good write up.
But, in PureView mode in 808, as you zoom to say 3.5X (for 3MP), the effective sensor area utilize, most likely is less than 8MP (lazy to do calculation); but there's STILL some oversampling.

So, should say, it can be done, but why not? So why not? I would "assume" that, as previously they ownself stated, the PureView Lumia will come at later date. But somehow they need to market the Lumia WP8 especially having competition from Samseng, and also the challenge previously.
So, the PureView could be just slapped onto it just to help boost and market.
I would assume they will only use PureView for their imaging flagship model. If true, the model will have proper PureView technology with addition to the Phase 2, OIS, BIS sensor. Doesn't that sound more logical?


I have no idea on the complexity, but lossless zoom basically is like cropping from the sensor, or cropping without interpolation or enlarging. Just like a Full Frame Nikon Camera, when you use a DX (Crop Sensor) lens, it can only utilize the DX Crop Factor sensor area thus the effective megapixel is reduced.

What about Video? There's no pixel oversampling right? The losses zoom is also utilizing the sensor area only, right?

For Canon DSLR, I saw before one video review, it also have something like lossess zoom, which I think is using sensor area; It's for video mode only, since video doesn't need so high megapixel.

As I said, then it's no point making it like so big thing in the first place. Basically, it can be anything, even not a Nokia.
A smartphone camera that first come up with HDR is also PureView.
The smartphone camera that have 3D also PureView.

No point right? It's basically, short representation of some definition.
Plus, the 808 is marketing with PureView, what PureView mode. So it shouldn't be called PureView mode.
Imagine PureView mode actual definition:
PureView Mode = A promise of versatile capture capability and leading edge innovation Mode

But better than nothing, at least they still can get lossless zoom if requires oversampling technology.
My take why it's not there is more towards the processing requirement? As 808 PureView, it comes with dedicated image processor?

Possibly the TRUE WP PureView would have it, but since they need something to boost or make the Lumia interesting they decided to use a name that is already famous and people really wanting it. Honestly speaking, many people will buy the Lumia just because of the "PureView", don't you think so?

Anyway, as mentioned before and most people would've agree, this doesn't fit as Phase 2.
Phase 2 should be base on Phase 1, not complete a different thing.
BUT if they call it a "DIFFERENT" Phase, then it's different story
Example:
808 PureView: Phase X
Current Lumia PureView: Phase Y

In future, the flagship Lumia PureView, when all is READY, will have the combination of the different phase.
Calling it Phase 2, is like a "continuation" from Phase 1, but current Phase 1, have no relation to Phase 1.

Of course, they can name it all they want; Just saying... and because of how the put it, they're created many issues for themselves.

Ya, most likely own by Nokia, but others can name their own version, SuperPureView, XtremeView, etc. hahaha

Just that I think they doing this term is "inappropriate" as they should give the technology itself a name (e.g. the technology in 808), thus they they have won't get all these problems; Now they may say it's not the technology, but a term, but to the general public, it's already the technology in 808, and when the PureView word is used in Lumia, people would've expect similar. This is common sense.
Either they really didn't think of this, or there's something going on behind. BUT, whatever it is, they just got themselves in a lot of troubles. All those previous reviews written for 808 PureView? And they never correct them.

---

Added on September 7, 2012, 10:27 amIf WP8 is good and become open and offers proper smartphone features, then it's worth to get the Lumia.
It's not a must to get the best camera phone. After all, previous Lumia Camera wasn't bad (can see from Sifu Aspire's shot), so this would definitely be much more improved over previous Lumia's Camera.

Besides the current Lumia PureView is totally different technology from 808 PureView, and it's not set as a replacement for 808 PureView, nor Nokia Flagship Camera phone. For those looking it, should wait for them to release the proper one.


This post has been edited by Andy214: Sep 7 2012, 10:27 AM

That's the thing, give OPTION.
It's simple, those that don't want to use PureView mode, can use tradtional zoom, etc. They have the tech, but not giving it, yet still calling PureView, is different thing lo


Yes, but they should think and consider the consequences; Even during 808 PureView review, you can see how the reviewers wrote them, and nobody corrects them, especially those famous ones like DPReview and GSMArena which done extensive detailed review.

Look at GSMArena lastest article on 920 Super Sciene, they're also very dissapointing with the "PureView" thing, it's very obvious this is hugely Nokia mistake and fault. As I mentioned, it makes people feel their being cheated.
They could easily resovled this by using a different or giving each technology a proper name, but it's also obvious why they wouldn't want to, even if Damian wants to, but I doubt those decision makers would want to since they need something to push their Lumias.

Yes, they were suck in how they present the 41MP confusion and 808 previously, but that's NOTHING compared to this.
This is obviously too BIG and too much.

No, I don't blame Damian or the employees or the review sites or how those people understand. I blame the marketing people and the decision makers. How you want to market and use the name is very important, and often they may use it again because it is famous and can help to boost the sales, without considering the consequences or it may destroy the image they once built and gain awards.
Many people will misunderstand and may never get to know the truth.
Many people may misunderstand the Lumia PureView is the WP version of the Symbian 808 PureView. Now, isn't that bad for Nokia?

Yes, but they just had to use the name and make many people misunderstand and causing a big stir. They may want to something attractive for the Lumia, but did they ever consider the impact and so on?

Sadly, all I can say is, they using the name, people will put very high expectation on the device.
So, even the device is actually performing very good, but it's giving an entirely different approach and result.

But, before N9 launch, people were posting that N9 copied iPod Nano design, just enlarge.

IF Lumia didn't succeed they might go this route... just as WHY Apple go very hard on Samseng. Looking at i5, lol, it';s more like i4S+
No new innovation, nothing new, nothing spectacular. I think even WP8 will beat it. I guess Nokia nor Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
No wonder Apple have to resort to rounded corners, or shape, etc. It's critical!

I guess Samseng, Nokia and Microsoft must be celebrating now, LoL

Anyway, the new iPod Nano really really looks like the N9, wahaha, the clear difference is the front God button, the one button to rule them all.

I guess Microsoft don't have to protect and think about Nokia? Probably it's better for them too? Besides, seems it's already confirm that Microsoft will have it's own Smartphone brand. They're basically like riding on Nokia to go through their WP7 era.

Nokia reputation is damaged badly and worst from their WP7.5 devices. More people dislike Nokia now. Sad but true.
Nokia may try to gain through the Lumia PureView, but it's still unsure how successful it can be and Nokia have to compete with Samseng and HTC in WP platform and later Microsoft themselves.... It won't really hurt Samseng or HTC since they have Androids, but Nokia relying solely on WP......

Well... it's still the same BLUE store, hehehe, just Nokia (PaiKia) become Samsung (Samseng)
Samseng kia taken over PaiKia

Last time you walk into most major shopping malls, you will always see Nokia Store, now it's Samsung Store... but it's still BLUE~

This is the problem with many BIG companies nowadays, as they introduce more "levels" to look professionals, in the end they just become worst. They only see statistics, result on paper that were reported. They no longer truly understand what people wants even though it's such a simple thing, they don't get down on the field and experience themselves as a user, see back the past and think WHAT IF they do this and that.

The same goes for Windows Phone, to me, they're concentrating on ECO System, but they're going backwards on other things, forgetting WHO they are, what they are capabable of, the origins of smartphone and how it should actually work, instead of following blindly on another product just because statistics result shows it's selling well. It's the same thing happening in everywhere, people no longer appreciate and see real talent, it's all about popularity, how many views your page, videos, etc get (doesn't matter it's good or bad); back then, ads used to be creative and the team actually spend time to find each talent, group, team, but now? Just pay most of the money to a celebrity.

So what Nokia had great engineers, talent, professionals. Todays world, these people aren't really appreciated anymore. You don't have to be a good singer, multi-talent to become famous and become a billionaire unlike last time.

I thought I saw you in Note II thread before? Is it yours?

They replace on the spot or need to send in the phone and wait?