AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO review
Samsung Introduces ISOCELL HM3 with massive 108Mp Image Sensor for Smartphones
Samsung today introduced its latest 108-megapixel (Mp) mobile image sensor, Samsung ISOCELL HM3. With a wide spectrum of advanced sensor technologies, the HM3 can capture sharper and more vivid images in ultra-high resolution with faster auto-focus and extended dynamic range.
“While a pixel is just a single dot of color, when in millions, these dots can be transformed into stunning snapshots of life. With more pixels, images are sharper, with fuller details that can maintain their integrity even when enlarged. Samsung has been at the forefront of bringing the most pixels to mobile image sensors as well as various supporting technologies that take sensor performances to the next level,” said Duckhyun Chang, executive vice president of the sensor business at Samsung Electronics. “The ISOCELL HM3 is the culmination of Samsung’s latest sensor technologies that will help deliver premium mobile experiences to today’s smart-device users.”
The 1/1.33” ISOCELL HM3 with 0.8μm-sized pixels is a new addition to Samsung ISOCELL’s 108Mp product line-up.
For faster auto-focus, the HM3 integrates an improved Super PD Plus feature. Super PD Plus adds AF-optimized micro-lenses over the phase detection focusing agents, increasing measurement accuracy of the agents by 50-percent. The enhanced phase detection auto-focusing (PDAF) solution helps to keep moving subjects in sharp focus and delivers optimum results in dark environments.
In mixed light environments, such as at the end of a tunnel, the HM3 adopts Smart ISO Pro, a high-dynamic-range (HDR) imaging technology which uses an intra-scene dual conversion gain (iDCG) solution. Smart ISO Pro simultaneously captures a frame in both high and low ISO, then merges them into a single image in 12-bit color depth and with reduced noise. As Smart ISO Pro does not require multiple exposure shots to create a standard HDR image, it can significantly reduce motion-artifacts. In addition, with a low-noise mode, it improves the light sensitivity by 50-percent to capture brighter and clearer results in low-light environments than its predecessor.
The HM3’s pixel layout is especially arranged in three-by-three single color structures suitable for nine-pixel binning. By merging nine neighboring pixels, the 108Mp HM3 mimics a 12Mp image sensor with large 2.4μm-pixels, heightening light sensitivity when taking photographs in low-light environments. With an improved binning hardware IP, the HM3 supports seamless transitions between 108Mp and 12Mp resolutions.
Designs of the new sensor have also been optimized to reduce energy usage under preview mode by 6.5-percent, offering added power efficiency to the overall mobile device.
Samsung ISOCELL HM3 is currently in mass production.
Samsung Brings the Ultimate Gaming Experience to 2021 Neo QLED and QLEDs - 01/18/2021 10:02 AM
Samsung Electronics announced that it is combining innovative new gaming features with exciting industry partnerships to create a groundbreaking gaming experience with 2021 Neo QLED and QLEDs. ...
Samsung Initiates Consumer Branding for its OLED Displays in 27 Countries - 01/11/2021 09:56 AM
Ehm yes, OLED, as in what LF has a patent on. Samsung Display, the world’s leading producer of electronic image displays, said today that it is initiating a far-reaching product branding campaign t...
Samsung Galaxy Chromebook 2 - First QLED Based Chromebook - 01/08/2021 09:51 AM
Boasting the first-ever QLED display on a Chromebook, reliable hardware, and seamless integration into the Galaxy and Google ecosystems, Galaxy Chromebook 2 represents yet another high-performance opt...
Neo QLED: Samsung televisions use mini LEDs for illumination - 01/07/2021 10:19 AM
As part of the “First Look” in the run-up to CES 2021, Samsung presented new televisions under the name “Neo QLED”. The new QLED televisions use mini-LED backlighting to enable full array loca...
Samsung 870 EVO 2,5"-ssd pops online holding 4TB - 01/04/2021 09:34 AM
Samsung seems to be relaunching its popular SSD series this year. The Samsung 870 EVO SSD should offer slightly higher speed (same TBW) and a 4TB model....
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13716
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13716
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5879003 Posted on: 01/19/2021 04:08 PM
I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse?
To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself.
Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.
I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.
I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse?
To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself.
Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.
scoter man1
Senior Member
Posts: 4859
Joined: 2008-12-09
Senior Member
Posts: 4859
Joined: 2008-12-09
#5879010 Posted on: 01/19/2021 04:23 PM
I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse?
To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself.
Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.
I think you're right, that's why I didn't want to go too deep and look like a dick, lol. Using any SLR is definitely something you have to play with. I'm just stunned at the difference you can get between a good phone camera (like a P5) and even a 5+ year old Sony full frame camera. One that I think is a great comparison is getting a similar focal length lens, setting the shutter/aperture/iso/everything up the same on both and taking a shot of the night sky. You'll probably see a 20-100 stars on a phone camera. On a DSLR you'll see tens to hundreds of thousands. Stunning!
I find it nice that they don't drop new camera bodies every year too. Each one has something that really is an "upgrade" rather than, hey look, a new kludge to get around something that sucked last time! (like phones)
Anyways, enough of me rambling on here...
I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse?
To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself.
Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.
I think you're right, that's why I didn't want to go too deep and look like a dick, lol. Using any SLR is definitely something you have to play with. I'm just stunned at the difference you can get between a good phone camera (like a P5) and even a 5+ year old Sony full frame camera. One that I think is a great comparison is getting a similar focal length lens, setting the shutter/aperture/iso/everything up the same on both and taking a shot of the night sky. You'll probably see a 20-100 stars on a phone camera. On a DSLR you'll see tens to hundreds of thousands. Stunning!
I find it nice that they don't drop new camera bodies every year too. Each one has something that really is an "upgrade" rather than, hey look, a new kludge to get around something that sucked last time! (like phones)
Anyways, enough of me rambling on here...
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 2891
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2891
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5879031 Posted on: 01/19/2021 05:06 PM
Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though.
For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range.
All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market.
Sorry about the long post...
I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.
Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though.
For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range.
All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market.
Sorry about the long post...
scoter man1
Senior Member
Posts: 4859
Joined: 2008-12-09
Senior Member
Posts: 4859
Joined: 2008-12-09
#5879038 Posted on: 01/19/2021 05:16 PM
Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though.
For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range.
All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market.
Sorry about the long post...
Ah ok I understand what you're saying now. I think that is mostly because the high mp count sensors just introduce a higher signal to noise ratio and cost more. The Sony A7R series gets you 61MP which is quite a lot. It has a mode where it can use the internal sensor shift technology to "gain" a higher res pic by stitching a few shots together too.
There are cameras that have higher MP counts but you're talking big money at that point. Like hasselblad.
To your point of them not allowing 1000fps, I agree that they seem like they should be able to do high burst speeds. Not sure why they can't. Phantom cameras make huge amounts of heat though so there must be a reason.
Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though.
For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range.
All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market.
Sorry about the long post...
Ah ok I understand what you're saying now. I think that is mostly because the high mp count sensors just introduce a higher signal to noise ratio and cost more. The Sony A7R series gets you 61MP which is quite a lot. It has a mode where it can use the internal sensor shift technology to "gain" a higher res pic by stitching a few shots together too.
There are cameras that have higher MP counts but you're talking big money at that point. Like hasselblad.
To your point of them not allowing 1000fps, I agree that they seem like they should be able to do high burst speeds. Not sure why they can't. Phantom cameras make huge amounts of heat though so there must be a reason.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4859
Joined: 2008-12-09
I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.