Samsung builds the world's highest-resolution phone camera sensor: 200 MP

What makes it so difficult for you to grasp the idea of say making one pixel out of 9? Are you drunk?

OK, I spent 2 minutes counting. It is 6 - and counting.

If you keep on workin drunk no wonder your attempts at designing anything are failures. I have 0 failed designs so far, but then I don't work - or post - when I am drunk. In fact I just don' drink, apart from a beer once every 2 weeks or so during the summer. If you want to succeed at designing stuff quit drinking.

Some *may* have done stabilization by software, perhaps. It does look doable.

However no camera on the market (zoom cameras, full frame ones etc.) does that. They either move something within the lens (not the entire lens, obviously) or they move the sensor (SONY do that IIRC), mechanically.

Don't know how they do it in the phone cameras, may be the way you think they do it (being that small this may be practical), may be not.

I have done things decades ago and I have done things 1-2 years ago and I am doing things at the moment. I post rarely, you might do better if you read my posts as many times as it takes before you reply, preferably when you are not drunk as your posts suggest you are most of the time.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sgu70s$b6m$1@dont- email.me:

Oh boy! Yet another presumptuous, retarded, Trumpanzee dumbfuck remark.

Again, you are a presumptuous dumbfuck, at best.

Yet here you are in a Usenet News group acting like a complete ass because you failed to keep up with the industry.

Just so you know, putz, image capture and the design of the devices thereof is different from picking and placing pre designed modules on a graphics adapter for a display card.

Always a walk back. Your brain is bent without the drink.

Show me where I said that I drink, or even get drink for that matter.

Oh... that's right. You are just another retarded, insulting Usenet putz making retarded presumptions.

Popoff and die, Offenpopper.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sgu70s$b6m$1@dont- email.me:

Idiot. Several methods get employed. And I would say that ALL use software and grab a bigger frame than that which is actually produced and then "grab" corrected frames for assemblage of the final raw file.

You *may* have thought you were up on everything, but you lack.

You might catch up... it does semm doable.

But that presumptuous baby bullshit you spew about folks you disagree with being drunk... Yeah that s*it is about as stupid as it gets.

John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header wrote in news:sgv1jo$e7t$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

What is youtr excuse for being self retarded on the Internet is John the DoeTard's everyday behavior. Knowing f*ck all nothing about proper Usenet posting is a simple thing a four year old can do right... but not the DoeTard.

So, you became an expert on this claim how?

John Doe is a Usenet PUTZ.

Often people focus on the pixel count in cameras (pun intended) while there are multiple other features that are just as important if not more so. One I find in a $150 camera over my cell phone is the management of speed vs lighting, also close up focus ability. The phone has trouble focusing on the menu bar codes in restaurants these days because my hand is not so steady. The camera often does a very good job with close ups. It has an optical zoom which the phone does not and is great for photos of circuit boards, chips and the like. The only thing the phone seems to do better is when the flash is in play it will flash it once or twice to get the exposure right. If it is too dark the camera has no way to focus. That's more of an issue when taking photos of people in low light. Inanimate subjects are usually better lit than that. I recall using an older camera that didn't do any exposure adjustment with the flash so I would put a post-it note over a portion of the flash until had it right. Got some really good images of circuit boards that way. Sometimes they are hard to get illuminated well. To avoid shadows I've made a back light reflector out of white paper. Gives a nice, diffuse light.

The camera doesn't connect with USB unless you use a Fuji program that requires an annual fee if I recall. I use sneaker net with the SD card and it just works. The phone requires me to use a USB cable and built in software, but it often doesn't connect and I have to play with the dam phone settings. You might think you could do this with Bluetooth, but I guess they've not added file system stuff to Bluetooth. It really doesn't have the band width to move photos en mass.

Or they claim image stabilization and just reduce the shutter time. Yeah, it took a lot of research to find that out, but that's what one of the camera companies was doing on lower end units they claimed had "image stabilization" or a similar term.

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Sep 2021 23:26:08 -0000 (UTC)) it happened John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header wrote in <sguauf$o2t$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

I have one of these on my sunglasses:

Hey, I like this thing, has had its use already.

On a sunny day (Sat, 4 Sep 2021 00:20:30 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yes, and beware of the USB cables, just found this link from a posting today in sci,crypt:

But mainly you are right, my Canons are hard to beat, much bigger lenses, good closeup. But the phone cameras are getting better and better, and it has much more features, more easily selected with touch screen than the mini-menus of the Canon. But then again I run non standard software on the old Canon A470 camera.

On a sunny day (Sat, 4 Sep 2021 08:50:30 -0000 (UTC)) it happened John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header wrote in <sgvc0m$7hc$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

HD 720P Spy Hidden DVR Cam Sunglasses Sports Video Camcorder DV Wearable Camera ... [rover.ebay.com] Objectnr.: 361368209649 US $25,65

There was, very nice video too, made me buy it, I see now only ads and youtube videos for sunglasses with the camera build in. Not so practical as I have mine mounted on my polaroid sunglasses but it also works with normal glasses.

Given your posts, if you are not drunk writing them you are in dire need of a doctor. Best of luck getting sober or getting the right prescription, whichever applies.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sgvegu$mbe$1@dont- email.me:

Your unsolicited, unprofessional, unqualified, uncooth, retarded petty mouthings are just that. And you keep making them.

Given your retarded posts, you would qualify 100% for the 'troll' moniker.

The discussion was about image capture, not your pathetic elementary school playground bully wannabe f***ed in the head unsolicited assessments.

You are obviously NOT 'up' on the current designs, much less how they work. Cameras are NOT video cards, so even your claim of expertise is convoluted and wrong.

To act like you... I would finish by saying that if you are not acting this stupid from you drinking, then it is from sitting on the toilet for too long breathing the stench exiting your fat ass.

Ignore DimBulb. He's a foul boasting insult machine with no actual skills.

But maybe read Slingerland's book "Drunk".

He says that a little bit of alcohol helps creativity. It doesn't for me, but seems to for lots of people.

I remember how once, 30+ years ago, I had a beer and went on to program. Cost me a week to clean up the mess I had managed... And I had made no backup prior to starting, must have felt "creative" :D.

Alcohol opens up the blood vessels AFAIK and inhibits one's inhibitions so for some work - mostly artistic, where things don't have to work - probably does help creativity, but I would not expect it to help anyone in our kind of work...

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You didn't lose yours... it is simply stuffed up your own ass.

Don't see you talking about image capture or what image sensor plane resolution is or means.

You have the skill of a Trumpanzee twerp. I hope your taxes go up, punk.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sh099f$57i$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

There have been hundreds of thousands of engineers before you.

What "you would expect" is pretty silly, just like you grasp of image array technology.

Do you honestly think that everything mankind has engineered for themselves over the millennia was all done by perfectly straight, non-inebriated persons?

Better popoff those tunnel vision goggles.

Hi John, absolute minimum number pixels needed for "8K UHD video" is 7680 x 4320 = 33177600 pixels but real -world sensors almost always include more pixels, as "non picture area", used for autofocusing, and electronic image stabilization. Hence, why they say in those specs a "50Mpxl" effective sensor count is intended for "8K video" (33.1Mpxls). regards, RS

Hello Dimiter, there is a mix of "anti-shake" technologies in consumer digital cameras, camcorders. I think Samsung, in this announcement is targeting smartphones. (Samsung left the photography camera market years ago). Smartphones, due to size/space use electronic/digital techniques to stabilize the image, I expect. So more pixels means more non-picture area for motion tracking and shifted image readout. True, Sony's upper-tier consumer digital cameras use "sensor shift" method. But generally all the brands (Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, etc) use EIS in their low -end models and for some, Optical image stabilization in their mid- to upper-tier product. Nikon has their own "VR" (vibration reduction) lens-shift technology in the lens. Professional video cameras all use optical, AFAIK--its OK for them to be bulky. (per my 20 yrs testing consumer cameras, camcorders, & (later) smartphones). cheers, Rich S.

Like I said I can see this might be practical and they might do it, but we don't know if they do (I won't go into searches for the sake of this thread). Phone cameras do have moving mechanics, they do autofocus which makes the motion visible. So I would not be surprised at all if they turn out to use the same technique for image stabilization. No sensor area wasted, and this might be a pretty huge part of its area, above a certain tracking target it may be more than half of it.

I'd say larger image area at a sensible pixel density does that.

Yes, they all do it optically, I have not encountered any which does it any different. No wonder, shaking at long focal lengths can cost a great part of the sensor area, may be all of it, if you have looked through the viewfinder of a zoom camera at >600mm equivalent focal length with stabilization on and off you know what I am talking about.