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

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sh1292$2lq$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

For the second time.. YES... WE KNOW that they do. YOU are the clueless one.

"like you said"? No... it is NOT "like you said".

OK, I won't ignore you one more time.

Repeating a claim does not make it more credible. Prove that you

There are more reasons why stabilizing based on successively sampled images is impractical than you can think of but go ahead, spend some time searching and prove my assumption wrong. Until then, you remain "always wrong". And yes, you may lose someone who has been sympathetic to you for those more knowledgeable than you calling you that, like many people I don't like to see the weaker being bullied but you are just way too noisy. Feel free to ignore this post if you cannot find anything credible to support your claim, I won't be offended.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sh52fe$d5k$1@dont- email.me:

Just so you know, PUTZ. YOU have been barking about OPTICAL image stabilization.

Oversized image arrays and frame processing allows for DIGITAL image stabilization, and THAT is the kind used in phones as they do not have the device "real estate" to incorporate multi element optical image stabilization methods and use digital methodology.

Maybe you will wake the f*ck up and smell your ass and maybe remove your head from it.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sh7lm2$cru$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Repeating a stupid remark does not make it more credible. I have NOTHING to prove to a name calling f****ng retarded Usenet PUTZ who jumped onto the hayride some assholes in this group started. That makes you not too bright in more than one area. I do not need to prove a goddamned thing to an utter mental midget like you.

You are just pised because you know I am right and that is the method used, and especially so in fixed lens scenarios.

But hey... you made video cards, so you know ALL about how camera makers do their work. Sure, bub.

So copy and paste the same stupid s*it response again, dork boy. That pretty much makes you just like a Trump supporter. Dumber than dogshit and refusing to learn anything new.

I am not pissed off and no, I don't know that you are right. I suspect you are wrong; there is at least one more obvious thing about image stabilization based on successive samples you have yet to think of which makes it impractical but well, doable under circumstances.

Had you been less noisy and more polite I would not have reminded you you were the "always wrong" guy. It is up to you to prove my assumption wrong though, do it and prove to everyone you are not "always wrong", here is your opportunity.

Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in news:sh87v0$jea$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

You said you did graphics adapters. So what was the largest array size you did the hooks for? 1080? 2K? 4K? 8K?

And you never heard of frame estimation? What do you think MCPC was back in the analog sat feed days? And all video compression uses frame estimation techniques to reduce the stream rate requisites.

And there you sit thinking that they do not have the power or brains to perform image stablization on a fixed lens platform.

I'll tell you what moves... The tiny guts of the little MEMS IRU they use. Using that RT data and the over sized (beyond full base resolution) image array plane element count is for frame correction purposes on "moving picture" "recordings" and subsequent file assemblage. Kind of a small affect steadycam thing, only good for a small window of motion correction. Or do you need help with the acronyms too?

And the mere fact that you yet again spouted out horseshit about "having reminded me" is pretty f****ng immature.

So you can post sane messages after all. The display controllers I have designed are a tiny part of what I have done, don't bother trying to guess what I know by what I have told you about.

You still have not offered more than your ideas on how image stabilization is doable which does not prove it is being done commercially as you claim. Just about anybody in this group knows how this might be doable the way you think. And you have yet to think - like I told you before - on at least one more issue with image stabilization based on successive sampling - which is sensitivity. To have say 4 successive images to reconstruct a stable image from - which computationally is not that expensive after all - you need at least like twice the sensitivity you need to sample it at once so your 4 images will contain something to work on. And at low light and longer focal distances this quickly becomes simply not feasible, you waste a lot more than just sensor area. Since you have not found anything to support your claim that phone cameras do image stabilization other than optical, my assumption is that those of them which don't do it optically (if any) simply do none at all, the cheapest cameras are wide angle and can get away with that anyway (the rule of thumb for getting a stable image without any stabilization is to expose for 1/(35mm equivalent focal length in mm) seconds).

Here is what DecadedBrainMatter couldn't, or wouldn't provide: