In theory you do have a point. The problem today is that manufacturers have taken the pixel density in most consumer cameras (and even some that are marketed to people who should know better) so high that the amount of noise (unwanted signal) has become too much for in-camera image processing (noise reduction, color reproduction, etc..) algorithms to do a good job.
This is especially true for cell phone cameras, where the push for ever-slimmer optics (shorter focal lengths) translates directly into a limit in the total CCD array size. If you go too far in cramming an ever-large number of photonic (CCD/CMOS/whatever) cells into a given sensor size (let's say a 1/2.5" CCD sensor for the sake of argument), then the amount of light (wanted signal) that is absorbed by each cell will have diminished significantly while the amount of noise (unwanted signal) has not.
In-camera image processing algorithms, while being able to take advantage of a larger number of data points to perform such things as noise reduction, color reproduction, reducing blur, etc., are now faced with a much lower quality of the total image, since signal/noise ration has decreased significantly compared to a camera with lower density (larger) photonic cells.
You don't have to take my word for it though. I think we all have anecdotal evidence about how an old digital camera of ours (in my case it was a Canon Powershot S110 with a whopping 2 megapixels) produced far superior images than a newer camera of the same class (e.g. a Casio Elixim V8 w/8 megapixels) - even after resizing the latter down by an integer factor...
(Other contributing factors in this case is that the latter uses so-called "folding optics" to achieve its slim profile with a 7x zoom; that aside, the CCD sensor size is comparable).
Oh, and I have used both a Nokia N95-3 (my main phone, currently in for repair) and a Sony Ericsson k850i (which I picked up from a local store in the meantime) for image capturing. Neither one is particularly impressive. The N95, of course, takes pretty crappy indoor/nighttime pictures, given no real flash; also, various factors (e.g. shutter speed) means that it is not too good with moving objects. The k850i tends to lose detail, even in bright daylight (though it is a bit quicker and more "camera-like" in its response..)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@WWhat:
In theory you do have a point. The problem today is that manufacturers have taken the pixel density in most consumer cameras (and even some that are marketed to people who should know better) so high that the amount of noise (unwanted signal) has become too much for in-camera image processing (noise reduction, color reproduction, etc..) algorithms to do a good job.
This is especially true for cell phone cameras, where the push for ever-slimmer optics (shorter focal lengths) translates directly into a limit in the total CCD array size. If you go too far in cramming an ever-large number of photonic (CCD/CMOS/whatever) cells into a given sensor size (let's say a 1/2.5" CCD sensor for the sake of argument), then the amount of light (wanted signal) that is absorbed by each cell will have diminished significantly while the amount of noise (unwanted signal) has not.
In-camera image processing algorithms, while being able to take advantage of a larger number of data points to perform such things as noise reduction, color reproduction, reducing blur, etc., are now faced with a much lower quality of the total image, since signal/noise ration has decreased significantly compared to a camera with lower density (larger) photonic cells.
You don't have to take my word for it though. I think we all have anecdotal evidence about how an old digital camera of ours (in my case it was a Canon Powershot S110 with a whopping 2 megapixels) produced far superior images than a newer camera of the same class (e.g. a Casio Elixim V8 w/8 megapixels) - even after resizing the latter down by an integer factor...
(Other contributing factors in this case is that the latter uses so-called "folding optics" to achieve its slim profile with a 7x zoom; that aside, the CCD sensor size is comparable).
Oh, and I have used both a Nokia N95-3 (my main phone, currently in for repair) and a Sony Ericsson k850i (which I picked up from a local store in the meantime) for image capturing. Neither one is particularly impressive. The N95, of course, takes pretty crappy indoor/nighttime pictures, given no real flash; also, various factors (e.g. shutter speed) means that it is not too good with moving objects. The k850i tends to lose detail, even in bright daylight (though it is a bit quicker and more "camera-like" in its response..)