LG's 8-megapixel Renoir handset gets previewed, handled
By Darren Murph 
posted Sep 30th 2008 4:18PM
posted Sep 30th 2008 4:18PM
[Thanks, T.I.]
posted Sep 30th 2008 4:18PM
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.
why?
That's 4 times as many megapixels as my iPhone 3G. :-/
And they still look as crap as each other! That's the funny thing here.
"hey i got a phone"
"oh look it's 8mp"
"waw, awsome"
"dude, test it out"
"totally"
(5 min later)
"er... is it just me or does that picture look dark and blurry"
people, 8mp doesn't mean cock without a proper lens,
and you can't fit that on a cellphone!
Even with a proper lens, squeezing all those pixels on such a tiny sensor generally leaves you with a noisy mess.
This is the obligatory camera comment. Every single post about a camera has at least 2 people commenting on the small sensor and non-existent lens. Us non-camera people understand already, thanks.
@Reader
Well, it works like this: When light hits a photosensor (pixel) on the sensor, it creates a signal. In order to fit more pixels on a sensor, you have to make each photosensor smaller. This is a problem though because a smaller sensor collects less light, and thus produces a weaker signal. If the signal is too weak, it'll blend with the electronic noise produced by all electronic devices. This is what creates the detail destroying "grain" you often see in digital pictures.
That's a bit of a simplification, but hopefully it'll get the point across.
Oh, as for the lens part... when, lenses have a "resolution" too. And placing a high resolution sensor behind a cheap, low resolution plastic lens (which is what most Cameraphones use) will only result in blurry pictures.
One thing I forgot to mention is that the sensor in cameraphones is generally smaller than the ones in most compacts (which themselves are smaller than the ones in DSLRs). That means each pixel is also smaller to begin with.
The e-peen is strong with you, young padawan.
Now give me the equations for all that and I just might be mildly impressed.
Damn it Jim, I'm a photographer, not a mathematician!
@reader:
read a few MTF charts for real (view lenses, TLR lenses, Med format SLR, 35mm SLR) lenses. thats the result of mathematics in motion with optics. also, in case you've been, say, dead for the past 50 years, something in physics called diffraction disrupts the linear path of photons(sharpness), and this happens at small orifices, like the pinhole apertures of phonecams.
i'm pretty sure actual photographers have more experience with this than "non-camera people".
=]
no fightin', ppl.
It seems as if all of you think I disagree with you. I don't, I just am tired of the same comment being made over and over again. As a physics student, cavalier七七七, I might know a thing or two about diffraction. My point is simply that you guys aren't telling us anything new.
Of course it would also help if I wasn't dyslexic and didn't as a result misread your original post.
My battery is dead.
What is the point of this? 2mp already gets you 1600x1200. If you need more you are better off with a real cam.
ok ijerk
With good easy-to-use digital cameras getting as small as they are, it seems fitting that instead of having a digital camera and a cell phone that you would just have one.
Understandably if you are a commercial photographer or an enthusiast, this won't be your cup of tea. But for that average camera user, cell phones are providing pretty good alternatives to owning both devices.
To me, the biggest issues with good cell phone cameras is in lower light situations. The lack of a good flash makes them harder to use. At the same time, a powerful flash would drain your battery too.
So in the end, pack a good lense and the ability to shoot in lower light and you got a very good alternative. 3megapixels is great if the lense is good for the average user.
What's with all this hate? We should be embracing the advancement of mobile technology. Whilst the iPhone is vying for user friendliness, design, etc. LG is competing in a different market than that of Apple, it is focusing on new technology - as well as other mobile manufacturers. They cannot, in a marketing sense, be compared.
I'd embrace it if the technology was actually decent. My experience though is that these are more often DOWNGRADES when it comes to actual picture quality.
Hooray to technology!
I was serious...
Everyone assumes this phone has a crappy camera. Have any of you tested it out for yourself? Cell phone cameras aren't top notch in the industry but damn for a PHONE this and many others PHONES can take nice pictures.
There is a photo taken by the phone in the Cnet article, and it looks noisy as hell to me, just as people have predicted.
Wow, it used to be called a mobile phone with camera
Now its called camera with mobile phone
I'll take that over the ugly A$$ HTC G1 Android anyday.
Will your contacts stay in place if something happens to your phone? Guess not...
What the hell is so hard about putting a damn 3.5mm jack on a phone! Don't these people get that people want music from their phone and they don't want a freaking adapter?
-Taylor
Wow! is damn beautiful.
What I don't get is that when sony makes a really thin camera with a really small lens, everyone says "that's nice! how thin! ". But if you add a phone to the mix, everyone just assumes that it has a crappy camera, and starts talking about how bad samll lenses and sensors are....
Most of a cell phone's components scale down pretty well. Historically the camera isn't one of them.
What I want to know is where to get that Power Up Energy Drink in the picture.
The article's sample picture taken by the phone is terrible - all the detail has been smudged out by the denoising needed. They'd get better quality with a 4meg sensor and less denoising.
I like seeing new photos on facebook.
And its just not feasible to take your camera with to the movies or coffee.
Hence mobile phones :)
I got the Viewty when that came out and, if this phone resembles the Viewty, I seriously wouldn't bother!!
The Viewty was rushed out to beat the iPhone to the market and boy could you tell. It might have had a 5mp camera but I got better pictures from my old Nokia 3mp N80. You'd take a picture and the camera would capture it about 20 minutes later!
The operating system was/is just as laggy. Want to look for an image? Expect to wait a couple of minutes for them to load up.
Once my contract is up I'll be switching back to a Nokia with the Carl Zeiss lenses.
8mp is all well and good but it doesn't mean a better picture. It's about the lens and the software in the phone and, until LG master that side of things, they still aren't serious competitors.
Unfortuantely, there is a problem with the LG Lenses. Not a major one, but one of branding.
Like you say, Nokia have the Carl Zeiss optics in all their high-end phones, N-Series and the such, and while they might be smaller, it's still a Carl Zeiss, which is pretty damn good
LG, on the other hand, write Schneider-Kreuznach on their high-end cameraphones, but the lenses are not actually made by that company, only CERTIFIED by them.
I just wish companies would stop using stuff like that to try to trick less-than-well-informed customers.
Back in the days (like 2001) I had a phone with a 0.08 Mp camera resolution. Does anyone here wish to go back to those days? What we see here is called progress. Like it or not, it will always happen.