It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

never take blurry & hazy UFO photos/videos again

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
We carry around cellphones these days. Now there will soon be cell phones with super high resolution cameras. With these handy, we will be in for clearer UFO photographs/videos in the very near future. These will be an indispensable tool in proving UFOs are real.

Samsung develops 8-megapixel cameraphone module


Coming to a high-end mobile near you in 2008
by Amy-Mae Elliott

15 November 2007 16:21 GMT - In Korea, Samsung has announced that it has created an 8-megapixel CMOS module for use in mobile phones.

The module has the same footprint as Samsung's 3.2-megapixel module at 10.5 x 11.5 x 9.4mm. It measures 3264 x 2444 pixels, has autofocus capabilities and will be able to produce 300dpi picture output for prints as large as 10 x 8-inches.

The module is expected to go into mass production in the first half of 2008 and should be available in high-end Samsung phones later in 2008.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
8 megapixels was a big thing about half a decade ago. Now you can shoot with 40MP cameras if you are so inclined.
But considering my phone has got only 2MP, what am I complaining about?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Oh damnit! You posted this just as I was filling out the form


On topic, I'll wait until 2012 to get this. By then it will either:

a. be much cheaper than it is in 2008
b. the world will end



Edit to add: Watch the rocks, the difference here is this is a cameraphone, which I think are the best (or the worst) contemporary invention. I mean I'd rather just carry one device than carry a phone and a camera.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
rofl Beachcoma, you must have pressed the Post Reply button between the time I pressed my button, and the time the page loaded, which was about .001 sec. Impressive timing!!



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


And it looks like I edited my reply to reply to you just as you posted a reply to my reply (was that confusing enough for you?)

On topic again, I'd like to clarify what I meant by the cameraphone being the worst invention. It's not my personal believe, but that of a friend. You see the fella is a playa. Connect the dots.

I personally love the cameraphone.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
clearer ufo pics = more uninformed kneejerk claims of "cgi"and " 'shopped" which discredits genuine skepticism.

there must be a way to educate the great unwashed to be able to spot and tell the difference between the telltale signs of masterful cgi work and images of real world objects.

untill then brace yourselves for the cries of "fake"



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Hmm I'll have the phone in 2009. My current camera phone takes bad pictures so yeah. I plan not to get abducted or anyything.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Last I heard was a 20 megapixel camera
but a 40 !? Where have I been....

Trying to find the 40 megapixel camera on the net " with out board talk"

but back on topic thats more then my camera I guess I need an update



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Yeah, 40MP backs for the H3 line of Hasselblads are pretty common. The highest pixel count for 'normal' cameras is 21.1, I think, for Canon's latest Mark III variant. 5 frames per second as well, due to dual Digic III processors. As soon as you get past the autofocus issues, it's a good camera



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
It's not the megapixels, it's the iso sensitivity / shutter speed. And of course the autofocus system. A good quality lens with a mechanical image stabilizer does more good too than megapixels.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Who needs mechanical image stabilizers when you've got digital stabilizers!?


Everyone always says 'It's not the number of megapixels that matters' but that's just not true. The more MP you have the better quality your picture will be, given a half-decent ISO.
But cramming too many MP's onto these tiny sensors they have in cameraphones is not a good thing. The Canon 5D, because it has a full-frame sensor, has physically bigger photo sensors, which decreases noise and improves quality over APS-C sensors.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


Picture resolution, yes -- the more megapixels, the better it is. But in the context of the thread title, I'd have to agree with PsykoOps. What's the point of having a good resolution if the camera has to be placed on terra-firma to get a clear, focused picture? Slow shutter means higher chances of getting blurry photo, regardless of MP count.

And when it comes to cameraphones, there's another consideration -- the phone's processor itself. If it's slow and laggy like a certain Nokia phone with 3.2MP... bah, not worth it. The Sony Ericsson with 1.2MP took clearer photos.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Shutter speed is one of the most important elements in photography, yes, but I don't see how it comes into this discussion. The shutter speed for this fancy 8mp camera would be no different to a normal camera phone, as the footprint of this sensor is the same. Cramming more sensors into the same area doesn't mean you will need more light, whereas using 120 film compared to 35mm would require a longer shutter speed due to the increased surface area of the imagine surface.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
The shutter speed for this fancy 8mp camera would be no different to a normal camera phone, as the footprint of this sensor is the same.


How do you know that? There's no mention of it the article. From my experience with camera phones, the shutter speed is controlled by a software driver, not unlike drivers in a computer.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Shutter speed is goverened by how much light is needed. Frames per second is where the software comes in.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't FPS only applicable to video cameras?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   
FPS is far more important with still cameras than it is with video cameras.
In video cameras, it is expected that they will be able to take at least 24 frames per second.
With still cameras, on the other hand, FPS is very important to people who want to take sequences. The fastest 35mm DSLR is, going from memory, the EOS 1d Mark III, with about 11fps. That's 11 frames per second at full 10.1MP. In video cameras, you would be lucky to get 3MP still.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Okay I'll just take your word for it. You seem to know a whole lot more about cameras than I do.

But if this were a discussion about computers... then it's a different story



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
The computer is a box that you plug into a wall and a monitor. It has all sorts of cords coming out of it that cannot be mixed up. If you mix them up and press the wrong thing, the box stops working.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 




Basically, yeah. I bow to your superior intellect



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join