Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Announces New Galaxy S23 Ultra With 200-Megapixel Camera
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I recognize my addiction. Many here don't.
Completely ignoring the megapixel count, which is just absurd and pointless, that pink one with the three camera lenses arranged in a vertical row looks fantastic.
Apple is still lightyears ahead when it comes to software, and I'm not even the least bit tempted by these, but the latest Samsung and Google phones have had far superior exterior hardware designs.
Apple is still lightyears ahead when it comes to software, and I'm not even the least bit tempted by these, but the latest Samsung and Google phones have had far superior exterior hardware designs.
Competition is good but Apple is a better competitor for themselves than Samsung.
Maybe the real innovation should be in how to do more with less (eg: optimise software to make more efficient use of less ram), rather than do more with more?
Just GPU @ 3DMark. Otherwise A16 is wiping the floor in NPU/CPU department. The Snapdragon is still using pretty low amount of cache which is funny. 8MB SLC vs 24MB in A16. Pretty sure the prime core is also not with 16MB (like Everest) which is on par with average desktop CPU.
Apple’s 48 megapixel is exactly that. Samsung’s megapixel count is significantly lower by the way the megapixels are utilized.
Proving once again, Samsung advertises fluff and flashy specs that make headlines. Too bad their implementation sucks.
Not really. Their hardware is decent, but the OS is trash. Because of that, I will not even consider Samsung for a second.
Good camera on the Ultra. Like the online exclusive colours for S23 Ultra.
Doesn't this increase the file size, processing power needed for the software pipeline to process the photo, battery power needed when taking and browsing photos, time needed to take a photo? I was under the impression that if your sensor is picking up noise, increasing megapixels just records the noise at a higher resolution, it doesn't clean up photos or increase the detail of the photo unless the sensor can keep up.
Maybe it's a future proofing move? I just feel like it's not appropriate for todays phones, even the high end ones.
Maybe it's a future proofing move? I just feel like it's not appropriate for todays phones, even the high end ones.
Looks like a taller iPhone with a vertical camera array.
More megapixels are good, means more zoom without needing a telescopic lens, which apparently iPhone will have next year. I wonder if by next year the iPhone Pro Max will have a huge megapixel count and the telescopic lens, giving it unrivalled zoom.
More megapixels are good, means more zoom without needing a telescopic lens, which apparently iPhone will have next year. I wonder if by next year the iPhone Pro Max will have a huge megapixel count and the telescopic lens, giving it unrivalled zoom.
They’re talking a 4x upgrade since 2015 vs the big number game that Samsung has been playing for the fourth year in a row if I’m not mistaken.
Looks like a nice phone. Love the design of it. If I needed a second device, I’d honestly consider it (the Ultra).
samsung offers 4 years of OS and 5 years of security updates. Basically one year difference from apple. So is that 5th year really that important?
So much Samsung hate... competition is good. Keep it up Samsung.
Think of the file sizes! I really don't want a 200M pixel camera, I have no use for it: no one does Post processing will be a nightmare and you'll need a huge amount of memory for nothing.
A printer can't use more than about 8Mp it throws away the rest. 8K video only needs 33 (and on a small screen you won't see that).
It must have reached the Nyquist limit a long time before 200M pixel and all those transistors must be making a massive amount of noise (assuming it has a lot of transistors and if not then what's the point?)
You could get really gorgeous results out of 3mp if you had a big sensor and good glass. (The Canon D30 was a good example. A slow camera but the image quality was sublime)
This will give you a lot more cropping (if your machine has the memory to post process it) but if it's over sampling and applying masses of noise reduction to eliminate the noise from all the transistors, then it will be a mess.
There's no way you can get enough information from a small sensor to warrant it.
Take a sheet of paper and cut it into 12. Now cut it into 200 and when you stick it back together you've still got the same piece of paper and it's the same with the sensor. The light that falls on it is what you have to work with and you can cut it into as many pieces as you like but it doesn't improve the light you've got and in fact, it reduces it because all those edges and corners between the photosites aren't collecting any.
There's a point where there aren't enough of course but there's a point where there are too many and I'd argue 50 is already too many.
A bigger sensor with better signal processing and 12Mp will do me. Better then the $5 plastic glass on the other end and less noise reduction and it'll be a lot better.
A printer can't use more than about 8Mp it throws away the rest. 8K video only needs 33 (and on a small screen you won't see that).
It must have reached the Nyquist limit a long time before 200M pixel and all those transistors must be making a massive amount of noise (assuming it has a lot of transistors and if not then what's the point?)
You could get really gorgeous results out of 3mp if you had a big sensor and good glass. (The Canon D30 was a good example. A slow camera but the image quality was sublime)
This will give you a lot more cropping (if your machine has the memory to post process it) but if it's over sampling and applying masses of noise reduction to eliminate the noise from all the transistors, then it will be a mess.
There's no way you can get enough information from a small sensor to warrant it.
Take a sheet of paper and cut it into 12. Now cut it into 200 and when you stick it back together you've still got the same piece of paper and it's the same with the sensor. The light that falls on it is what you have to work with and you can cut it into as many pieces as you like but it doesn't improve the light you've got and in fact, it reduces it because all those edges and corners between the photosites aren't collecting any.
There's a point where there aren't enough of course but there's a point where there are too many and I'd argue 50 is already too many.
A bigger sensor with better signal processing and 12Mp will do me. Better then the $5 plastic glass on the other end and less noise reduction and it'll be a lot better.
I remember when this was an apple centric site
Why all this stuff about samsung / android etc lately ???
Why all this stuff about samsung / android etc lately ???
What's wrong with a green bubble? Feel special for having a blue bubble?
Let’s see… 1000 for 3 years of updates, that’s 333 per year. If I buy an iPhone that’s 1100 for 6 years of updates, that’s 183 per year. Seems an easy calculation to make?
I do like how the camera bumps are done, not that big a fan of the 3 tier square bump iPhone has. Doesn't really matter though because I don't look at the back of my phone.
explain the A7RV then, not always higher megapixel equals worse quality. But on a really tiny sensor I can say then yes it would be but any sensor larger than a apsc higher megapixel though it might get more noise it does definitely get more detail