Megapixel - what is it and how many should there be? Megapixels in cameras are not so important, and that's why So how many megapixels should be in the camera.

Traditionally, we did not stand aside from new products and present to your attention the results of a comparison of IP-cameras: 2MP (widely used) and relatively new, not yet firmly established in their niche, 4MP cameras. The experiment involved two cameras, one robot and banknotes of various denominations.

Camera Specifications:

Camera #1

Permission: 1920x1080 (2Mp), 25 fps, h.264

Matrix: 1/2.8 SONY EXMOR sensor

Sensitivity: 0.05 Lux (day) / 0.005 Lux (night) / 0 Lux

Lens: f=3.6 mm, horizontal field of view 77

Camera #2

Resolution: 2592*1520 (4Mp), 15 fps, h.265/h.264/MJPEG codecs

Matrix: 1/3" 4mega CMOS OV4689 (USA)

Sensitivity: 0.01 Lux

Lens: f=3.6 mm, horizontal field of view 75

Promobot Bastik was at a distance of 7m from the stand with cameras. We present to your attention the screenshots (for original resolution, click on the image):

Camera 2MP

Camera 4MP

It can be seen with the naked eye that the image quality differs significantly, namely 2 times. For greater clarity, below are screenshots from a monitor screen with a resolution of 1600x900. The original image was opened in graphics editor to scale:

50%

Camera 2MP

Camera 4MP

100%

Camera 2MP

Camera 4MP

Camera 2MP

Camera 4MP

Also, I would like to separately mention the H.265 codec. It allows almost doubling the compression ratio of digital video data compared to H.264. Thus, the archive size from a 4MP camera to maximum settings slightly exceeds the 2MP camera archive. With the same data density settings, H.265 can significantly improve image quality (almost 2 times).

Ask for video cameras 2MP and 4MP in the Bastion wholesale and retail network.

Views: 11592

© 2015 site

It is noteworthy that even a slight increase in linear resolution is accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of megapixels. It's like calculating area. To double the number of megapixels, it is enough to increase the linear resolution by 41%, and doubling the linear resolution leads to a fourfold increase in the number of megapixels. It is precisely for this insidious property that megapixels are so dearly loved by marketers, because it allows you to present very moderate progress as something revolutionary.

In fact, a twofold increase in the number of megapixels is not a revolution at all, it is just the minimum after which the increase in detail becomes noticeable to most people, and then only on the condition that the detail was limited solely by the number of pixels, and not at all by lens aberrations, misses focusing, camera shake and inept editing. Moreover, the contribution of the matrix resolution to the overall sharpness of the image is rapidly decreasing as the number of megapixels increases. Up to 10 megapixels, this contribution is very significant, from 10 to 20 megapixels is no longer so significant, and at resolutions above 20 megapixels, the quality of optics and the skill of the photographer unconditionally come to the fore.

Is too much megapixels harmful?

In general, no, it is not harmful. I just think it necessary to emphasize that there is not much benefit from it. In my opinion, the only really negative effect associated with increasing the resolution is a proportional increase in the volume of files that quickly fill up memory cards, devour disk space and slow down the computer in post-processing.

It may be objected to me that high-resolution cameras are even more noisy at high ISO values. This is true, but only when comparing images pixel-by-pixel, i.e. at 100% magnification. With an equal scale, the noise level will be approximately the same (ceteris paribus, of course). For example, if a picture taken with a 36-megapixel camera is reduced in Photoshop to 16 megapixels, then in terms of noise level it will practically not differ from a similar picture originally taken with a 16-megapixel camera. In this case, the reduced image may look even somewhat sharper, since image reduction (decimation) to a certain extent neutralizes the loss of sharpness that is inevitable with Bayer interpolation.

Thus, high resolution really allows the camera's sensor to collect more information about the scene being shot and potentially provide better image detail. Another question is, will you be able to use this potential, or will it be embodied only in extra gigabytes occupying your hard drive?

To understand how many megapixels will be necessary and sufficient for you, you just need to remember what end use do you find for your pictures? Do you view them on a computer monitor or maybe with a digital projector? do you print your pictures, and if so, what maximum size prints? do you share your pictures online? Do you process your shots in any way, or are you satisfied with what comes out of the camera?

Viewing photos on a computer monitor

The most common screen resolution among visitors to my site is 1920x1080 (Full HD), which is about two megapixels. For laptops, the most popular resolution is 1366×768 (WXGA), i.e. one megapixel. Rare visitors use monitors with a resolution of 2560 × 1440 (WQXGA), which is less than four megapixels. There are so few iMacs with Retina displays that they can be ignored.

The conclusion, it seems to me, is obvious: to view photos on the monitor personal computer in most cases, 2-4 megapixels is enough. And this is if the picture is expanded to full screen, and does not huddle in a small window.

Projectors

Mass models of modern digital projectors have a resolution of 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) or even less, which means that it is pointless to try to show the public something more than a couple of megapixels with their help. Projectors with a resolution of 4096×2160 (4K) are simply not affordable for most photographers, but even incomplete nine megapixels is not so much by today's standards.

Printing photos

The resolution of a print, regardless of its size, is usually measured in dots per inch (dpi). For example, when printing at 300 dpi, there will be 300 dots per linear inch (2.54 cm), which corresponds to 118 dots per linear centimeter.

Resolutions below 150 dpi are considered low, 150 to 300 dpi are acceptable, and 300 dpi or more are considered high. High resolution means that the individual dots that make up the image are virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye. Usually prints of moderate size (up to A3 inclusive) are made with a resolution of exactly 300 dpi. For larger prints, a lower resolution may be acceptable.

Much depends on the distance from which you are going to view the picture. Small cards are viewed up close and their resolution should be as high as possible. Large canvases are hung on the wall and admired while standing at some distance, and therefore even a relatively low resolution will not hurt the eye. This also applies to photo wallpapers. Huge billboards that people look at from a distance of tens of meters can be printed at 32 dpi and still look good.

The table below shows how many megapixels are required to capture and then print photos at both 150 and 300 dpi resolution at various print sizes.

When was the last time you printed your photos on A3? Let me remind you that the most popular print size among amateur photographers is A6, i.e. 10×15 cm.

Internet

The internet doesn't like big pictures. Firstly, large photos take a long time to load, and secondly, most people are simply not interested in looking at the microscopic details of other people's pictures. The only exception is specialized photographic forums. As for social networks, then your multi-megapixel images will in any case be reduced when uploading to the server, regardless of your consent, and the decimation quality will not be the highest.

If you send photos to relatives and friends via e-mail, then it is necessary to reduce them at least for reasons of elementary decency. Who wants to wait for huge files with flowers and kittens to load?

In a word, here you will need literally a couple of megapixels.

Of course, all this applies exclusively to amateur photography and does not apply to pictures intended for commercial use. It all depends on the specific situation. If the customer by all means demands 20 megapixels - so what? - we will send him exactly 20 megapixels, but whether he really needs them is no longer our concern.

Image processing

When editing photos in Adobe Photoshop or another graphic editor, some excess resolution is not only tolerable, but also highly desirable. Firstly, many sims need to be cropped, i.e. in cropping the edges, and it's good when you have the opportunity not to save pixels. Secondly, competent reduction of the image - The best way hide or at least minimize image defects such as noise, chromatic aberration, moderate shaking, interpolation artifacts, etc. In other words, a photo taken at high resolution and then scaled down almost always looks better than one originally taken at low resolution.

However, it should be noted that the resolution of modern cameras is so high that there is almost always a supply of megapixels that can be sacrificed when editing.

Conclusion

You and I have talked for too long about something that should not have been talked about at all. Let's finally sum up.

A dozen megapixels will be enough to satisfy the needs of the vast majority of amateur photographers, although even this number seems somewhat excessive. A rare enthusiast will be able to fully realize the potential of twenty megapixels, but such people usually know what they want. The same photographers who objectively may need more resolution, and who know how to handle it, would hardly read this article.

Given the fact that the resolution of more or less serious cameras today averages about two dozen megapixels and continues to grow, I consider further discussions on this topic simply unnecessary. The number of megapixels is no longer the parameter that you should seriously pay attention to when choosing a camera.

Thank you for your attention!

Vasily A.

post scriptum

If the article turned out to be useful and informative for you, you can kindly support the project by contributing to its development. If you did not like the article, but you have thoughts on how to make it better, your criticism will be accepted with no less gratitude.

Do not forget that this article is subject to copyright. Reprinting and quoting are permissible provided there is a valid link to the original source, and the text used must not be distorted or modified in any way.

The race for megapixels has gradually moved from digital photography to IP video surveillance. Our customers are increasingly asking for cameras of 3, 4, 5 megapixels and even higher. Most of them are absolutely sure that the higher the resolution, the more megapixels the camera has, the better it will show, the higher the frame detail will be. Manufacturers, to please consumers, produce cameras with high resolution, 12 megapixel IP cameras, which are now fashionable in 4K format, are already being sold with might and main.

We decided to find out - does the video quality of IP cameras really increase with an increase in megapixels? Is it worth it to pay extra for high resolution cameras, NVR processing power, high network bandwidth and terabytes of disk space required for such high definition. We have selected from stock several cameras with different resolutions - from 1 to 5 megapixels. We also ordered several expensive 5 - 8 MP IP cameras from manufacturers for this test. Here's who came to us for testing.

We gave preference to outdoor IP cameras with a fixed lens, because they do not need to be adjusted and flaws in the tedious adjustment of varifocal lenses will not affect the quality of the video image. True, we did not find 5-megapixel cameras with a fixed lens and tested 5MP varifocal cameras. We installed all the cameras in the same place and aimed at the opposite wall, where we have several self-made "test tables" hanging.

Let's see what we got. All frame shots were taken through web interface cameras using the IE browser and the ability to save a still image built into each camera. In the table below, we have placed a reduced frame up to a resolution of 640x480 (or 640x360 if the camera has a widescreen matrix with an aspect ratio of 16:9), as well as a crop (cutout from the frame) with a resolution of 200x360 pixels. It more clearly shows the quality of "drawing" small details of the image - in particular, the letters on the Sivtsev table (a table for checking eyesight).

To view a full-size frame from an IP camera, click on its reduced copy in the table.

1 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 MP IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech, resolution 1280x960, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920x1080, matrix 1/2.8, lens 3.6 mm
3 megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B, resolution 2048x1536, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
4 megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B, resolution 2560x1440, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 megapixel resolution.
5 MP	>

What we noticed when comparing these shots:

1. Cameras have different aspect ratios. IP cameras with a resolution of 1, 2, 4 megapixels have a widescreen frame with a ratio of 16:9. And cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 3 and 5 megapixels - 4:3. Those. the latter have a larger vertical viewing angle. This is very important for those cameras that will "look" at the object at an angle from top to bottom. For such cameras, there will be less dead zones under the camera both near and far. It is interesting to note that in relation to the 4MP camera, the 3MP camera not only has a larger vertical viewing angle, but also the resolution: 1536 versus 1440 pixels.
2. Cameras have a different viewing angle, and it depends not only on the lens, but also on the size of the matrix. Budget IP cameras with a 1/4 matrix and a standard 3.6mm lens have a horizontal viewing angle of no more than 60°. But the 5MP IPEYE camera with a 1 / 2.5 matrix has a wide viewing angle both vertically and horizontally (more than 110 °). True, the lens in the shortest focus has a distance of 2.8mm.
3. Well, the most important thing we wanted to pay close attention to is resolution. If you carefully examine all the frames, you will notice that, undoubtedly, as the resolution (megapixels) increases, the detail increases. But NOT PROPORTIONATELY! Not colossal. A 4MP camera in relation to a 2MP camera does not improve the picture by 2 times. Detail increases slightly. In any case, not a single camera could "cope" with the second line from the bottom of Sivtsev's table. And already the 6th bottom line (the right letters "B K Y") are confidently "read" by both cameras with a resolution of 4 and 2 MP.

Of course, here you need to make an adjustment for a different viewing angle. After all, with an increase in the viewing angle, we seem to be moving away from the scene being shot and the detail worsens. This is especially true for the 5-megapixel IPEYE camera - such a combination of matrix and lens gives too large a viewing angle. And if you make the angle on it the same as for 2MP cameras (about 90 °), then the letters of this table will be read more confidently.

Interestingly, another 5MP IP camera with the same declared parameters (lens 2.8-11, matrix 1/2.5) has a slightly narrower viewing angle in the shortest focus than IPEYE-3802VP. Detailing is approximately at the same level, the picture is somewhat noisier in the dark areas of the frame, although the cost of the BEWARD camera is several times higher. But she has a motorized lens and you can control the viewing angle while sitting in front of the computer. A picture with a maximum focus of 11 mm would then look like this:

Maybe someone needs this, given that with each change in the focus of the lens, you either manually or by pressing the "autofocus" button adjust the image sharpness. And it takes from 5 to 20 seconds. But here you can already confidently read the second line from the bottom of the vision test table.

Later, we tested a pair of 2-megapixel IP cameras with a 2.8 - 12mm varifocal lens, as There is an opinion that they show better than "fixes". Here's what we got:

2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP40, resolution 1920x1080, matrix 1/2.8, lens 2.8 - 12 mm
2 MP IP camera: Hikvision DS-2CD2622FWD-I, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 2.8-12 mm lens

As you can see, the result is not much different from the previous one. The detail is almost the same as that of 2MP IP cameras with a fixed lens. Even the expensive 2-megapixel (!) Hikvision camera ( retail price which in February 2016 was 21,990 rubles) with a viewing angle of 50 degrees set at the factory (and to change it, we had to open the camera, which we categorically did not want) the readability of the Sivtsev table turned out to be no higher than 5 lines from the bottom.

Perhaps varifocal lenses have greater light sensitivity and IP cameras with them "see" better in the dark, but this is a topic for a completely different test and another article, which we may turn to later. But varifocal lenses have practically no effect on resolution. Moreover, the slightest inaccuracy in the focus setting can lead to disastrous results, and all megapixels will be useless. And whoever has ever set up a varifocal lens on an IP camera will agree with me that it is oh so difficult, given the delay with which the signal from the camera arrives at the monitor.

5 MP

This is the first camera with a 1/1.8 sensor size that we got our hands on. In addition, this camera is capable of streaming at 25 fps at 5-megapixel resolution (2592x1920 px). Others can't do it yet. The maximum they are capable of is 12-15 fps at maximum resolution. The wide field of view of this camera immediately catches the eye. At 3.6mm focus, it is wider than 5MP 1/2.5 sensor cameras with 2.8mm focus. The resolution of the camera from BSP Security is at the level of other 5-megapixel cameras, even a little sharper. At least the contrast of the picture above. However, the situation is slightly overshadowed by the blurring of the left side of the frame. Perhaps we were unlucky and got a camera with a slight skew of the matrix.

And finally, 4K IP cameras with a resolution of 8MP have arrived at our warehouse. This is a hemisphere with a fixed lens DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS. Here is a frame from this camera:

8 MP IP camera: DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS, resolution 3840*2160, matrix 1/2.5, lens 4 mm

To open a frame in full resolution, in the browser, right-click on the picture and select the "open image" menu item.

We did not stop our test on office pictures, we also wanted to see real shots of the street scene. To do this, we aimed our cameras at the nearest parking lot, visible from our window. We did this deliberately in rather difficult light conditions - early twilight. Here's what we got.

1 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 MP IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW960IP20, resolution 1280x960, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 MP IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920x1080, matrix 1/2.8, lens 3.6 mm
3 MP IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B , resolution 2048x1536, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
4 MP IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B , resolution 2560x1440, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 MP IP camera: , resolution 2592x1920, matrix 1/2.5, lens 2.8 - 12 mm

Perhaps we chose a still too bright part of the day (17.10 - 18.00 in February), but all the cameras with such lighting did an excellent job. True, the 1.3 MP camera MT-CW960IP20 turned out to have a slightly darker picture than the others, which is rather strange, because. the 1/3 matrix should have better photosensitivity in relation to the 1/4 matrix.

As for the detailing of the picture, the situation is similar to the results of testing in the office. Although it increases with the increase in megapixels, but not significantly. Renault's car number was able to read both 4 and 2 megapixel cameras. True last a little worse.

IP cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 4 and 5 megapixels with their wide viewing angle "saw" even the number of our van, on which we carry all these IP cameras)). A 5 MP camera even saw a car standing to the left of the van. The viewing angle is amazing!

In March, we received two more 5-megapixel IP cameras BEWARD and BSP Security for testing. Let's compare how they show on the street.

5 MP IP camera: , resolution 2592x1944, matrix 1/2.5, zoom lens 2.8 - 11 mm
5 MP IP camera: BSP Security, resolution 2592*1920, matrix 1/1.8, lens 3.6 - 11 mm

The chambers were tested at the same time (18.00 in mid-March). It is interesting to note that despite the fact that the camera from BSP Security has a wider angle, it has slightly better detail. State. the license plate of the blue Ford is almost readable, which is impossible to do on the frame from the BEWARD camera. The size of the matrix affects - 1 / 1.8 versus 1 / 2.5.

What will we conclude?

1. The treacherous pursuit of megapixels is practically useless and only plays into the hands of manufacturers (well, what a sin to hide - we, the sellers of these IP cameras, registrars and hard drives) they make more profit.
2. In the vast majority of cases, 1-2 megapixel IP cameras are sufficient. And if you need better detailing of distant objects, then you need to solve such a problem not by a thoughtless increase in megapixels, but by reducing the viewing angle using a varifocal lens. By this we will "bring" the picture closer to ourselves and will be able to consider everything that we need. And an increase in the number of cameras. Perhaps this solution will be a little more expensive, but it will solve your problem for sure. And perhaps the price of a pair of 2-megapixel cameras with a viewing angle of 50 ° (for example, "fixes" with a 6mm lens) will be less than the price of one 5- or even 4-megapixel camera with an angle of 100 °. But they will give us much more information about the observed territory.
3. It should be borne in mind that with an increase in the number of pixels without increasing the physical size of the matrix, it only worsens the sensitivity of the video camera, because. the area of ​​the pixel becomes smaller, and less light hits its surface.
4. Real high-quality lenses with optics that allow you to get all the advantages of multi-megapixel matrices cost at least $1000. What can you expect from a $20,000 12-megapixel camera?
5. Well, the last thing to remember - with an increase in "megapixel" you will additionally overpay for the processor power of the recorded devices, drives (HDD), network bandwidth and traffic when viewing over the Internet.

P.S. We will continue to test in this way the IP cameras that fall into our hands. Several test samples have already been requested from various vendors with resolutions ranging from 5 to 12 megapixels. Therefore, visit this page periodically for new information about the megapixel race in IP video surveillance.

P.P.S. If any of the manufacturers or suppliers would like to test their cameras on our "test stand" - welcome to contact us by e-mail: kb063_sobaka_yandex.ru

At a special event in New York, Google announced new flagship smartphones Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL. The screens of both devices have become larger thanks to thinner bezels, and there is at least one, but better camera with AI functions on the back.

Theverge.com

The display size of the Pixel 3 has grown from 5 to 5.5 inches, while the Pixel 3 XL has grown from 6 to 6.3 inches. The second one from the top has a recess for the sensors.

At the back, both smartphones have one 12.2-megapixel camera, which can choose the most successful shot from a series and improve the quality of photos taken when zoomed in. But now there are two cameras in front: thanks to the wide viewing angle of one of them, it can fit quite a large number of of people.

theverge.com

Inside, the phones have a Snapdragon 845 processor and 4 GB random access memory, as well as a Titan M chip to protect data, logins and passwords. There are stereo speakers on the front. There is support for Bluetooth 5.0.

Thanks to the full glass back cover new Pixel support wireless charging up to 10W - including the new Pixel Stand, which was also unveiled at the event and sold separately for $79. When the phone is connected to the latter, its screen displays useful information- for example, data from Google Assistant. If you put the gadget in a horizontal position, it works like a photo frame.

google.com

The devices run Android 9 Pie and are equipped with software features to support "digital well-being" - that is, those that keep you stuck on your phone all day. Also, the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL got rid of the three virtual buttons at the bottom of the screen - gesture navigation is now used.

Google Assistant can control spam calls. You can either block them or ask the assistant to remind you to call back later.

google.com

The smartphones can be pre-ordered today, and the launch is scheduled for October 18. The Pixel 3 with 64GB of storage will cost $799, while the Pixel 3 XL with the same capacity will cost $899. For 128 GB, in the case of each, you will have to pay $ 100 extra.

The second half of 2005 will be marked by 2-megapixel cameras, which will be massively installed both in telephones and smartphones/communicators. Built-in cameras in phones are already driving digital camera sales. entry level. In a year and a half, when the quality of embedded mobile devices cameras will catch up with entry-level digital cameras, such cameras will be found not only in the upper price segment, but also in the middle and lower segments, this influence will increase even more. Now built-in cameras are generally perceived as toys, no one expects high quality from them. When this attitude changes, the market for conventional digital cameras(talking about the amateur segment) is waiting for a major restructuring. The segment may recede completely mobile phones, akin to how PDAs are currently being replaced by smartphones and communicators.

As we have already written in the Nokia 6680 camera review, improving the quality of the resulting images will inevitably lead to tougher security measures in public places and enterprises. Manufacturers will be forced to release their products in two versions - with and without a built-in camera. So far, this process is only at the initial stage.

Among the GSM devices with 2 megapixel camera we can note Sony Ericsson k750i , Nokia N-series models, many more models from different manufacturers. Basically, they belong to the upper price segment. Nokia N90 camera quality and Sony Ericsson k750i is very close, this caused endless debate among fans about which is better "Nokia N90 or Sony Ericsson k750i", people on the forums are ready to prove their position for days, coming up with the advantages and disadvantages of this or that device. Pictures taken on the Nokia N70 are somewhat worse than the Nokia N90 and Sony Ericsson k750i, since there is no autofocus and, accordingly, no normal macro mode. Among Nokia smartphones N70 loses only to N-series devices, other even indirect competitors cannot compare with the model in terms of camera quality. Nokia has a strong position here.

The device uses an active slider, it protects the main camera from dirt and damage. You can open the slider without problems with one hand, it can be done with one finger. At the same time, if you start the movement manually, then the built-in spring completes it, both when opening and when closing. Compared to Nokia 6680, the slider cover is larger, has a larger amplitude and smoother movement. Note that the cover does not scratch the edging around the lens, as was the case with the previous model.

When you open the slider, the phone automatically switches to shooting mode, while the screen serves as a viewfinder. The maximum resolution of the resulting images is 1600 x 1200 pixels, multiplying, we get 1920000 pixels, rounding up, we get 1.92 megapixels. This is the effective number of points of the built-in 2 MP camera.

The resolution of images is not explicitly indicated in the settings, you can choose 3 quality options. In this case, the number of megapixels will be indicated on the screen in the lower right corner. You cannot select the compression quality for each of the resolutions.

• Print (2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels)
• Email (0.8 MP, 640 x 480 pixels)
• MMS (0.3 MP, 240 x 180 pixels)

After pressing the center of the joystick or an additional end key for shooting in portrait mode (serves as a shutter button), it takes 3-4 seconds until the photo is saved; compared to Nokia 6680, the speed has not changed. It is possible to take a session of 6 shots in a row (sequence mode). The device can be set on a timer (10, 20 or 30 seconds) and take a picture of yourself with friends, for example (the bottom end is beveled, so you have to look for support).

• Auto mode
• User - user-defined settings
• Portrait (1-2 meters to the subject)
• Landscape/scene (subject far away, flash off)
• Night mode
• Sports mode (fast moving subjects)

The flash has four modes - automatic, anti-red-eye, off and on all the time.

White balance modes: automatic, sunny, cloudy, artificial light, fluorescent lamp. Available effects: negative, sepia, black and white. Brightness and contrast settings are also available. The maximum digital zoom is 20x. This is a marketing figure, there is no real benefit in it.

As we said, the screen serves as a viewfinder. The top right corner shows the number of remaining photos that will fit in memory. The column of icons on the right is the set settings (flash mode, photo resolution, preset mode). Joystick up/down controls digital zoom, left/right controls flash. On the Nokia 6680, tilting "left"/"right" switched between photo and video modes, which was very convenient.

The quality of shots on a sunny or slightly cloudy day at an average distance is very good, the photos look decent on the monitor screen and especially on the smartphone display. They are not ashamed to show to friends, print in 10x15 format.

At dusk, noise becomes noticeable in the photographs, but, nevertheless, the quality and detail of the photographs remain at their best.

Indoor pictures are also good. Images are clear, colors are not distorted, and noise is not conspicuous. Only the transmission of the white color of bright objects suffers, this color in some photographs is present as a pure white spot, without shades and color transitions. You can see the result of the image post-processing algorithm.

Using the night mode at dusk and difficult conditions does not affect the final result - the automatic mode does a good job in such situations.

It is significant that even late at night you can take a photo, you can see some details on them. Although, the photographs show that the image was stretched at the level of software algorithms.

Macro photography is far from what you can get on the Nokia N90, objects at a close distance (10-20 cm) look blurry, although at a distance of one and a half meters you get good shots.

The flash hits one and a half meters. If you turn on the flash in medium and good lighting, then it can ruin the photo, completely overexposing the face, for example. Recall that there was a mode against red eyes.

In addition to the main camera, the smartphone also has a front VGA camera. Its main purpose is video calls. Switching between cameras occurs automatically when closing / opening the slider, or through the menu.

Let's compare photos of Nokia 6681 and Nokia N70. In the pictures you can see the difference between 1.3 megapixels and 2 megapixels. The main difference is how well the details are visible.

Video

Compared to the Nokia 6680, the resolution of the received clips has seriously increased, the resolution in the previous models was artificially limited in order to show the progress in the N-series models, to make a marketing emphasis on video capabilities.

The maximum video resolution is 352 x 288 pixels (against 176 x 144 pixels in Nokia 6680). Compression format - MPEG4 (for smaller resolutions - 3GPP). The maximum frame rate is 15 FPS (sometimes it can be 5 FPS), the video looks jerky, torn, while we attribute this to the fact that our test lab turned out to be a prototype, not a commercial sample. Following the example of Nokia 6630, we can expect that the situation will improve by the time the commercial launch of the product. The bitrate of the received video is about 100 KB / s (without sound), that is, 30 minutes of video on the memory card will take about 350 MB.

Working with footage

The prototype that we tested had only one program for working with footage - Movie Director, and even then it did not start. Most likely, the set of pre-installed programs will be no poorer than Nokia 6680, let's repeat what was said about the programs for editing footage of this model.

photo editor. Photo editor. You can balance the colors (choice of three automatic modes: Darken Image, Balance Image, Brighten Image), crop image, insert text or frame, rotate image.

video editor. The application allows you to edit clips, slow down, merge, add an effect (black and white only) and an audio track.

movie director. The utility migrated from the previous smartphone. You choose video clips, photos, and a music video is made on their basis. The program is interesting, you can spend some time behind it.

The resulting material can be viewed in the programs image manager and RealPlayer. You can send photos and clips to your computer in the following ways: via email, via Bluetooth, via cable, or simply remove the card from your device and use it.

Kodak Mobile. The idea is simple - you upload photos to the server directly from your phone, printed photos are delivered to you by courier. The service is promising, but still underdeveloped.

Image Print. An interesting feature of this program is the ability to print via USB to printers that are compatible with the PictBridge standard. We select images for printing, connect via cable to the printer and print, everything is simple. From the same program, you can print via Bluetooth.

Conclusion

In terms of picture quality and functionality (active slider, flash, second camera), this is the best model among smartphones/communicators, it is second only to Nokia N90. This is the undisputed leader in the segment of monoblock smartphones, there are no models close in quality. Very good photographs daylight, a great night mode, smooth zoom. The camera handles difficult conditions illumination. Ergonomics has been thought out and redesigned in relation to Nokia 6680. Rich opportunities for working with footage. The disadvantages include the quality of video recording (recording is jerky, often breaks), a poor choice of available image resolutions, not very good shots in macro mode.

Let's note the main changes Nokia cameras N70 compared to Nokia 6680/6681:

• 2 MP instead of 1 MP
• Appeared additional settings cameras, interface changed
• Red-eye compensation
• Appeared additional key for photography
• The active slider has changed, it has become larger, smoother
• Video resolution has improved significantly (352x288 pixels, instead of 176x144 pixels)

We'll get back to the Nokia N70 once a commercial sample of the device hits our test lab. We will check whether the quality of video recording and the set of pre-installed programs for working with footage will change.