[Q] Ultrapixels

Search This thread

Hunt3r.j2

Senior Member
Jun 6, 2011
1,633
200
The HTC One will have about the same sharpness when it comes to comparing to other cameras, but the big difference is sensitivity and dynamic range. Because the pixels are much bigger than the pixels in a 13 MP sensor for phones, the result is that daylight shots with large contrast (bright sky and shaded area, indoors and outside, etc...) will be much better even without HDR combination, and low light will be much better than competitors' solutions.

Oh, and if you want to have an 8MP camera with same pixel size as the HTC One, the resulting camera module will be the same size as the 808 Pureview. Food for thought.

http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/supterlowlight.png (Also, this is an image comparison.)
 
Last edited:

knoxploration

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2011
3,612
658
The HTC One will have about the same sharpness when it comes to comparing to other cameras, but the big difference is sensitivity and dynamic range.

No, it won't.

In good light, it will have a significantly lower resolution than its rivals. That's because for every two pixels in any given row or column that it can place on a subject, a 13-megapixel rival will place three. (A 13 megapixel phone has 1.54 times the linear resolution, all other things being equal.)

And when you consider that your subject will be three dimensional, not two dimensional, for every 100 pixels the HTC One places on a subject, the 13-megapixel phone will place 237 pixels on the same subject.

So it's utter nonsense to say it will have the same sharpness, unless you believe the 13-megapixel phones cannot resolve more than four megapixels due to their lenses or processing, which clearly isn't true. (They're limited, but nowhere near that limited, in good light.)

The point isn't that it is just as sharp; it isn't, and never could be. The point is that it doesn't NEED to be as sharp, because what we have in current camera phones is way beyond overkill.

You could take a photo from an Xperia Z and print it at 13.76 x 10.32 inches, and you'd STILL have 300 ppi resolution. Based on 20/20 vision, you would need to be closer than twelve inches to be able to distinguish individual pixels. Even with 20/10 vision (that's twice as good as nominal), you *still* couldn't distinguish individual pixels from more than 23 inches away.

How many people do you know who are making prints that big from their camera phones, and viewing them from that close by? And how many do you know who are heavily cropping their camera phone images on a regular basis? Very few, I'd wager.

Which means that the resolution of 13 megapixels that we're at today is completely and utterly insane. We don't need anywhere *near* that much. The HTC One camera has plenty of resolution unless you're a keen photographer, and if you are, you probably shouldn't be taking photos with a phone in the first place.
 

Hunt3r.j2

Senior Member
Jun 6, 2011
1,633
200
No, it won't.

In good light, it will have a significantly lower resolution than its rivals. That's because for every two pixels in any given row or column that it can place on a subject, a 13-megapixel rival will place three. (A 13 megapixel phone has 1.54 times the linear resolution, all other things being equal.)

And when you consider that your subject will be three dimensional, not two dimensional, for every 100 pixels the HTC One places on a subject, the 13-megapixel phone will place 237 pixels on the same subject.

So it's utter nonsense to say it will have the same sharpness, unless you believe the 13-megapixel phones cannot resolve more than four megapixels due to their lenses or processing, which clearly isn't true. (They're limited, but nowhere near that limited, in good light.)

The point isn't that it is just as sharp; it isn't, and never could be. The point is that it doesn't NEED to be as sharp, because what we have in current camera phones is way beyond overkill.

You could take a photo from an Xperia Z and print it at 13.76 x 10.32 inches, and you'd STILL have 300 ppi resolution. Based on 20/20 vision, you would need to be closer than twelve inches to be able to distinguish individual pixels. Even with 20/10 vision (that's twice as good as nominal), you *still* couldn't distinguish individual pixels from more than 23 inches away.

How many people do you know who are making prints that big from their camera phones, and viewing them from that close by? And how many do you know who are heavily cropping their camera phone images on a regular basis? Very few, I'd wager.

Which means that the resolution of 13 megapixels that we're at today is completely and utterly insane. We don't need anywhere *near* that much. The HTC One camera has plenty of resolution unless you're a keen photographer, and if you are, you probably shouldn't be taking photos with a phone in the first place.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6777/understanding-camera-optics-smartphone-camera-trends/3

Physics says that we can't resolve pixels that small with the optical system in a smartphone.
 

knoxploration

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2011
3,612
658
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6777/understanding-camera-optics-smartphone-camera-trends/3

Physics says that we can't resolve pixels that small with the optical system in a smartphone.

Rubbish. There are limits to what you can achieve with a smartphone lens, but they are nowhere near as low as four megapixels.

Want proof? Download this typical eight megapixel smartphone image:

http://connect.dpreview.com/reviews...ii/comparision/daylightstudio_samsungsiii.jpg

Now make a duplicate of that image, and downsample to the 1,520 pixel frame height of the Zoe camera in the HTC One. Now upsample back up to 2,448 pixels. Then compare the image you shrank with the original image.

Assuming that there was no more than four megapixels of data in the original image, there will be no noticeable difference between the two. But in actual fact, there's a pretty significant difference.

Attached is a crop of just such a comparison. Absolutely nothing was done except downsampling and immediately upsampling as instructed. Obviously I've had to save as a gif for the animation, so a little detail is lost to the dither and lower color depth, but that's true for both before and after, so doesn't explain the difference.

comparison.gif
 

Attachments

  • comparison.gif
    comparison.gif
    216.8 KB · Views: 226

Shasarak

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,351
127
London
Their megapixels are just the same as anybody else's megapixels.
No they aren't. They're bigger. :cool:

To put it crudely, the larger pixel size on the sensor, combined with a larger-than-usual aperture size (f/2.0), means each pixel on the sensor receives several times as much light as a pixel in a 13MP sensor on a rival phone; that means it has better signal-to-noise ratio, which means either that you can have the same amount of noise at lower light-levels (and take pictures in dimmer light than other cameras can manage) or that you can have less noise at the same light level.

Yes, there have been other phones that have larger pixels, but not very many of them. Someone mentioned the Nokia N900, which I can't at the moment find a pixel size for online; but with the obvious exception of the Nokia 808, I'm not aware of any current phone that has. (Even the highly regarded Nokia N8 was smaller).

Visitors to this thread might find it interesting to check out HTC's white paper: http://dl3.htc.com/downloads/white-paper/HTC-One-Ultrapixel-Whitepaper.pdf

There is actually a bit more going on with the camera than the larger sensor pixels and aperture. For example, AFAIK not all that many phones have Optical Image Stabilisation (as distinct from the Digital variety). They also brag about a typical autofocus speed of < 200ms (which is fairly speedy); and a few other things.
 

ydoucare

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2008
481
51
From the samples I've seen from the camera, i'm not impressed at all, actually pretty disappointed.
 

Shasarak

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,351
127
London
Rubbish. There are limits to what you can achieve with a smartphone lens, but they are nowhere near as low as four megapixels.

Want proof? Download this typical eight megapixel smartphone image:

http://connect.dpreview.com/reviews...ii/comparision/daylightstudio_samsungsiii.jpg

Now make a duplicate of that image, and downsample to the 1,520 pixel frame height of the Zoe camera in the HTC One. Now upsample back up to 2,448 pixels. Then compare the image you shrank with the original image.

Assuming that there was no more than four megapixels of data in the original image, there will be no noticeable difference between the two. But in actual fact, there's a pretty significant difference.
That's not a very fair comparison.

It's hardly surprising that if you downscale an image, then scale it back up again, you'll lose detail; but the camera in the HTC One doesn't start with an 8MP image taken from a Galaxy S3 and downscale it, it generates its own 4MP image from scratch, which will have a different dynamic range, different (likely lower) noise, possibly less camera shake (because of the OIS), a different colour balance, different compression artefacts, and so on. It might be slightly fairer if you started with a very high-quality, very high-res photo (taken with a good digital SLR, perhaps) and downscaled it to 8MP in one case and 4MP in the other, remembering to add more simulated noise to the 8MP image...

...but then you have to ask: what level of zoom are you viewing the final image at? The monitor I'm looking at right now has a resolution of 1600x900, for example: to get a sensible view of both pictures, I'll have to downscale both of them to 1600x900. Once you do that (and bear in mind that this means the step of upscaling from 4MP to 8MP is no longer relevant) I think you'll find the difference between the two images is a lot more subtle.
 

radiotrib

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2007
205
127
Den Haag
That's not a very fair comparison.

It's hardly surprising that if you downscale an image, then scale it back up again, you'll lose detail; but the camera in the HTC One doesn't start with an 8MP image taken from a Galaxy S3 and downscale it, it generates its own 4MP image from scratch, which will have a different dynamic range, different (likely lower) noise, possibly less camera shake (because of the OIS), a different colour balance, different compression artefacts, and so on. It might be slightly fairer if you started with a very high-quality, very high-res photo (taken with a good digital SLR, perhaps) and downscaled it to 8MP in one case and 4MP in the other, remembering to add more simulated noise to the 8MP image...

...but then you have to ask: what level of zoom are you viewing the final image at? The monitor I'm looking at right now has a resolution of 1600x900, for example: to get a sensible view of both pictures, I'll have to downscale both of them to 1600x900. Once you do that (and bear in mind that this means the step of upscaling from 4MP to 8MP is no longer relevant) I think you'll find the difference between the two images is a lot more subtle.

And apart from that the photo is littered with Jpeg artefacts .. look at the lettering at the edge of the b/w definition card on the original. If you start downsizing and upsizing jpeg to jpeg you'll end up with artificial pixellation caused by the compression algorithm too. I do enough work in Photoshop to make me totally avoid jpeg unlss there is no viable alternative. Post a raw or at least a tiff and lets start resizing that instead.

Don't get me wrong though. In the perfect world the more you have, the better your photo will be ... as long as they are BIG pixels. Just take a look at the Leaf Credo sensors used by Mamiya ... probably one of the greatest digital cameras in existence today ... the most popular CCD has 60 Megapixels ... but they are spread over a ccd measuring 53.9 x 40.4 mm (2x1.5 inches) which allows for huge pixels (6 microns) ... also take a look at the price :) ($36,495.00 ... but you get free shipping) .. and that's just the sensor, you still need to buy the camera body. But even with a sensor that size and quality, without the depth of the body and the vast lens of the Mamiya, you couldn't focus an image onto such a huge area. You want a slim phone? .. you get a tiny sensor and a minute camera focal length.

So phone camera's are all about compromise, and in my opinion, for what its worth, reducing the pixel count and increasing size of the pixels enhances the ability of each pixel to transfer information. By increasing the amount of excitation per pixel (i.e. the number of photons hitting it while the shutter is open) you increase the software's chances of defining finer colour differences - higher maximum excitation = bigger voltage range = bigger detectable variance ... It the same sort of thing as the increase the data capacity of a network created by increasing the carrier wave bandwidth. It's simple maths. The wider the variance, the finer you can detect the intermediate levels ... so the more detail you can extract. I'm pretty sure I could write a bayesian algorithm to split one 'htc ultra' pixel into a three by three matrix, produce a less 'pixellated' meta-view, and still provide a more accurate, precise image than the average 13 Mpxl cellphone .. except that my algorithm would produce a 4x9 = 38Mpxl image ... Is that how you want to measure MEGA pixels ??? CCD or Software .. makes no difference really.

(btw - this is all speculation really .. the only CCD results I ever got chance to look at closely were from the Hubble telescope and the Gaia mission - which is still on the ground .. Google it if you're interested)

Yes, I'm an HTC Elevate member ... but it doesn't make me biased one way or the other. I happen to really like HTC kit, but I'm not a professional photographer (my wife certainly is), nor do I use my phone for anything except snapshots and recording progress on my other hobbies, but I do use it in low light a lot (in the garage) so I will be very interested to see how the One camera performs when I get it in mid-March ... and I will get it ... then I can test the camera for myself.
 
Last edited:

knoxploration

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2011
3,612
658
No they aren't. They're bigger. :cool:

But they're the exact same size anybody else's pixels would be, using the same sensor size and pixel count.

Yes, there have been other phones that have larger pixels, but not very many of them. Someone mentioned the Nokia N900, which I can't at the moment find a pixel size for online; but with the obvious exception of the Nokia 808, I'm not aware of any current phone that has. (Even the highly regarded Nokia N8 was smaller).

Go back and look at phones from three or four years or so back, and you'll find plenty.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

That's not a very fair comparison.

It's hardly surprising that if you downscale an image, then scale it back up again, you'll lose detail; but the camera in the HTC One doesn't start with an 8MP image taken from a Galaxy S3 and downscale it, it generates its own 4MP image from scratch, which will have a different dynamic range, different (likely lower) noise, possibly less camera shake (because of the OIS), a different colour balance, different compression artefacts, and so on. It might be slightly fairer if you started with a very high-quality, very high-res photo (taken with a good digital SLR, perhaps) and downscaled it to 8MP in one case and 4MP in the other, remembering to add more simulated noise to the 8MP image...

Actually, it's more than fair, because a four megapixel phone is not going to capture a perfect four megapixels of data. By downsampling from a higher resolution to four megapixels *for an image shot in ideal condition, as this sample is*, you'll have a higher quality four megapixel image in terms of linear resolution than if you'd just shot it at four megapixels in the first place.

And we were not talking about dynamic range, noise, etc. We were talking about detail, because the nonsensical claim was made that it is impossible to capture more resolution than a four megapixel image with a camera phone lens. That is simply not true, as amply demonstrated by my previous image, which clearly shows there is more detail in the image captured at eight megapixels than the one captured at eight megapixels, downsampled to four megapixels, and then upsampled back to eight megapixels.

But you know what? It doesn't have to be from a phone. Find any sharply-focused image at eight megapixel or greater resolution, downsample it to eight megapixels, and then downsample to four and back to eight. In every case, the eight megapixel image will show more detail than the four megapixel upsample will. I just chose a phone image because it is a proof of the point; it was captured with a camera phone lens and is clearly proven to have more than four megapixels of detail.

...but then you have to ask: what level of zoom are you viewing the final image at? The monitor I'm looking at right now has a resolution of 1600x900, for example: to get a sensible view of both pictures, I'll have to downscale both of them to 1600x900. Once you do that (and bear in mind that this means the step of upscaling from 4MP to 8MP is no longer relevant) I think you'll find the difference between the two images is a lot more subtle.

1920 x 1200, and I have said all along that more than 4-6 megapixels is overkill. However, I am demonstrating that the previous suggestion that you cannot resolve more than four megapixels with a camera phone lens is completely and provably false.

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

And apart from that the photo is littered with Jpeg artefacts .. look at the lettering at the edge of the b/w definition card on the original. If you start downsizing and upsizing jpeg to jpeg you'll end up with artificial pixellation caused by the compression algorithm too. I do enough work in Photoshop to make me totally avoid jpeg unlss there is no viable alternative. Post a raw or at least a tiff and lets start resizing that instead.

Do you know how I know you didn't read my post or pay any real attention to the image?

It wasn't a JPEG. It was a GIF. And I stated why it was a gif. And I provided a link to the original image, to make the comparison yourself if you want. Plus directions on how to do it.

And yes, the original image is a JPEG, but so is every camera phone image on the market. No camera phone offers uncompressed output, be it raw, tiff, or other.

It was a perfectly valid comparison, for the narrow window in which it was intended: demonstrating that the claim you cannot resolve more than four megapixels with a camera phone lens is rubbish. You can resolve significantly more than four megapixels, you just lose in other areas to do so.

Like anything, it is a compromise. HTC has chosen to compromise resolution for signal to noise ratio; others have chosen to compromise signal to noise for resolution. End of.
 

radiotrib

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2007
205
127
Den Haag
Do you know how I know you didn't read my post or pay any real attention to the image?

It wasn't a JPEG. It was a GIF. And I stated why it was a gif. And I provided a link to the original image, to make the comparison yourself if you want. Plus directions on how to do it.

And yes, the original image is a JPEG, but so is every camera phone image on the market. No camera phone offers uncompressed output, be it raw, tiff, or other.

... and it was the original photograph to which I was referring ... It's not a good photo to begin with. Progressive reprocessing will only serve to increase the artefacts.

Your point about resolving > 4 Mpxls is valid ... however, given about 2um pixel size, it would only be possible to resolve about 4 Mpxls on the typical CCD in a phone camera, i.e. a max. size 1/3 inch detector. Of course you can drive up the pixel count by making the pixels smaller ... but then were back to the detector excitation point ...

The main point that both you and I make, and agree upon, is that it's all about compromise. This is the crunch for the entire argument, and you summary of it is very clear for anyone to read. I'd guess that at least 95% of the buying public are not tekkies, or photographers. They whip out their cameras at weddings and parties and snap away. I'm betting that those with an HTC One will actually like the results more than those with an 13+ Mpxl CCD in their phone. They won't be interested in the finer details of the technology, just the fact that they can actually see granny smiling at the other end of the table in the snapshot they took at the poorly lit restaurant last night.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Riyal

Riyal

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2011
3,038
1,770
Iloilo City
... and it was the original photograph to which I was referring ... It's not a good photo to begin with. Progressive reprocessing will only serve to increase the artefacts.

Your point about resolving > 4 Mpxls is valid ... however, given about 2um pixel size, it would only be possible to resolve about 4 Mpxls on the typical CCD in a phone camera, i.e. a max. size 1/3 inch detector. Of course you can drive up the pixel count by making the pixels smaller ... but then were back to the detector excitation point ...

The main point that both you and I make, and agree upon, is that it's all about compromise. This is the crunch for the entire argument, and you summary of it is very clear for anyone to read. I'd guess that at least 95% of the buying public are not tekkies, or photographers. They whip out their cameras at weddings and parties and snap away. I'm betting that those with an HTC One will actually like the results more than those with an 13+ Mpxl CCD in their phone. They won't be interested in the finer details of the technology, just the fact that they can actually see granny smiling at the other end of the table in the snapshot they took at the poorly lit restaurant last night.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Not that I disagree with knoxploration it's just radiotrib got the main point of what are the general uses of a phone camera is. And yes he got every point correct. In a real life situation that is indeed most of my main uses of the phone camera. We don't actually use the phone camera to be an artist or whatever photo contest it is. It did get it's name "point and shoot" for a reason. And radiotrib describe it perfectly.
 

knoxploration

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2011
3,612
658
... and it was the original photograph to which I was referring ... It's not a good photo to begin with. Progressive reprocessing will only serve to increase the artefacts.

Which is irrelevant, because we weren't discussing whether it was a good photo, and even if it isn't, that is more of a hindrance for the original than the resampled version.

Your point about resolving > 4 Mpxls is valid ... however, given about 2um pixel size, it would only be possible to resolve about 4 Mpxls on the typical CCD in a phone camera, i.e. a max. size 1/3 inch detector. Of course you can drive up the pixel count by making the pixels smaller ... but then were back to the detector excitation point ...

You do realize that the sensor in the HTC One is only microscopically larger than the sensors used in most camera phones, right? Compare the surface area and you'll find that the difference in sensor size would make an almost unnoticeable difference. It is almost entirely the halving or more of sensor resolution that givs the HTC One its low-light performance, and it comes at a cost.

The main point that both you and I make, and agree upon, is that it's all about compromise. This is the crunch for the entire argument, and you summary of it is very clear for anyone to read. I'd guess that at least 95% of the buying public are not tekkies, or photographers. They whip out their cameras at weddings and parties and snap away. I'm betting that those with an HTC One will actually like the results more than those with an 13+ Mpxl CCD in their phone. They won't be interested in the finer details of the technology, just the fact that they can actually see granny smiling at the other end of the table in the snapshot they took at the poorly lit restaurant last night.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Yes, we agree on that.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD

---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 AM ----------

Not that I disagree with knoxploration it's just radiotrib got the main point of what are the general uses of a phone camera is. And yes he got every point correct. In a real life situation that is indeed most of my main uses of the phone camera. We don't actually use the phone camera to be an artist or whatever photo contest it is. It did get it's name "point and shoot" for a reason. And radiotrib describe it perfectly.

I'm glad you don't disagree with me, given that I said the *exact* same thing he did, earlier in the thread. ;)

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD
 

Top Liked Posts

  • There are no posts matching your filters.
  • 14
    HTC marketing is getting ridiculously stupid, and HTC fanboys are following suit. The megapixel race is not a LIE. In bold, because HTc marketing material likes to make it bold. Megapixels is not the only factor in determining image quality, but it is an important one. But HTC wants you to believe it doesn't matter, AT ALL. So damn stupid. If it doesn't matter, then go reduce an image to a 32x32 icon. Beautiful isn't it! Looks exactly the same as the original! So stupid. HTC is just making a compromise between larger pixel sizes and resolution. The images will be worse in outdoor shots since it doesn't have as good a resolution, but indoor and low light shots will look better since it can gather more light. The question is, how much better? So far from what I can tell, the video and picture samples at the HTC event, which is indoors in low light, are not that impressive. It's definitely gonna be worse in bright outdoor use.
    Well, how many megapixels do you think you need?

    To answer that question, think about what you're viewing the picture on. A PC monitor? What's the resolution of that? Unlikely to be much higher than 2560x1440; that's 3.6MP - any more than that and the extra detail is wasted.

    Or maybe you're thinking of printing the photo? 300 dots per inch is plenty of resolution for a colour photo. So, to produce a 7" by 5" print, you only need about 3MP in the image. Even if you want to print out a picture filling an A4 page, you still only need around 8 or 9MP. Are you really going to be printing out your photos larger than an A4 page? And if you are, are you going to be viewing them from less than 12 inches away? (If the viewing distance is greater than that, you don't need 300dpi).

    What's more, adding additional MP isn't free. The smaller the pixels get, the more the detector suffers from noise (and removing the noise from the image means you effectively lose the extra resolution), and the more the low-light performance suffers.

    And finally, with the kind of aperture sizes and the quality of the lenses you're dealing with, you're unlikely to be able to resolve anywhere near 8MP worth of real detail anyway.

    The camera on the HTC One isn't exactly revolutionary, but I think HTC should be congratulated for a move in the right direction: away from a design whose sole purpose is to include a big number for marketing purposes, and towards actually producing a better quality image.
    5
    It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.

    This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.

    Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.

    Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.

    The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.

    The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.

    HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.

    Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
    2
    Hello guys first of all may I just say I don't expect anyone to trust me especially without my own evidence (I would have had some if this crap bb didn't die on me while I was down oxford street).
    However though after seeing those images vs the iphone btw I thought the images on the one were better than the iphone but inferior to the lumia 920. I decided to hunt the one down again to do some camera tests.

    On tuesday on the launch of the one, i went to phones 4 u oxford street (bond street) played with the one for about 3 mins and decided it was better than the z, had better audio, camera/video which is the main things i use on the phone. however that was without side by side comparison.
    after seeing the images online posted by the one, i was thinking to myself when i played with it the images looked better than that, so i headed down the whole of oxford street from tottenham court road to bond street in and out of carphone warehouse, three stores and phones 4 u and vodafone like a mad man. finally I went back to the phones 4 u that did the launch and as I walked in i saw they had the one on display however it is bolted down, with both cameras and headset jack covered, so i was disappointed as i though i wouldnt be able to do camera tests. Absolutely gutted i walked out and futher up the road to the three store (opposite selfriges).

    walked in and saw they had a dummy of the black version of the one, i asked the staff to they have the real phone one said the rep came earlier and will be back tomorrow about 9am, i thought damn man then one of the staff said hold on ill check if we have the demo phone in the back. She said by the way it is a pre production unit and not final retail unit, anyway she went in the back and came back an there in her hand was a silver one, totally deprived of any restrictions what so ever, so i got a feel of the phone its far better to hold in the hand than the z due to it being smooth (the egdes of the z are rough), also feels and looks smaller than it is and it looks thinner than 9.3mm aswell.
    I know audio is better than the z so i got straight to work in comparing front and rear cameras on both phones side by side. I got the staff in the three store to judge which has the better camera aswell.

    these are our findings and truthful findings. z was on superior auto setting and one was on its normal auto focus setting i didn't tamper with anything else.
    sharpness, colour accuracy (more natural colours), auto focusing and camera speed all favoured the one not to say the camera on the z is rubbish but The z tended to lose focus on objects (same issues that plagued the xperia s/t last year that annoyed me so much) and also letters looked more blurry on the z (i got one of the booklets and was focusing on the letters, the one was far sharper than the z and even just on general objects the one had the sharper camera.
    Video (both phones were in 1080p mode on auto focus setting) again was the same story the z was struggling to focus at times, while the one always maintained focus and showed the sharper image and better colour accuracy also better audio aswell.

    Even the front camera had clearer more detailed images and videos than the xperia zs front camera, also i tried zooming on the rear camera of the one again it showed more detail on zoom than any other phone I have seen bar the Nokia N8, 808, Lumia 920.
    Personally in my opinion and the guys in the three store the camera on the HTC one is remarkable the staff in the three store didn't even know the one only had a 4mp camera they thought it was 13mp it was so good.
    This is one of the reasons I rather go hands on with things myself than look on the internet or at reviews and I am urging people to do the same.
    You will be surprised about this ultra pixel 4mp camera thing today really showed me and the three staff that its really not all about the megapixels because the ones 4.3mp camera was overall better than the xperia z's 13.1mp camera.
    2
    I agree with what HTC says
    More megapixels crammed into a sensor of the same size, ie 8, 13 mp in a sensor of the same size, will make the pixels themselves smaller. Less light is captured, more noise produced.
    Reduce the amount of pixels and suddenly there are bigger pixels and more light can be captured. I think it will be good for the camera, as a cropped 2mp picture from a DSLR is waaaaay better than a 8mp picture from my incredible s or a one x.
    Think of a wire grid fence, if you have more wires there will be more holes, but less light will be able to come through
    Dunno how they will market it though. Makes it seem like the old nokias with 2mp cam are the best lol
    2
    Well the 4mp nothing at all
    Even got 41mp also useless if don't have good camera lens
    MP just the image resolution only

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium

    http://s1297.beta.photobucket.com/user/ivicask/media/HTC_ONE_NEXUS_4_COMPARE_zps973ef748.jpg.html

    I made compare HTC ONE 4.3M cam and Nexus 8M,
    as you can see in this zoomed in picture in Nexus does have more pixels, but HTC ONE has more details and colors.

    Here is full original image taken from ONE S

    http://mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMAG0031.jpg

    Also Camera sample

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ez_HaOhtxnA

    So in short, best phone camera so far if you ask me!