yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
For a camera on my phone, you bet your moronic ass it is. Refer back to my post as to what I need the phone on my camera to do... and the post where the OP reminded you this isn't a DSLR.

You call it simple, I call it "ignoring the minute bull**** details." Either of those photos posted by giovag7 look like crap in their own way... one has a giant pink blob, both are blurry in certain parts, and both have enough noise for me to not want to submit them into a photo contest. Are they each good enough to post on the interweb as it's convenient for me to do so? You bet your clueless ass it is.

Back to the original point when you decided to jump in: The SGS3 Z- sensor is nowhere near as bad as you and that other moron are crying over. I mean seriously, it wouldn't be so bad if it was even half true, but this chain mail "sky is falling" nonsense is ridiculous when there is ample evidence to the contrary (by those that have used BOTH sensors). It's time to pick something else worth *****ing about, as otherwise, I really do feel sorry for you.
[Galaxy S III General] limeaid:
LOL!!!!! Keep thinking like that. I'm sure it'll get you far in life :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
You bet your ass it is. I'm not the one crying on the interweb about a phone's camera module when you haven't proven ****. *****ing and moaning about trivial nonsense is getting far in life, "lol."

Again, my point originally: Z- fw module has not been proven to be "severely flawed" as your mentally challenged ass called it. It is better in some conditions, worse in others... as noted by people that ACTUALLY have tried both. (http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=28819112&postcount=26)

So, for idiots like you screaming bloody murder over it: Get a grip... and a life while you're at it. Just enjoy your damn phone. :)
[Galaxy S III General] limeaid:
It's already been proven that the ZD/GS3 uses double the ISO under similar lighting conditions when compared with the GS2. Giovag posted two comparison shots demonstrating that. Others have shown the same thing earlier in the thread. If a next generation camera needs TWICE the ISO to capture an image in the same lighting conditions, I consider that "severely flawed." Yes, I'll say it again--SEVERELY FLAWED. Care to respond to this? Or are you just going to continue to throw out insults when you have no rational arguments to back you up?
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
Wait, who the hell told you this camera was supposed to be "next generation?" Every single damn reviewer that had their hands on this device before launch said this was literally the same camera module as in both megapixel and quality. If you came into this expecting the next big thing, you were grossly mistaken.

(Or stupid.)

Listen, you up the iso on the SGS2 OR the SGS3, there is going to be noise. I don't care if it's 400 vs 800, it's too damn noisy... and like I said, I got plenty of really low light shots from my "good sensor" SGS2 to prove that point. The bottom line is what I said before: I want the camera on my phone to produce accurate, clear photos of what I'm trying to capture. On both the SGS2 and SGS3, night mode is the only way to go in truly low light situations, that's the damn point.
[Galaxy S III General] werked:
Can't we all just get along.... LOL

Sent str8 from my half eaten Banilla Ice Cream Samich
[Galaxy S III General] limeaid:
Right on cue. Using insults when you don't have any facts to back you up. Let me first provide you with a definition and then some actual facts.

Next generation: the generation after the preceding one. GS2 --> GS3

Now for some facts:

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5811/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-preview

Do you want to say something else so I can prove you wrong once again?
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
Oh sad sad limeaid, I see now how you were easily confused. So you've confused the purportedly "latest and greatest" from a review with "next generation." Would you like me to list the many times where the latest was NOT the greatest and certainly not next generation worthy?

On second thought, I'll make that your homework assignment, I know you can do it buddy! (BTW, SGS2 -> SGS3 camera doesn't count.)
[Galaxy S III General] eyecon82:
jesus! can you guys stop your bickering already...this is getting ridiculous....this is XDA
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
I just updated to GDFE01 - I was on GDFD01 - and hit the phone to CAM FW write (rear) and it updated -after reboot here it is

(did I make a mistake :/?)

Although it all looks good.

See screenshots

EDIT:

can anyone with GDFE01 also check on "ISP Ver Check" if it's CML0801-M017

I can confirm now :)
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
This is interesting....

I plugged in my earphones and they didn't work (yes they were plugged in properly).

No sound was coming out of them.

I then went ahead and powered off the phone, and rebooted it, and sound was back again.

Speaker was working, but jack in wasn't.

Could this be down to the camera update...:/
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
I think you said you were on GDFE01, so no change :)

Hm, I dont think so, When I was using my S2 in the Cam firmware thread many many people were flashing different firmwares and no issues after that, apart from flash not working, but this was only when they flashed another firmware from another phone. When you press WRITE it ususally reverts back to the old version or a new one that is in your phone.

may be I should put a warning in the OP :)

Is it still not working?
[Galaxy S III General] sxi200:
Weird! Don't think it should have anything to do with Audio but never know. After the upgrade it does require a reboot. So long as it works now that's the main thing.

Just wondering, have you tested camera to see if quality has improved after the upgrade?
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
well it wasn't working - but is now working now.

It is all very interesting to me, why it stopped working after the reboot.

I hadn't changed anything, apart from that (and again i had rebooted after)

And if it is reverting back, or finding a new one from the phone - shouldn't I have had downloaded it sometime?

As I remember there was a FW update OTA, when I got the phone - but I have no idea what that was for (it didn't say) - and no it wasn't LF2, which came later.

So, flashing a FW has no adverse affects?

As from what I just experienced...it was a little scary.

As on some other phones the cam module and jack are linked.

Would it be possible to flash back the old one I had?

ie. by flashing stock LE8 - full wipe?

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

I was an idiot in all honesty, before pressing it, I should have taken a picture.

I will attempt to recreate the pictures I took beforehand, when I get home.

Sunlight will be a little different though :/

But the main concern was the "noise" - so I'll see if that improved or not, I will definitely posts results tonight.

And yeah it was after the reboot, that's what surprised me.

If anyone can provide the file, or FW to revert back - that would be appreciated for testing purposes.
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
yes I think you can flash the old one back, but not by flashing new ROM. will tell you how in a sec :) I'm having difficulties finding the firmware dump and where the firmware.bin has to be placed so when you press CAM FW write it will update :)
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
Sweet, this should be fun :)

What happens if you click the update FW button btw?

Have you tried?

I'll probably try and get rid of hyperX's camera thing too. As I want a fair comparison of pictures.
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
It says "This is the latest version" :confused:
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
Right, I re-installed the stock camera - so it will be a "fair fight" now.

I think we need to help each other out lol

Tell me how I can provide you with the one I have, and you do the same vice versa, and we can flash each others firmwares (that sounds dirty LOL)

:D

EDIT:

I did the dump - but like you, no idea where its gone haha
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
yeah :D it does sound durty :D:D

I havent had luck with finding the dump file. :(

The pics info from www.gsmarena.com and another site that have made reviews of the camera shows that they had been taken with the same firmware as yours now(GDFE01), so fingers crossed that it's a firmware problem and it can be fixed by simple press of firmware write :P
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
I honestly couldn't find the FW version pictures at gsmarena. Could you link me directly to the post :)?
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
it's not the post I just downloaded the camera samples :) I checked again and it seems that the firmware is GDFD21,hm, i was pretty sure it was GDFE01

Edit: it is GDFE01 on this test http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_808_pureview_low_light-review-775p3.php

so they have used one phone for daylight pics and another for the low light test :confused: so I guess the guys who said they have perf pics under low light were right that the GDFE01 is the good firmware :)
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
interesting, but my question was: How do you know that was the firmware used?
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
oh, sry, when you download the pic- properties, details tab :)
[Galaxy S III General] tsangwc:
Updated firmware from FD06 to FE01. Huge difference in noise and contrast.
[Galaxy S III General] paintball23456:
do the test again without that **** nightmode on any phone it makes the camera look **** also take a look at the camera comparisons vs iphone/s2/hox the s3 is better than all apart from the hox which is a bit better all this noise your talking about is bollocks you just have a defective unit.period

look at these both similar conditions

S3

S2

tell me that the s3 camera sucks.........

watch this and tell me that the s3 is **** compared to the s2

well known fact that video is worse than pictures :) sent it back to samsung and tell them to fix it PROMPTO
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
ah ok! :D

Is this personal experience :)?

If so, how did you know you updated?
[Galaxy S III General] tsangwc:
I checked the firmware version with that *#34xxxxxx# key stroke. I also have took various pics before and after.
[Galaxy S III General] TotallydubbedHD:
fair enough - OK I tried doing the same place and same pose for each.

I can hardly tell the difference in all honesty.

Pictures attached are compressed - but still, even without compression, the background is still a little blurry / "noisy"

I tried my very best to recreate what I had on my site already.

All pics attached here, are with the "new" firmware update
[Galaxy S III General] limeaid:
Seriously? You've been presented evidence on numerous occasions refuting your argument and each time you're proven wrong, you just try to deflect the discussion away from the point. That's just sad.

Let me be explicit here. You JUST said that the GS3 shipped with the same camera module as the GS2. I provided you evidence that it did NOT and was supposed to come with an all new sensor which PRESUMABLY would be better than the older sensor in the GS2. Don't try to slither out of this with a semantics argument around "latest and greatest" vs. next generation. That holds no water.

It is VERY REASONABLE to expect the new sensor to perform as well as or much better than the older sensor. You cannot make a reasonable argument that anyone should expect the sensor in the GS3 to be WORSE than the GS2. Especially when every single review came out and said that the GS3's camera performed better than the GS2.

If you don't get this and try to wriggle out of this one, then you're hopeless.

Game. Set. Match.
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
Back from my 1 hour break... Breaking Bad season premier, more important than this silly pissing contest. I tell you what though, you've been great entertainment on my dreadful conference calls prior to the show, I thank you for that. You wanted a response, here you have it:

I've presumed nothing, it's unfortunate that you have. To be completely honest, I was initially expecting a much higher resolution camera along with better sensors at first. That, to me, would have been next gen.

(No, an increment in model number doesn't equate to next gen in my book. I've been in the industry long enough to know that doesn't mean jack squat.)

However, after the first round of reviews with actual pictures came out, it was glaringly obvious that we weren't going to get anything above and beyond what the SGS2 was in the camera department (note by original point, in megapixel and quality). Since receiving the device, I've experienced just that. It's on par with my SGS2 experience.

You and the other person feel it is a million times worse. I do not see that in comparison with my "better sensor" SGS2. The other posters who have held both devices with both camera sensors have not seen that. The other thread that compares the 4S (which several have hinted might have the same Sony module that you're lusting over) vs the Z- sensor did not show subpar performance on actual photos.

Summary: Not the big freaking deal you and the other troll ranted about. That's my original point, and I'm sticking to it.
[Galaxy S III General] C0NAN:
Twice the ISO is most likely the result of having "Anti-Shake" activated in Settings.
[Galaxy S III General] limeaid:
The posters said that the photos were taken with Anti-shake off in all circumstances

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 AM ----------

First off, I applaud you for attempting to post a rational argument instead of resorting to childish insults. That's progress.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to point out the holes in your arguments, especially when you are just factually incorrect

We expected the GS3's camera to be an improvement over the GS2's camera. Much evidence to the contrary has been provided in this thread. In fact, much of the evidence points to the GS3 camera being worse. The first round of reviews almost universally stated that the GS3 camera was one of the best phone cameras around and that quality was improved over the GS2-- it certainly shouldn't have been worse

The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/25/3042640/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-review)

Android Central (http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-review)

GSMArena (http://www.gsmarena.com/galaxy_s_ii_vs_galaxy_s_iii-review-764p6.php)

If you look at the thread, the plain low light photos on the GS3 are actually MUCH worse than the 4S. Relying on night mode and HDR to compensate for a bad sensor does not prove anything. It simply proves that HDR and night mode work. Shocking!

If this isn't a big deal to you, why do you keep posting in this thread? Quite a few people are unhappy about the GS3's camera and for good reason. Who are you to judge whether or not they "should" be... especially when you have admitted yourself you aren't particularly discerning when it comes to photography? That's the most baffling part about your entire argument. You claim to not care, and yet you keep posting over and over again defending a point you claim to be indifferent to... chew on that for a moment.
[Galaxy S III General] Pipperox:
Regardless of "anti-shake", the two camera modules (SGS II and III) have the same aperture, so if the SGS III is using twice the ISO in the same scene and lighting settings, then it means that:

a) the images in the SGS III will be severely overexposed (by one stop) -- extremely unlikely, or

b) the SGS III is using an exposure time / shutter speed which is half of what the SGS II is using

Of course (a) doesn't make sense and it'd be easy to see if the images come out overexposed; then (b) it means that the firmware in the SGS III is to blame, not the camera module, and that anyway the SGS III images will be much less susceptible to motion and shake.

Things like "anti-shake" mode are just meaningless marketing buzzwords for people who don't know much about the camera technology.
[Galaxy S III General] NIK516:
Bravo sir bravo, the man was trollin and he had no clue about photography or the true function of iso aperture shutter speed and deference to the sensors in the s2 and s3 look it up one is back illuminated.

This whole thing looks like a big stuff up by samsung , we have noticed the difference in sensors between the g and z firmwares and we want the good one , hehehe get it coz it starts with G for good hahaha
[Galaxy S III General] giovag7:
You don't have understood: with twice iso gs3 use same exposure time of gs2 to obtain same results!!!!

Or at same iso gs3 use TWICE exposure time than gs2. This mean that SGS III images will be much MORE susceptible to motion and shake...

It seem that iso is not correspondig to gs2 in gs3.

BTW for me the biggest problem with gs3 camera is distortion at the edge (i know that it is due to te large aperture, but here we don't have an optical zoom to avoid this issue, we only have digital zoom that make worse pics). I will open a thread to analize in dept this phenomena.
[Galaxy S III General] NoOneCanHelpMe:
geeez what the hell happened here...

stop it guys... take this to pm pls
[Galaxy S III General] zodiaxe66:
Yeah????

Try "procapture" camera from market. Buy it, take some pic's in different light setting and return it within the 15 min return window.see if u still complain about the hw.

Samsung's fw is good in normal light, but in low light areas "some"(lot) noise is evident and it's clearly a shutter time issue
[Galaxy S III General] Aimara:
maybe you guys can start complaining at your local samsung distributor , we are all consumers here
[Galaxy S III General] Toss3:
Hmm I just compared my GD based camera to my friend's Z-version, and imho the latter took much better pictures. They both performed exactly the same in low-light conditions, but the Z handled sunlight much better(object was clearly visible whereas it wasn't with my SGS3).

I'll see if I have time to post picture comparisons later this week. :)

Anyone figure out how to flash the camera firmware yet?
[Galaxy S III General] Pipperox:
I'm sorry but from what you write, you seem to understand very little about photography.

What you're describing, i.e. that two camera with the same aperture, (F2.6) with the same shutter speed, with the same scene, with 2 completely different ISO settings, give the same images.

This is impossible.

So let's say two cameras at the same aperture and the same shutter speed, camera (a) uses ISO 400 and camera (b) ISO 800, then the only possibilities are:

1) the image from camera (a) is underexposed (too dark) by one stop

2) the image from camera (b) is overexposed (too bright) by one stop or

3) the ISO rating of camera (a) or camera (b) is wrong

Can you please provide proof of what you're saying (i'd need the two images, with EXIF data)?

Concerning distortion at the edges: i understand it is a problem for you, but there is nothing to analyze.

If you want to analyze this phenomenon perhaps you should do it in a photography forum; you'll find out that there is a lot more than that as a consequence of a short focal length; for example objects in the background look more distant that they really are, and if you take a picture of a person up close, his nose will look bigger than what it is. :)

There is no camera in the world which can give you undistorted images at that field of view (this has nothing to do with large aperture, but with large field of view / short focal lenght); you would need a sensor which is spherical or cylindrical instead of being flat and nobody is producing those, at least not for consumer cameras.

But see it this way: by using a large FOV, this camera lets you see objects which otherwise wouldn't have been visible at all in your picture.

So if you don't like it, you can just crop the picture or use digital zoom (which is in fact the same thing).

Personally i appreciate the larger field of view, just make sure to put your main subject in the center of the picture.
[Galaxy S III General] giovag7:
1) i understand something about photography, I'm an amateur but look my gallery at my signature. All pics are taken with a powershot g7 with additional lens too. My pics speak of me...

2) this is the proof

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?p=28822673

3) i think third possibility is the nearest to reality (gs3 has strange iso rating).

Look exif data. I can provide more pics when I have the time...

Galaxy S3 con Tapatalk
[Galaxy S III General] kannanX10:
I do felt the same after comparing ZD and GD Firmwares...ZD seems to produce better results...but both modules have noise but ZD seems to have somewhat less noise than GD...so I recommend u put the samples here...so most of them will stop complaining abt ZD firmware....
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
Thank you, that would be hugely helpful in keeping the hysteria from growing further out of control.
[Galaxy S III General] zodiaxe66:
Anyway nice car, dude
[Galaxy S III General] Pipperox:
I did not mean to judge the artistic merits of your photography (and this is not a photography forum), fact is that here you've shown a certain confusion about some common technical concepts, such as field of view, aperture, ISO, that's why i wrote that.

Anyway, I had a look at those pictures you posted and their EXIF data, and there is certainly something odd about those ISO ratings.

A couple of things i noticed:

* exposure time for the S II is 1/17s, while is 1/20s for S III, so indeed the S III had it shorter

* but that would not justify having a doubled ISO value

* your pictures from S III and S II, albeit at different nominal ISO settings, judging with the naked eye have identical exposure and identical noise as well

* the file size of the S III pic is smaller than the S II one, this most likely means that the jpeg quality level is lower for the S III. Have you tried setting the S III to "Superfine"?

So from your shots i can conclude that:

* image noise, in those low iso, well lit conditions, is practically the same between your S II and S III

* the S III is using a (17%) shorter exposure time

* ISO readings are inaccurate, most likely for both phones

Can you please do a comparison in low light, high ISO?

Possibly setting the ISO manually?
[Galaxy S III General] NaimC:
I'm willing to guess that in the end, after a proper A/B comparison, the differences between Z and G fw or sensors will be negligible.

I'm also pretty shocked to hear people saying the GS3's camera is awful. Ok, so in extreme low light, default exposure seems to be off (I use HDR to solve this), but you judge the camera on the other shooting conditions and it's superb or at least very good. In daylight or decent light I'm finding its generally sharper and more accurate in colour compared to, for example, the 4S or S2. Even in my own comparison you can see that low light performance isn't as bad as some make out.

I'm confident that some software tweaks could improve things further, but let's wait and see.
[Galaxy S III General] foxy4270:
i just compare My Galaxy S2 pics with S3 pics with ZDFF02 firmware.

i tried different senarios...indoor pics, low light, flash on, sunny days.

in every category , S2 outperforms S3.

S3 pics lack of details, have a lot of noise and in general are below average.
[Galaxy S III General] cmd512:
Agreed, the pictures taken in decent lighting are fantastic, macro mode also focuses a while lot quicker than the S2. For extremely low lit environments (such as the dimly lit cafe we had dinner at Saturday night), night mode is a must. My gf has my SGS2 with the "good sensor" and in that cafe, it was equally piss poor without night mode enabled.

Flash shots looked a whole lot more natural on the S3. Something about that blindingly bright flash on the S2 just makes the resulting picture look... off.