yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
Look at this guy ... Woahh Look out its mr big smart dev who knows everything....different Features Yeh what ever... all I am saying is by the pictures I am seeing the RS is not much of a qualtiy upgrade.

who the hells arguing? You??

EDIT:

where are the proper sources stating that one is the Exymos R and the other is the Exymos Rs... And how do you know these are legit sources

Here are a couple Statement & rumours I found, but I cannot see anything proper hardware spec that shows the S600 has the Exymos R and even if there are proper sources I just want to see them and then ask why don't I see a real difference in the quality of the photos... Its funny how samsung would go so far as to under utilize the lense because the s600 has a older version LOL If so Samsung = JOKE

Statements

:

"Apparently The Octa was confirmed to have a Sony IMX135 module (which is the new Exmor RS), and Anandtech said the i9505 has the Sony IMX091PQ module (which is an older Exmor R), but that wasn't confirmed anywhere else, so noone really knows for sure I think.

Another rumor was that not every i9505 has the same module, so maybe some of them have the IMX135, and others the IMX091PQ?"
[Galaxy S 4 General] cmd512:
On a different but related note, the latest ME1 F/W for 9500 shows an updated rear camera F/W on the phone, but the upgrade option is grey'd out (see below). Were any of you able to update the rear camera to see if there were any improvements?

(My 9500 rear camera module is confirmed to be Sony IMX135.)
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
This I believe because I found a hardware teardown of the I9500, But where can I see that mine is the older chip? It may be true but Id just like to see proper source hardware and feature teardown of the I9505.. I dont really care what the outcome is because Im happy with the device. But i am now curious to see how samsung works.. lol Under utilising one of the other to match both variants equally wow... Jk
[Galaxy S 4 General] cmd512:
Not sure what you're talking about, I just clicked "ISP Ver Check" in the menu above.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
That's a question only professional help can answer I'm afraid. The Octa-core photos are more detailed, have better dynamic range and have more consistent exposure and color accuracy without going overboard. The Exmor R does a very decent job coming close, but it's still inferior.
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
So when you press ISP Ver check, Yours says - IMX135 ?

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

the differences dont jump out at me and i would have to give it a good look to see anything much different. Anyways the main reason I question it is because I am just shocked samsung would actually bother doing this, even "apparently" under-utelising the IMX135.. which is why I would like to see a full tear down hardware for the I9505

But if the I9500 actually says IMX135 when you press ISP ver check then thats a different story because mine doesnt say this.

The thing I dont understand is what andatech saying about not knowing much about the new M10MO "Samsung also continues to go with a dedicated Fujitsu ISP inside the SGS4, this time it’s a new M10MO family which there isn’t a whole lot of information about. I suspect this continues to be done to mitigate the differences in SoC ISP between the APQ8064ab variant and Exynos 5 version and make tuning easier on Samsung’s camera team."

whats the M10M0 mean and why is it a new family
[Galaxy S 4 General] cmd512:
Yes, proof:

Now, if someone could shed some light on updating the camera F/W with the newer version on the latest XXUAME1 F/W (below), that would be the next logical step. I can say for a fact that upgrading the camera F/W on the S3 i9300 made measurable and noticeable improvements, hoping for the same on the i9500:
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
thats very interesting I wonder why mine would not say IMX091, but says M10MO... And then andatech saying they do not know much about this new family to be exact>>> "Samsung also continues to go with a dedicated Fujitsu ISP inside the SGS4, this time it’s a new M10MO family which there isn’t a whole lot of information about. I suspect this continues to be done to mitigate the differences in SoC ISP between the APQ8064ab variant and Exynos 5 version and make tuning easier on Samsung’s camera team."
[Galaxy S 4 General] bala_gamer:
had the same question in mind for 9505 it should show -IMX091PQ but instead its showing M10MO. But whatever it looks like the quality of images vary slightly with IMX 135 having more details in the pics (might be due to the new generation sensor).

[MENTION=1984051]cmd512[/MENTION]

yes the newer firmware comes with ME1 update, but i would suggest you to not flash it as of now if you are going to use some other custom kernels because the updated source code has not yet been released.
[Galaxy S 4 General] mohican22:
hello

I'm on i9500 with Sony IMX135.

Rom I9500ZSUAME1_I9500OZSAME1_I9500XXUAMDK_HOME.tar

The photos are excellent. But when I work with camerazoom fx, pictures are even better!
[Galaxy S 4 General] cmd512:
Understood, but that's not an issue as I'm rooted with stock ME1 kernel, so for now, I'm using the matching kernel.

Now, back to my question, how do you flash this bugger? I already took all of the *.bin files in /vendor/firmwares and dumped them all over the place (root, internal SD, etc), flash option was still greyed out / unavailable...

(For what it's worth, there were two bin files with the "FIMC" moniker, and both were the exact same file size (~1.7 MB). I suspect these are the updated rear camera firmwares...)
[Galaxy S 4 General] tclocki:
Yes, even on my old phone it does makes the picture a little bit better. That's mainly because I think it increases the brightness, and saturation of the colors. It does look a bit grainy sometimes though.

Havent installed camerazoom fx yet on my s4 though.
[Galaxy S 4 General] 00raq00:
If its aren't fakes, i9505 version probably have something wrong with camera. Maybe it's only old camera firmware. On another samples i can't see blur which i can see on this examples. On second example it's the most visible on the car's glass.
[Galaxy S 4 General] exec99:
Keep in mind that 2nd pictures are HDRs.
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
Yeh after some really close observation some of those pictures just don't look right... the sky isn't even blue on one of the i9505 pictures ...honestly in that same light my phone captures the blue much better. And the balcony is zoomed, you have to be extremely careful when capturing 2 identical zooms, the slightest movement can change the look, I myself would not rely solely on this comparison as it not done professionally. But on the other hand if i9500 is a newer sensor you should expect it to be slightly better... although I am still not knowing what the statement by anandtech [I]"Samsung also continues to go with a dedicated Fujitsu ISP inside the SGS4, this time it’s a new M10MO family which there isn't a whole lot of information about."[/I] and why my ISP ver check does not say IMX091 like the IMX135_I9500 , Instead M10MO, could possibly be a different version of the IMX091.
[Galaxy S 4 General] 380AU:
My i9505 does nothing when I type this in?
[Galaxy S 4 General] TheFeshy:
The IMX091 and IMX135 are camera sensors.

The M10MO is an Image Signal Processor.

They are two different pieces of hardware. The first pretty much just captures the light; the second is a dedicated processor that handles all the features we expect from a modern camera: face detection, image stabilization, white balance, correcting for the Bayer pixel filtering, etc. One does not replace the other; both are required (unless your system chip has it built in of course.)

So far all I've seen in these threads is a discussion of the ISP and its firmware, and nothing from the phone's firmware about the camera sensor itself. So unless the M10MO doesn't work with the Exmor RS for some reason (and since they both use the MIPI standard that's unlikely), I haven't been able to figure out why identifying the ISP is "proof" that the i9505 has a different camera sensor.
[Galaxy S 4 General] azdine57:
*#34971539#* :cool:

Envoyé depuis mon GT-I9500 avec Tapatalk
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
Here's the first shot allegedly taken by the Galaxy Note III. The GT-N7200 has the same 4.2mm focal length and 4128x2322 pixel resolution (at 16:9) as the Galaxy S4, also f2.2 aperture. The photo doesn't have any noise nor compression or any trace of over-saturation, and does the regular ISO50 with relatively long exposure. It's most likely the same 'old' Exmor RS. A little hard to find the focus area, but it's quite sharp slightly bottom left from the middle.
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
Good point this is why Id be interested in seeing a proper hardware teardown of i9505 like chipworks did with the i9500
[Galaxy S 4 General] TheFeshy:
I suspect this may mean that Samsung is using the native ISP abilities of the Exynos, and so it is reporting the image sensor on those models (or it might just be a reporting bug?) whereas for whatever reason they went with a discrete Fujitsu ISP on the snapdragon model. That would explain why, for instance, there wasn't any mention of the Fujitsu chip on the Chipworks teardown.

I can't say why they would do it this way as the Snapdragon also has integrated ISP, although there's already some evidence that the Snapdragon in the S4 is different from the one in other phones. Maybe this is another difference; or maybe Samsung wasn't happy with the performance of the included one.

Or, of course, I could be wrong, and even if I'm right it's no guarantee that the sensors are the same between the two models ;)

I would also like to see this.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gnarfoz:
In case you missed it (which one should assume on XDA):

The point was that on the I9505, what you just did shows no information about the sensor.

It shows information about the image signal processor. These are not the same things.
[Galaxy S 4 General] azdine57:
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/04/25/inside-the-samsung-galaxy-s4/

Envoyé depuis mon GT-I9500 avec Tapatalk
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gnarfoz:
I'm sorry, but that's a teardown of a GT-I9500, not a GT-I9505.

They did not, so far, update it with additional GT-I9505 info.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Mithrandir007:
Actually, only the first and last pic of each set should be compared, as was said in this thread before (since the others are not similar to each other because of the use of HDR for the S4 pic).

Also, the balcony picture isn't zoomed, it is cropped from the first picture to see the details.
[Galaxy S 4 General] oXunknownXo:
I'm gonna add my two cents here.

On the one hand, here we have the different camera firmwares:

9505

9500

As we can see, there are some interesting facts that we should try to clarify. For example, the first part shows two different codes, probably related with different SoCs, but we can spot the same codes that determined the different image sensors in our "old" Galaxy SIII. Those are GB and GD and are the same in both phones. Do the "A" and the "B" in front of both codes represent different sensors? Who knows.

On the other hand, another interesting thing I noticed is that the ISP ver check shows everything in a totally different format in each phone even knowing that both front cameras are the same. The IMX135 is not an ISP so maybe Samsung is using his own ISP in the Octa version as someone pointed out. The funny thing is that there is no signal of the IMX091 in the snapdragon code, so I'm not really sure if they use different camera sensors or it's just a difference between two ISPs.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gnarfoz:
Another tidbit:

The kernel config used for the I9505XXUAME2 (3.4.0-526204) kernel, accessible via /proc/config.gz shows:

#
# Qualcomm MSM Camera And Video
#
CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA=y
# CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_DEBUG is not set
CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_V4L2=y

#
# Camera Sensor Selection
#
CONFIG_S5K6B2YX=y
# CONFIG_IMX074 is not set
# CONFIG_OV5647 is not set
# CONFIG_MT9M114 is not set
# CONFIG_IMX074_ACT is not set
# CONFIG_S5K4E1 is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_FLASH_SC628A is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_FLASH_TPS61310 is not set
# CONFIG_IMX072 is not set
# CONFIG_OV2720 is not set
# CONFIG_OV8825 is not set
CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_FLASH=y
CONFIG_MSM_CAMERA_SENSOR=y
CONFIG_MSM_ACTUATOR=y
CONFIG_MSM_EEPROM=y
# CONFIG_IMX074_EEPROM is not set
# CONFIG_IMX091_EEPROM is not set
CONFIG_MSM_GEMINI=y
CONFIG_MSM_MERCURY=y
# CONFIG_MSM_CAM_IRQ_ROUTER is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CPP is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CCI is not set
CONFIG_QUP_EXCLUSIVE_TO_CAMERA=y
CONFIG_MSM_CSI20_HEADER=y
# CONFIG_MSM_CSI30_HEADER is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CSIPHY is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CSID is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_CSI2_REGISTER is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_ISPIF is not set
# CONFIG_S5K3L1YX is not set
# CONFIG_IMX091 is not set
# CONFIG_MSM_V4L2_VIDEO_OVERLAY_DEVICE is not set
# CONFIG_OV7692 is not set
CONFIG_JC=y
# CONFIG_CAMERA_SW_I2C is not set
# CONFIG_CAMERA_USE_GSBI7 is not set
# CONFIG_V4L_MEM2MEM_DRIVERS is not set
CONFIG_MSM_WFD=y
CONFIG_RADIO_ADAPTERS=y
# CONFIG_RADIO_SI470X is not set
# CONFIG_USB_MR800 is not set
# CONFIG_USB_DSBR is not set
# CONFIG_I2C_SI4713 is not set
# CONFIG_RADIO_SI4713 is not set
# CONFIG_USB_KEENE is not set
# CONFIG_RADIO_TEA5764 is not set
# CONFIG_RADIO_SAA7706H is not set
# CONFIG_RADIO_TEF6862 is not set
# CONFIG_RADIO_WL1273 is not set

That would mean the kernel was compiled without the driver for IMX091.

I'm not sure what role this M10MO ISP chip has, but I doubt it makes drivers for the sensor unnecessary?
[Galaxy S 4 General] btemtd:
another interesting find is a supposed hardware price teardown

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/pages/Korean-and-American-Versions-of-Galaxy-S4-as-Different-as-Kimchee-and-Coleslaw,-IHS-Teardown-Reveals.aspx

Same cameras + sensors have the same cost unlike many other features.

So if one is newer than the other , SURELY it should cost more

So far I have not seen HARD proof that these have different sensors. And untill I do see HARD proof I wont claim they do have different sensors

EDIT:

Even more clue pointing towards having same rear cameras...

http://www.etradesupply.com/oem-samsung-galaxy-s4-gt-i9505-back-camera.html

http://www.etradesupply.com/oem-samsung-galaxy-s4-gt-i9500-back-camera.html

OEM cameras for you to order... Same price.. same exact numbers on the cameras itself, zoom into the pictures of each camera..
[Galaxy S 4 General] saype:
Amazing conclusion, guys! I think that Samsung haven't reasons to use differents camera sensors on the same device.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Just as you did with the FM radio debacle on the i9305?

The links you posted have different SKU numbers for both versions, furthermore, the photos are the same because the photographer was lazy, the modules ARE different as seen in:

iFixit; i9505: http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/UNOkDUqj2k2MycHN.huge

Chipworks, IT168; i9500: http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/files/2013/04/primarycamera-back-300x173.jpg http://image20.it168.com/picshow/900x675/20130314/2013031420411067641.jpg

Not only have both different part numbers, but both have clear different control ICs on their back.

The source code clearly states IMX091 for the i9505 and IMX135 for the i9500; the i9505 uses the Fujitsu ISP as a bridge between sensor and SoC so the SoC never has no direct awareness of the sensor (For whatever reason they did that, reports say they're unhappy with the SoC ISP).

Several sources state clear and inarguable differences in image quality between the two in direct 1:1 comparisons.

I don't know how much damn evidence you want, at this point it's gotten to the point of senseless arguments.
[Galaxy S 4 General] oXunknownXo:
According to the latest GSMArena comparison between both models, the results are too similar to be different sensors:

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s4_i9500_vs_i9505-review-930p4.php
[Galaxy S 4 General] BamAlmighty:
Based on what I have seen I am confident both models share the same sensor, it just seems like some people here want to be able to say my model has a better sensor than yours. Which is quite sad.
[Galaxy S 4 General] cmd512:
Easy to make general summaries, but you skipped a very telling statement from your own review:

"Additionally, the photo taken with the eight-core version have a bit more detail, than the quad-core one."

This is evident if you look at the magnified textured siding of the building below, the difference in detail is quite noticeable.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
All I see in this post is a lot of blabla with zero actual new contribution, you make a great conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't change the situation in the least.

You're trying to argue about SKU meaning when it's bloody obvious they're two different modules. You're counter-arguing ISP drivers but forget we don't have the Fujutsu firmware available so it's a apples-to-oranges comparison. From sensor name to actual sensor capabilities (especially recoding FPS values) we have matching data to the IMX135 for the i9500. We have Brian Klug who confirms IMX091 on the Qualcomm version, not only because he bothers to randomly search through code but contacts people in the supply chain.

Let's say they do have the same sensor; but to argue the actual end-result is pure ignorance, there are several people who did 1:1 comparisons in BoneXDA's thread, reviews pointing out to it, and users who report on this.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Funkym0nkey:
Some of us actually own both devices. And there is one consistent thing throughout. And that is lack of details on 9505. I actually got 9505 out of curiosity and fear of lack of support for 9500, but I am disappointed by camera results. Even when I set same iso manually to ensure that noise is not due to different iso used by auto mode, the 9505 still produces images which lack fine details and had more noise on flat surfaces. That includes walls and sky as well.

Does not maturer what I do, this is ever present in most photos.

Depending on scene the amount will vary as far as sky and flat surface is concerned.

To say it is just placebo is weird and simply put incorrect.

From my Galaxy S4, in your face.....
[Galaxy S 4 General] kannanX10:
absolutely true..........the fact is i9500 has sony IMX135 ie;Exmor RS while i9505 has sony IMX091 ie;Exmor R with fujitsu ISP
[Galaxy S 4 General] oXunknownXo:
Well, you skipped some interesting facts as well:

The differences in the photo samples are minor and are part due to the quickly changing weather conditions and the different way the chipset processes and outputs the photos. [...] This however, isn't necessarily due to the difference in camera sensors, but rather the software versions of both phones, as they do differ - XXUAMDE for the i9500 vs. XXUAMDC for the i9505. The Exynos Galaxy S4 has newer software version, which might be an explanation for the different camera processing.

Apart from this, if you check carefully each picture, the differences aren't as big as the ones shown in the yellow building. In fact, there are some parts where the Octa shows a slightly higher amount of detail, others where both are very similar, and others where the S600 shows a sharper image.

What I noticed though is that the OCTA has a very light noise reduction logarithm compared to the S600, which even apears to have a stronger sharpening filter. You can notice this in the huge watch ad, where the letters of the ad have a lot of small dots around them or the wall of the mall, where it's easy to notice the noise in the grey texture and around every letter.

These differences tend to be very subtle as far as I can tell but if we compare them in a more realistic scenario (1920x1440 - wallpaper size) there are some interesting things I notice:

-The noise differences between both are less evident.

-The sharpening filter of the S600 seems to improve definition in small details under good sunlight.

-The shadow zones like the window with curtains, look more detailed in the OCTA version.

In brief, this is an interesting topic but IMO the differences between both are very small, having in mind that they use different firmwares.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
Well don't tease us, share some of those photos. :good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Ronis_BR:
Hi guys!

First, these comparisons do not tell much about the sensor quality.

Remember, we get JPEG photos that has a huge amount of post-processing from the RAW sensor data, which, unfortunately we can't access.

For example, the sky with i9500 looks clear, but nearly every camera can take a photo like that without noise using a low ISO and a filtering algorithm. The fact that the photo with i9505 has much noise does not tell that the sensor is worst, just that the firmware chose something different, e.g. ISO, exposure, different values for the noise reduction algorithm, etc. The firmware is very important. In a low light environment, for example, you can't remove much noise, because you will lost details. So, these choices will have a huge impact in the photo quality.

The only way to real compare both sensors and see the differences is in a controlled environment, with a tripod, same amount of light, same colors, same scene, same settings, etc.

A real camera test for Nikon D3100 can be seen here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/10

Look, if you turn off the NR (noise reduction) a clear image becomes very "bad" :)

So, these photos posted here cannot be used to decide which camera has a better sensor. If it is true that i9500 has Exymor RS, then it CAN take better photos, but only in some conditions like low light or using digital zoom. To have a conclusion, we must wait a specialized test to compare both devices. Recently, dxomark posted the results for Galaxy S4 camera, and it is amazing! They did not tell which one they used, but I think it was the I9505 because they wrote "As the update to the Galaxy S III the quad-core Samsung Galaxy S4 is one the most eagerly anticipated high-end smartphones of the year, and sits at the top of the South Korea based maker’s range." (you can check it here http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Mobiles/Samsung-Galaxy-S4-overview-Does-bigger-mean-better)

And, finally, remember: if you buy a mobile phone because of its camera, you are not going to the right way :D If you want high-quality photos, buy a real camera! It does not need to be a dSLR, but just a camera. Virtually every digital camera is capable to take much better photos than both i9500 and i9505 :D

Edit:

Here you can see the full test of the i9505 camera: http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9428787206/dxomark-mobile-report-samsung-galaxy-s4
[Galaxy S 4 General] ixon2001:
You know pixel peeping been going on for years on DSLR's, I never thought i see the day when it would come to Smartphones.

Tbh does it really matter if the I9500 takes slightly better pics compared to the I9505 or vice versa, they both take good pics for a smartphone.

Out of the 10 million+ that have bought both the I9500 or I9505 99.8% of them would perfectly happy with picture quality from either phone, I know i am and i own both a Nikon D800 and a Fuji X20 as a walkabout, and i use my S4 i9505 for snapshots only if i don't have the Fuji at hand, and perfectly happy with the snapshot quality.

So like i said before does it matter?

If you want ultimate picture quality from your photo's then buy a DSLR, if you can't afford a DSLR then buy a decent compact, if you don't want either than buy a Nokia 808. :P
[Galaxy S 4 General] Jarmezrocks:
Sorry but this is ridiculous, how the hell do you expect people to compare when your eyes change focal points every time you scroll? pfft fixed!

I9500: ____________________________________________ I9505:

I9500: ____________________________________________ I9505:

I9500: ____________________________________________ I9505:

I9500: ____________________________________________ I9505:

On that note I see no difference....just saying

James