Should Pyra have a Camera?

Should Pyra have a Camera?

  • Yes

    Votes: 111 43.0%
  • No

    Votes: 147 57.0%

  • Total voters
    258

I frequently carry my Pandora with me, but the image quality from tiny cameras is so poor that I would only contemplate using it in an emergency.
Most people aren't image quality fetichist.

All we need is to be able to make photo and video with our only handheld device which we carry everywhere. Not having a camera on the Pyra is big FAIL, except if we have a small usb module it would be fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Zeta... that is the logo of Firebeard... before they renamed it to firefax.

I will use my camera to take a picture of a qr code on the street, then take the SD card and put it in the pyra to decode it. Can be done with one hand....

Here are two potential mini usb camera's to bring along in your pocket:

http://usb.brando.com/usb-mini-web-cam-ii_p01135c043d015.html

http://www.babble.com/home/fuuvi-pick-usb-mini-digital-camera/

http://dx.com/p/mini-wire-free-swivel-usb-laptop-webcam-1-3m-pixel-27391#.Ux5Hm-XCSuU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a load of BS this thread is.

There are not going to be many users who will have the Pyra as their only device on-the-go, for the simple reason that most people carry a cell-phone to be reachable on-the-go.

And guess what, almost all cellphones have cameras. And any cellphone camera made within the last 5 years is going to be superior to the crappy cam ED would be able to integrate.

It is just not going to happen. Let the thread die.
 
There are not going to be many users who will have the Pyra as their only device on-the-go, for the simple reason that most people carry a cell-phone to be reachable on-the-go.
The people complaining are the ones that appear to have an interest in fully replacing their phone. The Pyra will have (optional) 3G with voice capabilities, so it's possible.
 
I voted no, because I just see it as added cost with a limited use case. But I'm starting to think if not included stock, have a space allocated above the screen in the bezel where one *could* be mounted, and make a wiki article of a specific el cheapo button camera that can easily be modded into it for skype/webcam and have driver built into the stock image if someone wants to do the mod.

same thing for haptic feedback if not included stock but obviously in a different part of the case
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a load of BS this thread is.

There are not going to be many users who will have the Pyra as their only device on-the-go, for the simple reason that most people carry a cell-phone to be reachable on-the-go.

And guess what, almost all cellphones have cameras. And any cellphone camera made within the last 5 years is going to be superior to the crappy cam ED would be able to integrate.

It is just not going to happen. Let the thread die.
Hi quality cameras are cheap and small.


Tons of people in this thread are BLIND! BLIND, BLIND, BLIND!

I voted no, because I just see it as added cost with a limited use case. But I'm starting to think if not included stock, have a space allocated above the screen in the bezel where one *could* be mounted, and make a wiki article of a specific el cheapo button camera that can easily be modded into it for skype/webcam and have driver built into the stock image if someone wants to do the mod.

same thing for haptic feedback if not included stock but obviously in a different part of the case
Next person to complain about the price gonna get his shirt burning like my beard!


Also, i think haptic feedback needs a vote. It costs less than the wires attaching it to the PCB.
 
Small sensor = shitty output. Large sensor = less noise less artifact better quality.


Highend camera using larger sensor should be some indication...
Small sensor? My LEICA D-LUX 6 (Costs a eternal soul of a human) camera sensor have exactly the same size sensor as the unknown sensor i got with the tablet for 40 euros.


+ A large sensor means TIMES more noise and artifacts. As well as that it also will be more vulnerable to bright objects.

catSmile.jpg


(Yeah, a eternal soul of  a human)
 
My LEICA D-LUX 6 (Costs a eternal soul of a human) camera sensor have exactly the same size sensor as the unknown sensor i got with the tablet for 40 euros.
If you are willing to pay a fortune for it, then it will be possible to make a small sensor that doesn't suck.

That doesn't mean small is better, it just means there's a demand for small cameras.

+ A large sensor means TIMES more noise and artifacts. As well as that it also will be more vulnerable to bright objects.
Nope.

Nope, nope, nopity nope.

Please tell that to a professional photographer who's just spent £8000 on a full frame DSLR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A large sensor means TIMES more noise and artifacts. As well as that it also will be more vulnerable to bright objects.
Vot?

You're so full of it. And with "it", I do not mean well-researched, factual information. Honestly. do you just make all your opinions up as you go along?
 
Small sensors mean everything in the camera also scales down. Focal lengths to get the same field of view need to shrink (that Leica for example appears to go from 4.7-17.7mm which on a bigger sensor is incredibly wide-angle even at the telephoto end). Apertures are expressed as a fraction of the focal length, so f/1.8 on that Leica (assuming it's at the 17.7mm end) is the same aperture (in mm or inches) as f/5.1-ish on a 50mm lens used, for example as the normal lens on a full-frame camera. That's a very ordinary aperture, used when you want to get a large object all in focus, or you want to freeze the action by having a shorter shutter speed. And the 17.7mm is actually equivalent to 90mm on a full-frame camera, so f/1.8 at 17.7mm is the same as f/9.2-ish there.


Consequently smaller-sensored cameras don't have the ability to isolate objects using selective focussing, or express speed through the blurring of either foreground or background as well, but thanks to the improvements in chip manufacturing, the sensors actually only introduce unwanted noise equivalent to a larger sensor of a few years ago, and large sensors back then were already pretty damn good, so noise on a small sensor is less of an issue than it used to be. The above reasons, as well as all the extra controls you get on a larger camera are the reasons people pay more for larger sensors these days, as well as FUD about well sizes and noise.


Note: I don't do these sort of calculations for a living, so I'm on a little shaky ground here, but I think I've got things the right way round.
 
Furthermore: Even if ZetaNetas ideas about small and large sensors weren't pulled out of a random bodily orifice, there's more than the sensor to the camera. The glass in front of the sensor of that Leica (*drool...* Ahem - sorry 'bout that) is ever so slightly more expensive than whatever is put in front of the sensor in that random tablet. I wouldn't be surprised if the optics in themselves cost similar to what we hope the entire Pyra will cost.
 
Furthermore: Even if ZetaNetas ideas about small and large sensors weren't pulled out of a random bodily orifice, there's more than the sensor to the camera. The glass in front of the sensor of that Leica (*drool...* Ahem - sorry 'bout that) is ever so slightly more expensive than whatever is put in front of the sensor in that random tablet. I wouldn't be surprised if the optics in themselves cost similar to what we hope the entire Pyra will cost.
My main point was to make him understand, that sensor size rarely got something to do with the quality.


I dont mean to put a LEICA DC VARIO-SUMMILUX lens in there, at least because this would tear my pockets apart :333
 
Sensors got quite a lot to do with quality. You're simply talking out of your ass.
 
For a given resolution, large sensors have larger pixels. Being larger means less noise, since it tends to cancel itself out
 
If by image quality you mean luminance and chroma noise, then yes, but it's really not as cut and dried as it used to be thanks to silicon manufacture improvements (both in the sensor itself and the processors attached to it). But having a small sensor means you're using really out-wide lenses, and like using wide lenses on your big camera, wide-open apertures (like f/1.8 and beyond) don't give you the same bang they do at 50mm and beyond. But for me, any many people, the quality these days actually easily surpasses the 10 year old big camera I'm carrying around (which for me produces fine quality in daylight hours - compact sensors these days can do indoor shots too).


Edit: Note, I'm still not saying zeta's right. Big sensors don't mean more noise. Just saying small sensors are better than many think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sensors got quite a lot to do with quality. You're simply talking out of your ass.
Sensors do. But the size doesnt always define the quality. A tiny sensor with no external lens can be very good today
 
Back
Top