[iN8ter]

Taking HDR pictures of a moving target is easy enough when there are either multiple photodiodes per photo site or a higher precision diode then you can capture a HDR image without multiple exposures.

A any rate I know that it isn't intended for low light performance but it does on some cameras (droid DNA for example from personal experience) does improve low light performance. And error (or noise) does decrease as the square if the number of samples, and each image collected in a HDR stack is another sample.

And of course the whole name HDR is something of a misnomer - it's dynamic range compression - fitting everything into 8 bits of dynamic range is the difficulty. Capture 10 bits of dynamic range an put it on a 10 bit (per channel) display and there's no funkily color going on.

Anyway, I get better low light performance with the DNA HDR mode than in normal mode with low light.

Taking an HDR photo on a phone of i.e. a dog running across the yard is almost impossible if your goal is to get a quality photo. Smartphones simply aren't there yet and you're limited to software algorithms trying to line the pictures up, which can be impossible if the shape of the target has changed between each differently exposed shot - you could get better results putting the photo through an image editing program after taking it, without HDR. No need to get too technical about it, just say it in layman's terms. It won't happen - not with a smartphone. However, a $10,000 camera may be able to pull it off.

As for getting better low light with the DNA on HDR mode instead of low light, that may very well be the case for you, if you're taking HDR pictures and not having to worry about the issues that could negatively affect them, like fast movement.

The name HDR isn't a misnomer. HDR is named after the situation in which it applies, not what it does. It applies to situations where there is a HIGH variance in DYNAMIC RANGE in the scene. Hence, HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE mode on a phone. Just like Macro Mode applies to Macro (very close-up) shots and Night Mode applies to Night Time shots.

If you meant HDR was a bit overrated (i.e. a FAD), then of course it is - sort of (since it does serve a legit purpose). It became overrated when Apple added it to the iPhone and suddenly everyone decided they had to have it. In any case, you need very good image quality to turn out HDR photos that aren't noticeably worse than what the camera would have spit out without HDR turned on.

[MattUK]

I've spent some of the day taking identical shots in various modes with an iPhone 5 and the Z10.. and while it is a personal choice, I would say that from the sample shots I've taken, which have all been indoors, the iPhone won on every occasion.

I'll probably do the same tomorrow but outside, where we may see different results. As posted, the output it all in the software processing, so maybe we will see some improvements in an update if its thought generally to be a problem

[anon62607]

Taking an HDR photo on a phone of i.e. a dog running across the yard is almost impossible if your goal is to get a quality photo. Smartphones simply aren't there yet and you're limited to software algorithms trying to line the pictures up, which can be impossible if the shape of the target has changed between each differently exposed shot - you could get better results putting the photo through an image editing program after taking it, without HDR. No need to get too technical about it, just say it in layman's terms. It won't happen - not with a smartphone. However, a $10,000 camera may be able to pull it off.

As for getting better low light with the DNA on HDR mode instead of low light, that may very well be the case for you, if you're taking HDR pictures and not having to worry about the issues that could negatively affect them, like fast movement.

The name HDR isn't a misnomer. HDR is named after the situation in which it applies, not what it does. It applies to situations where there is a HIGH variance in DYNAMIC RANGE in the scene. Hence, HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE mode on a phone. Just like Macro Mode applies to Macro (very close-up) shots and Night Mode applies to Night Time shots.

If you meant HDR was a bit overrated (i.e. a FAD), then of course it is - sort of (since it does serve a legit purpose). It became overrated when Apple added it to the iPhone and suddenly everyone decided they had to have it. In any case, you need very good image quality to turn out HDR photos that aren't noticeably worse than what the camera would have spit out without HDR turned on.

First of all, you are only getting an additional bit of dynamic range for each additional exposure so with the three exposure system you are really only at 10 bits dynamic range - which is really medium dynamic range by the more traditional definition.

Second, it is a misnomer because while you are capturing those bits, you are throwing away a significant amount of the information to fit it in an 8 bit per channel jpeg or for display on an 8 bit per channel monitor. OpenEXR is more of an example of real HDR (if you are storing it in that format and displaying on a high dynamic range monitor such a those sometimes used in medicine or remote sensing work) but cellphone HDR modes tend to be with a couple of exceptions examples of dynamic range compression rather than high dynamic range capture (trying to simulate brightness response being both locally and globally relative) but I think that is getting into and argument over terminology.

Cellphone sensors in short order will be able to capture higher dynamic range in a single shutter event as they will have SR style sensors, or you have sensors like the 808 which is already more than 8 bits dynamic range.

[playboldbook]

Look at this, http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/...ron2_42062.jpg

All other phones and cameras are perfect, especially in low light (note sarcasm intended).

But then again, this was actually posted on one of Canada's top sport-news websites, yikes. So maybe we are just used to terrible photography here in Canada, so that is why the Z10 camera is so bad.

[donnation]

Some of you guys are really ridiculous. I've been a member of Crackberry since its opened its doors and since I DARE say I'm disappointed in a feature of the Z10 then I guess I'm making it up. Geez, it's no wonder so many people can't stand blackberry lovers. Any time a mention of a poor feature on one of their phones is mentioned you get accused of being a troll. For the record I have a 9900 now and my brother got his Z10 from the launch event that he attended.

And yeah, the camera is pretty pathetic by today's standards and for a phone that has been delayed forever that was supposed to be awesome in every way.

[Sqoon]

Thank God that the two issues that the phone launched with are low light images and only a ten hour battery life.

Could you imagine the press if it had anything seriously wrong with it?

[peter9477]

really? they look pretty awful comparatively to say iphone, galaxy s3, or even an htc sensation, everything looks gray and muted or cloudy. there is also some very bad anti aliasing going on there causing edges to be super sharp

Astounding that they look gray, muted, and cloudy, given that the day the pictures were taken was gray, muted, and cloudy... ;-) Is it possible the camera exactly captured how things looked?

Also, which shots do you believe have this "anti-aliasing" effect? I see none in any of them, when I look at the full-size view, and if you're judging from just the scaled down version CrackBerry displays then I'm afraid you're just doing it wrong...

[decoy7]

I think those who have ventured and owned other devices over the past few years will be honest and say the camera is not as good as it could be, others will just defend it.

I expect not a lot from the camera considering Rim prioritised a slimmest bb ever when they launched the flagship 9900 over having better battery life and a camera with autofocus...doesn't surprise me in the least.

[iN8ter]

First of all, you are only getting an additional bit of dynamic range for each additional exposure so with the three exposure system you are really only at 10 bits dynamic range - which is really medium dynamic range by the more traditional definition.

Second, it is a misnomer because while you are capturing those bits, you are throwing away a significant amount of the information to fit it in an 8 bit per channel jpeg or for display on an 8 bit per channel monitor. OpenEXR is more of an example of real HDR (if you are storing it in that format and displaying on a high dynamic range monitor such a those sometimes used in medicine or remote sensing work) but cellphone HDR modes tend to be with a couple of exceptions examples of dynamic range compression rather than high dynamic range capture (trying to simulate brightness response being both locally and globally relative) but I think that is getting into and argument over terminology.

Cellphone sensors in short order will be able to capture higher dynamic range in a single shutter event as they will have SR style sensors, or you have sensors like the 808 which is already more than 8 bits dynamic range.

Really none of this really matters, the point is pretty solid and it's not worth arguing the technicalities of it. The fact is that an HDR image from this camera will still be worse than an HDR image with those other cameras, so even in those instances where you may gain low light performance from using HDR, the other cameras will still do better.

It's a pretty shoddy work-around to achieve better low light performance, and it doesn't change the fact that this phone's camera is worse than competing devices, which is what the whole point of this thread is.

The technical aspects of HDR photography simply are too tangent to the thread's subject and I've entertained it enough. Not worth fighting so hard to derail the discussion. I'm over it and the HDR "factor" isn't much of a factor at all - and not deserving this much time or text to delve into.

You're trying to argue with me about HDR and have obviously forgetting why I made the comments I did IRT HDR photography. I suggest you go back and read my original post where I mentioned it, and the post that I'm pretty sure I quoted as well. The poster I quoted seems to think you cannot take decent low light shots without HDR, which is laughable. They also tend to think (by extension) other cameras need HDR to take decent low light images, which is laughable as Android phones like the GS2 without HDR in the camera app are able to take better (less noisy) photos in lower light than this camera.

[shinerb]

There is no way on earth that some of you would defend the pics I've seen so far if you had ever used a Nokia N8.

[decoy7]

There is no way on earth that some of you would defend the pics I've seen so far if you had ever used a Nokia N8.

I went from a Nokia N95 with 5MP camera to a bb 9000 back when it came out so I can totally relate to what your saying, bb forced me to buy a point and shoot camera.

[katiepea]

There is no way on earth that some of you would defend the pics I've seen so far if you had ever used a Nokia N8.

The n8 came out like 2.5 years ago too right? Best pictures I've ever seen come from a phone still

[shinerb]

The n8 came out like 2.5 years ago too right?

Correct. Symbian is frustrating as can be for the simplest of tasks or I'd still be using that phone.

[ddlax22]

Some of you guys are really ridiculous. I've been a member of Crackberry since its opened its doors and since I DARE say I'm disappointed in a feature of the Z10 then I guess I'm making it up. Geez, it's no wonder so many people can't stand blackberry lovers. Any time a mention of a poor feature on one of their phones is mentioned you get accused of being a troll. For the record I have a 9900 now and my brother got his Z10 from the launch event that he attended.

And yeah, the camera is pretty pathetic by today's standards and for a phone that has been delayed forever that was supposed to be awesome in every way.

well just for the record, and im not taking shots at you, but you've only been a member since march of '12.
and i wasn't calling you a troll, nor did i see any post in this thread say you were one. i simply linked you to another thread.

also, its all OPINIONATED and what you or I think about the camera is fact.

also, when did this thread become a topic about hdr photos? lol

[donnation]

well just for the record, and im not taking shots at you, but you've only been a member since march of '12.
and i wasn't calling you a troll, nor did i see any post in this thread say you were one. i simply linked you to another thread.

also, its all OPINIONATED and what you or I think about the camera is fact.

also, when did this thread become a topic about hdr photos? lol

Umm I've been a member since September of 2007 Genius.

[ddlax22]

Umm I've been a member since September of 2007 Genius.

like i said, relax man im just going off what it says.
no need to get offensive

we're all just here to talk about the phone, no big deal. i wasnt trying to take a shot at you, i already stated that

[Paulct]

Tested the camera today. Very disappointing. All this time waiting for this?