An interesting analysis of a few of my shots

More and more people send me shots and even articles to share here at the PureViewClub. I'm honoured, really - but I hardly ever find the time to share the results here. In this case I'll simply have to make an exception, since Harsh Verma from Varanasi (India) put a lot of time and effort in writing an analysis of my own shots.

He sent me a profound and extensive analyses of the ones I published from my day in Hilversum, the raw .DNG shots coming from my Lumia 1020 and 1520, compared with the 808 PureView - you'll find that post here.

Everything you'll read below is written by Harsh Verma.

Hardware sampling vs Software Sampling(808 vs 1020) Part 1.
Nokia 808 does the oversampling and processing in hardware, which is considered to be better than software processing done by the Lumia 1020. However Nokia Lumia 1020 with given Raw output gives option to process and do oversampling on more powerful machines than a mobile, in PC and laptops. With more varieties of options.

So I tested. For this all I did:
1) I oversampled the given raw .DNG files to 8mp (3840x2160 and 3264x 2448) of 808’s resolution in Lightroom 5.2 without any modifying any else parameter.
2) I am only comparing the details. As you have said, the weather and lighting conditions were different sometimes, so only focus is which sensor captures more detail at low iso levels(given).
3) Providing you the original oversampled 1020 files and edited files and crops as mentioned below.
4) First (or left) you will see the 808 PureView shots, below (or right) the 1020 crops.

I. House

The given 808 pic was under-exposed by -0.3 ev. So in Lightroom I increased the exposure by +0.3ev and maxed out Shadows to 100 to get the maximum detail from the pic. In Nokia 1020, as exposure was by default on 0.0, I just increased shadows to 100 too.  Then took crops of the various elements in photograph.

808 8mp Original (ISO 100,Exposure 1/100 sec, Exposure -0.3ev )

808 Original 640 x 360

1020 8mp Original( ISO 100, Exposure 1/430 sec, Exposure 0.0)

1020 Original 641 x 361

808 8MP( Increased Exposure by +0.3, Shadows to 100)

808 Edited 640 x 360

1020 8MP (Increased Shadows to 100)

1020 Original 641 x 361Edited Max Detail Link


808 Crop 1 1020 Crop 1

Screenshot streetnames

Screenshot towers

Screenshot bicycles

Crops Link:

On comparison, 808 has lost some details and as a result detailing and sharpness in 1020 is better. In last bycle crop, in window pane, look how the texts are sharp and visible in 1020.

II. Café

As from exif, 808 pic isn’t underexposed, but in comparison with 1020, its quite dark. So I balanced the light levels in both 1020’s nd 808’s to same. And increased the shadows to max to see which camera brings more details. Next I took crops of several elements.

808 8MP Original (ISO 64, Shutter Speed 1/336 secs, Exposure 0.0 )

808 Original 640 x 480

1020 Original (ISO 100, Exposure 1/530 secs, Exposure 0.0 )

1020 Original 640 x 480

808 8 MP( Increased Exposure by +0.50 and Shadows to 100)

808 Edited 640 x 480

1020 8MP (Increased Exposure by +0.60 and Shadows to 100)

1020 Edited 640 x 4801020 Max Detail Link:,
808 Max Detail Link:


Screenshot Grolsch

Screenshot wall

Screenshot chairs
Screenshot wet floor
Crops Link:

On pixel peeping, the 1020’s bit better than 808 in details. The difference is easily recognizable in darker areas, where 808 starts loosing some details like in floor,chair crops, 1020 with better details.While in lighter areas, you need to pixel peep to notice the marginal difference. Yet 1020 is more detailed.

III. No Entrance:

However both phones focused on different letters. Being center on focused area, only Letter ‘S’ was commonly focued.

808 8 MP Original( ISO 125, Shutter Speed 1/125 secs, Exposure 0.0)

No Entrance 808 Original

1020 8MP Original( ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/35 secs, Exposure 0.0)

No Entrance 1020 Original1020 Original 8mp Jpeg link:

Here I took the crop:

Screenshot No Entrance

Though with 1020 due to getting closer to the board, bokeh effect looks more pleasing.

IV. Red Pepper:

Both images seems to be taken at different light conditions. I found this case interesting as I wanted to see the flexibility and jpeg vs raw fight.

First I took 808’s colour as standard and adjusted 1020’s white balance.  I took center’s common focus point and made a crop. The detailing on comparison is equal by both.

 808 8MP Original (ISO 160, Shutter Speed 1/33 secs, Exposure 0.0)

Red Pepper 808 Original 640 x 360

1020 8MP with 808’s colour as Standard ( ISO 219, Shutter Speed 1/30 secs, Exposure 0.0)

Red Pepper -1020 Original with 808 as standard 640 x 3601020 Jpeg with 808's colour as Standard link:


808 Crop 1

1020 Crop 1Crop 1 Link:

Then I took 1020’s colour as standard and adjusted 808 with wb and a bit saturation to make like 1020.Again I took the common focus point and made crops.  808 has started losing fine details.

Here's the 1020 8MP Original (note you'll see the original 1020 shot first, next the 808 PureView shot with the 1020's colours as standard)

Red pepper-1020 Original 640 x 360

808 8MP With 1020’s Colour as Standard

Red Pepper- 808 Edited as 1020 colour standard 640 x 360808 Jpeg with 1020's colour as Standard link:

Crops (808 first)

808 Crop 1

1020 Crop 1Crop 2 Link:

The aim of this was to test the level of editing the picture by both cameras maintaining the details. If we want to have picture like 1020’s colour or 808’s colour, how is the creative potential of images. Surprisingly 1020 wins here.

V. Tree hut

The given 808 PureView pic was under-exposed by -0.3 ev. So in Lightroom I increased the exposure by +0.3ev and maxed out Shadows to 100 to get the maximum detail from the pic. In Nokia Lumia 1020, I increased shadows to 100 too.  Then took crops of the various elements in photograph.

808 8MP Original( ISO 160, Shutter Speed 1/50 sec,  Exposure-0.3ev)

808 Original 640 x 360

1020 8MP Original (1SO 100, Shutter Speed 1/30 sec, Exposure 0.0)

1020 Original 640 x 3601020 Original 8mp link:

808 8MP (Increased exposure by +0.3ev & Shadows by +100)

808 Edited 640 x 360

1020 8MP (Increased Shadows by +100)

1020 Edited 640 x 360Edited Max details 808 & 1020 Jpegs link:


Screenshot tree hut 1 Screenshot tree hut 2 Screenshot tree hut 3Crops Link:

On comparing the crops I found, 808 during processing do increase some amount of sharpness, resulting in loss of details. While 1020 is very pure. See here the difference in leaves and top of house crop. Similar  sharpness can be achieved with DNG, results can be formed like 808.

The Nokia Lumia 1020 has totally surprised me in the above comparisons. Having thirty percent smaller sensor size, less pixel size, even with higher iso, yet delivering image detailing equal to 808’s and  even better, like in dark areas.  The sensor takes bright photos.

The editing/post-processing possibilities with 808 PureView’s jpeg is quite large - much more than any other smartphones, due to its very minimal processing. Yet 1020 has larger possibilities.

Much more detail can be obtained from .DNG of the 1020 than from the .JPG of the 808. Like above, it was very easy for 1020 to make results like 808 (e.g in Red Pepper, No Entrance) but 808’s jpeg starts losing detail when you try to make it look like the 1020 images.

With 1020, we get over-sampling result of any resolution. These are the immediate advantages of raw highlighted through these comparisons.

by Harsh Verma, January 2014

I'd like to thank Harsh for all the time he took to analyze my shots, and have just one thing to add: the shots of the red peppers were made in the exact same (inside) light conditions. Well, there was a huge window nearby, but I don't recall any difference in light at all making those shots. I only recall the shop owner asking me if these were the most beautiful peppers I've ever seen :-)

I was surprised by his conclusion as well - I wonder what you think of the way he came to these conclusions, and if you agree with them. Don't hesitate to let yourself be heard below.

Please join PureViewClub on  TwitterFacebookFlickrGoogle+ and/or  Instagram.

banner_camerapro 525 x 105