News and discussions about image sensors
Who cares. Both companies leap and pelican have poor technology and masters at selling lies.
Just look how they seat in the sofa!!! A total arrogance and without basic education! Guys maybe you are not very confident about your technologies and your products, but please anyway respect people looking at you!
The seats are quite low, and they seat as they can. I do not think this is disrespect. Regarding the lying allegations, this is too strong a statement. For example, many image sensor companies come with claims of "excellent low-light sensitivity" or "wide dynamic range", while this might be not entirely correct. It looks like the modern marketing approach requires overstate the performance, rather than understate it.
I agree with Vladimir on both comments. On the second comment about performance, the hype is strong with both companies, and is common in the tech industry. However, I would say that Pelican's is "harmless" in that they are selling to OEMs for product and VCs for funding, and at the end of the day their technology has to perform. OEMS and VCs are big boys and know what they are doing. Leap, on the other hand, sells to consumers, and before their product was available I knew is was being oversold and one day reality would meet the hype and people would be disappointed. At this point Leap doesn't have a sustainable business model since they weren't able to sell the company in the initial hype wave.
Leap has showed, before selling fake demos. That's lying. Not overselling. Pelican show only fake apps on tablets and also don't know the difference between a fly eye and array camera. The paper of pelican is full of lies which any one from the industry can easily detect.
Just to put things in proportion, do you remember Nokia 920 video shot by DSLR? See the story here:http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/nokia-forced-to-apologise-for-fake-lumia-920-camera-video-50009107/
Could you please share some specific examples from their paper? I would find it most useful.
I know where to find their paper. I would be most interested if you could point out a handful of the lies that allegedly their paper is full of. If they put them in the paper, they certainly deserve to be called out, and this is a great forum for such critique.
See next comment
OK. I see where they fake their results: They want to show good improve of the super res algorithms.They show before and after for that purpose. For the "before" they selected a poor image out of the 16 channels. Each channel is 1000x750 according to the paper. A camera with 750 lines should have near 750 lines per height resolution if the lens is good. They show around 450 LPH on the "before" image. if you look carefully at the monochrome "before" images you will see they were taken from a blue camera. probably the worst blue they found. doing this trick they come up with a resolution boost of 2.4 and then they derive that the have 70% of an iphone 5 resolution. I think its closer to 30%. The single lens should resolve about 750 and after super res they reach 1050. thats only 1.4 factor of improving the resolution.
nice catch. thank you for sharing.
All comments are moderated to avoid spam.