Samsung put 4 Cameras on Galaxy A9

theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/10/10/17958964/galaxy-a9-reveal-samsung-four-cameras-image
This is painful

Attached: For_what_purpose.jpg (1587x794 24.51 KB, 411.06K)

Tsk tsk samsung.

Attached: cringe comp shamai aya.png (1280x720, 847.05K)

One for the US, one for Russia, one for China, and one for Israel.

I literally have never used the camera in my smartphone

>>>/g/

This is what happens when cucked companies try to chase Macfag dollars.
This bullshit all began when Mac cock gobblers began trying to use iPhones as "real" cameras

I use it for casual non-personal stuff, like visual note taking.
I assume that no camera photographs are really secure, however.
Nothing you do on your phone is ever really 100% secure. And if you carry a cell phone, your location is always known to the phone company.

Now finally the (((intelligence agencies))) can have 24/7 surveillance of every street corner in every town at the HD level.
One mediocre camera just wasn't enough for that, they needed actually different lenses.

Wow, fuck me, why? What a miserable future, I can already imagine the fat fucks using their phones rather than walking over and looking at something.

I wouldn't mind having three cameras, one being a regular visual spectrum camera, one infrared and the third ultraviolet.

Let's be honest here: They're all for Israel.

I thought they would stop at amber-colored flashes that make everything amber for some retarded reason. Boy I wish I was right.

Attached: 936ab364e641b97cc1e83efd05a8ee83267cc7ea0fcf4da162e49419d32aed91.png (990x682, 308.49K)

hehe

smartphones have been high quality enough for quite some years that they have completely changed (((journalism))). most just use their phone and upload it instantly and more or less automatically to try to keep ahead of the competition.
having a real camera is now a meme for hipsters.

Please tell me DSLR are better

Why not a fifth camera though? Are they skimping out on hardware to save money?

Attached: you-1.png (1127x686, 35.84K)

I'll pass on that offer

Phone cameras easily match the majority of consumer grade digital compacts though, in terms of image quality lad, the only thing left going for dedicated digital cameras is they have more settings, and even then phones can get apps like opencamera which give the all the basic features a normie would ever need

>>>/g/
>>>/reddit/

What's wrong with that? I'm buying a Samsung smart phone once they release their patented Graphene batteries. I really hope they offer some burn-in free OLED and release the goddamned flexible pyrex display.

It's ridiculous that people buy expensive phones for the camera. It's so stupid. If you give a fuck about picture quality, get an actual camera!

Attached: 8386691836_1d56b82803_o.jpg (2000x1126, 258.73K)

or

Attached: jbareham_180327_2421_0167.jpg (1320x880, 216.17K)

Forget cameras anyways. The new future archive is gonna be audio recordings. Hearing a conversation you had 10 years ago is more impactful than a photo.

Hence Siri, OK Google, Cortana and Alexa. It's just not going to be you hearing those recordings.

Dumb nigger. I bought a pocket camera from thrift store for 7 dollars with better specs then that phone camera, 25mp with 15x zoom lens, AND manual focus. dumb cellphone niggers don't get that.

1000 for a phone, or 5000 for a camera - both are too expensive. You can get a great phone AND a great camera for 500 total.

Actually this is the kind of thing they should have been doing for years. Putting a proper zoom lens into a camera is tough, and you end up with a thick camera even if you use mirrors or prisms to fold the optical path parallel to the camera body's long axis. Sensors and lenses the size of a period on a printed page are dirt cheap now, and this strategy will result in better image quality than a zoom lens anyway.

Yeah it seems neat. The signal processing that's used to simulate what the photos should look like can only go so far. This method has the potential to keep taking nice photos towards the various extremes the lenses are labeled as being for.

slowpoke.jpg

Most people aren't out to take photographs, but would like to take a nice one if they happen to run into something and they're carrying a phone all the time anyway. Phone cameras in general are a good idea, but having more than 1 is pretty stupid. Maybe another for low light would be ok at most.

...

Real cameras have usage. When your line of work is taking photographies with fine Nikons/Canons, editing them, and making highschool graduation diplomas, grade pictures, etc., you need cameras.

yeah but that’s only a niche of the camera market
it still depends on what you’re trying to do with a camera. it’s not bad what smartphones can deliver, but in low light big sensors remain king

Are the android .png screenshots secure? or relatively by comparison

Attached: open camera app immersive mode.png (512x512, 54.92K)

It's a bit ironic, then. Back in 2007, the original iPhone had a wimpy 2MP back camera, and no front camera. Nokia's flagship for that year, the N95, had a 5MP back camera (with Carl Zeiss lenses) and a CIF front camera (it was not intended for selfies, but video chat).

Attached: Nokia-N95.jpg (1200x738, 390.52K)

And youre going to carry it with you all the time, right?.

I want to be a photographer, but not if I can't use a hip minimalist slim white-covered designer device as my camera!

No, its what happens when 100% of companies copy things apple does that are not GOOD

And "real cameras"??? come on dude are you 12? or just trying to signal that you own a big boy camera? good Camera != good pictures

He said it's a pocket camera, so might as well.

Crap cameras can take good pictures when the conditions are good.
Good cameras can take good pictures when the conditions are crap.

fuck this image triggered my clusterphobia.

Attached: Light-camera-proto.jpg (1727x1157, 113.49K)

Android is full of proprietary malware, so yeah as long as you got that your camera is working for the five eyes.
If you drill through the network card of the phone and run fully free software however, I don't see how the camera is botnet.

But I've had exiftool manage to read exif data in png pictures, PNG is as compromising as jpeg if you don't strip exif. PNG doesn't technically have exif support, but it does allow for custom data blocks, and it seems to work well enough that exiftool can read exif there and whatever app I was using at the time seemed to write it into the png.

Not the worst, but damn, it does bother me quite a bit.

Isn't light the company that makes those post shot focusing magic shit?

Secure in what meaning?
You can encrypt your phone storage, but pretty much none of the True Cameras offer encryption so if someone grabs your camera he gets the data too.

are we the botnet? should I unplug for a while?

Attached: 1537930708649.jpg (509x339, 17.81K)

looks like some kind of nasa space probe

Fellas, calm down will ya? Different lenses are needed for different types of photography and you clearly can't change lenses on a phone camera like you can with an old fashioned camera. The most best solutionv at this time is to have a camera for each lens.

You're acting like the camera has 4 lenses so each lens can transmit a video feed to the CIA, FBI, NSA, and TSA

Attached: lenses.jpg (540x354, 31.05K)

What if I develop my film myself and keep my negatives locked up? This is secure right?

I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SHITPHONES. FUCK OFF

Really? An entry level digital DSR costs ~500 USD and can produce ~12 x 14" prints at 300 dpi. You can buy this camera ``once``, and it will never depricate, and you can choose the right lense for the shot. Zoom will lose light, but can be easily corrected with post processing or sence modificaition.
OR
You can buy 300-1000 USD smart phone with software zoom (loss of quality), artistic filters (post-processing,unnötigste), no lense capability, and have the deprecating botnet attached. I view the camera on the botnet sutable as a communication aid, nothing more, besides, retards go buy a new one once a year.

Attached: HDRsample.jpg (600x290, 60.22K)