
Nokia faked the still photos too - peritpatrio
http://sefsar.com/nokia-faked-the-still-photos-too
======
exDM69
[https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
ash3/578446_101510870...](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
ash3/578446_10151087026494473_802634455_n.jpg)

A friend of mine shot this in Helsinki. Low lighting conditions, Nokia style.

~~~
youssefsarhan
Thanks. Updated. I'd like to credit him, if he has a preferred link.

~~~
exDM69
His request: please add copyright johaee (at) gmail.com. Don't remove the
watermark in the image.

------
anovikov
I can say precisely which lens was used to make that photo: Canon EF 17-40 L
USM on a DSLR. Or some other very, very similar lens. No photographer can
mistake this for anything.

Like this:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-721...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-72157628560591547)

~~~
cgs1019
Wait...why can you say (very, very precisely) that lens (or similar) was the
one used? Because of this other picture? I see no resemblance... Would you
mind elaborating? I have no idea what you are implying or why.

~~~
anovikov
I just mean it is a lens with a very similar optical schema than the Canon
17-40L. The diffraction pattern around light sources is very similar. I played
around with this lens some time before with my previous DSLR (now i am a Nikon
user) and enjoyed it really. I don't mean it was exactly that lens, but
something very close - definitely not fixed f/2.0 cheap lens of a smartphone,
that kind of halo with 'rays' around light sources is possible only with a
lens having many internal components which will be too thick to fit into a
smartphone, and not f/2.0, and of course too expensive for a smartphone.

So i fully agree with the article saying it was a fake.

~~~
cgs1019
Gotcha. Definitely didn't doubt the article; just wondering what you meant.
Thanks!

~~~
anovikov
Also the article is most likely wrong about calling these artifacts purely
diffraction-related, creating diffraction images that big and visible would
require too small focal ratio, which is unlikely for night conditions, because
they increase exposure time which is already too long. These are just a
consequence of internal back-reflections inside the lens optics which manifest
itself on extreme contrast parts of image (bright light vs dark sky).
Especially obvious on astronomical images, where control of focal ratio is
manual and it's almost always open fully to collect as much light as possible
- of course, focus depth is of no meaning for astronomy - and the quality of
this lens allows for perfect images even when wide open. Bright stars always
looks like this on Canon 14-40L.

~~~
andrewcooke
i don't understand what you are saying here. astronomical images don't look
exactly like that - they have fewer "spikes" - but they are similar. the
spikes are either from diffraction caused by the secondary mirror support
(which light passes through in a reflecting telescope) or readout artifacts in
the CCD, particularly when it saturates (although that looks quite different -
a single vertical line, often).

i agree that the spikes (in astronomy images) don't come from blade edges in a
diaphragm aperture, but they are still diffraction spikes (from the secondary
support) and "everyone" (as far as i know / remember) refers to them as such.

you can see the secondary support in the top right image at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope> \- the four radial
"things" that hold the cylinder in the "end" of the telescope (on the right).

so what are you referring to with "internal back reflections" and how does
that give spikes (rather than ghosts)?

[above from (past) personal experience as an optical astronomer on research
telescopes - i am not sure if you are confused, or if there's some kind of
problem i never understood. perhaps you work on a system where this is an
issue?]

~~~
anovikov
I am speaking about astronomical images not in general, but those taken with
the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM lens. They are almost always taken with the
diaphragm wide open, and contain same kind of spikes -> spikes are not from
diffraction.

------
brudgers
Faking images for a product rollout appears to be common mobile-electronics
industry practice. Apple faked a video still from _Star Trek_ and made a fake
video of the _New York Times_ for their iPad introduction.

[http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Exposed-As-Liars-in-
Fak...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Exposed-As-Liars-in-Faked-iPad-
Promo-146566.shtml)

[http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/22/apples-ipad-nytimes-
prom...](http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/22/apples-ipad-nytimes-promo-video-
shows-flash-again/)

I wonder if Nokia cross-licensed Apple's patent.

~~~
wklauss
Id argue that there is a difference of intent in these two cases. Nokia is
deceiving customers about a specific function or capability (camera) while
Apple is just showing a promotional video of the device as a whole. Both cases
are reprehensible, no doubt, but maybe I'm the only one who think that Nokia
has gone a little too far.

Lets think of these in terms of food. Its not the same to show a "perfect Big
Mac" in and ad than it is to show a Big Mac thats made with completely
different ingredients of the ones you'll find when you order one.

~~~
brudgers
Apple showed the iPad displaying Flash content as a way of showcasing the
browsing experience consumers could expect. In addition they manipulated a
still image to sell the iPad as a device for watching movies. The choice of a
still image was based upon an intent to deceive potential customers about the
shortcomings of the 4:3 format of the iPad.

In the case of the iPad watching feature films is probably about equivalent to
using the camera on a smartphone. On the other hand, browsing the web is a
primary function of the device, and there was no way the iPad was getting
Flash.

------
jonah
"Professional driver on closed course."

"Screen image is simulated."

"Product enlarged to show detail."

etc. etc.

Yes, yes, we like "truth" and all. Especially when they're selling a camera
after all, but getting a great cameraphone image and getting an image that
will work on tv are two different things. No real surprise. Maybe
disappointment, but no suprise.

~~~
coob
Except there's no implying or warning, just outright lying about this being a
sample image.

~~~
jonah
Agreed. They should have small disclaimer text at the bottom. And that's what
everyone should be up in arms about, not that they faked it in the first
place.

I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types
of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.

~~~
VMG
Also these images are _nothing_ like the images the camera would take. That is
like advertising a totally different car than the one you are selling.

~~~
bradddd
Exactly. It's like getting cockpit footage from a nascar and using it in a
ford focus commercial.

------
Steko
_How to botch your annual device announcement; you know the one the whole
company is riding on_ by Stephen Elop with a special Forward by the guys who
ran RIM into the shitter.

------
vowelless
Here is an apology from Nokia: <http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/06/an-
apology-is-due/>

Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6HSbhyaH0vw)

~~~
jswanson
Even the apology for being vague and somewhat underhanded is somewhat..
underhanded.

    
    
      Here is the video shown at the press conference shot using a Lumia 920. On the right is a Lumia 920 prototype with OIS. On the left is a smartphone without OIS. The difference is apparent.
    

Notice they specify 'a smartphone'. The wording shifts the focus from the
camera to OIS, and then they must have used a completely different phone for
the comparison. Weird.

~~~
manaskarekar
It could have been an older Nokia Lumia, but they wouldn't want to admit that
publicly.

------
jcr
In case the HN submission of the following doesn't float to the front page, it
seems Nokia has apologized for the fake advertisement:

<http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19499879>

EDIT: The HN submission

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4483817>

~~~
RKearney
They're not sorry for the lies and intentional deceit. They're just sorry they
got caught.

------
digitalengineer
There's only one way out of this for Nokia. They need to release new photo's
and video's created with the new Nokia Wndows 8 Phone right the f __* now.
With as much EXIF and/or metadata as possible. If I was Nokia I'd hire the
best photographer-artist the world knows and make a big splash about it.

~~~
jswanson
Or they could just pretend this never happened.

A search on Google News (anecdotal, yes)
[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=nokia+lumia+920&oq=nokia&gs_l=news-
cc.3.1.43j0i3j0l8j43i400.1672.2343.0.4565.5.4.0.1.1.0.105.288.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.RvsI4Bj0wHg)

None of the articles have anything related to this in the title, and the first
three articles do not mention any faking.

It feels like a big issue in tech-savvy circles on the internet. But I doubt
most consumers know or care.

~~~
strager
The second result for me (posted 7 minutes ago) is related to this topic:
<http://i.imgur.com/oJQYf.png>

------
ioulian
Funny that people ignore the fake facetime video's of iphone because it's from
apple, and keep bashing microsoft because it's microsoft.

Fake advertisements, it's nothing new, EVERYBODY does that. Think real

~~~
chucknelson
Apple has a disclaimer about "simulated" images in most of their commercials,
and if you look at their dedicated facetime ads [1] where they don't have a
disclaimer, you'll notice...that is how facetime actually looks and works.

[1] <http://youtu.be/RxVzP_OWnDw?hd=1>

~~~
josefresco
*Sequences shortened

------
eckyptang
There is definitely something up. The Register got their hands on one but the
minders managed to stop them sending the photo externally:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/handson_nokia_lumia_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/handson_nokia_lumia_920_windows_phone_8/)

 _"Alas, the Minders leapt into Red Alert mode to prevent me transmitting the
results, you'll have to take my word for it."_

~~~
drats
Andrew Orlowski has to be one of the most unreliable troll journalists and
last person who's word I will take at face value.

~~~
eckyptang
I agree and I take things he says lightly, but he's right on this one.

------
esolyt
I don't understand why they need this.

They made a gorgeous and great device. It probably has one of the best
smartphone cameras ever. Because of what they did, now everyone is talking
about how they faked the photos instead of talking about the phone. A friend
of mine even emailed Nokia and asked "Will﻿ the Lumia 920 also have the built-
in CIV (cameraman in van) feature?"

Apologizing isn't going to change anything. People are going to keep making
fun of Nokia for a long time about this.

------
mtgx
Nokia has been very very misleading about pretty much everything their phone
can do, from the PureView naming to how the actual photos and videos look
like.

------
antonyme
What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says
about the product.

Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone,
with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A
great way to crap all over the launch.

~~~
manaskarekar
I think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team.

Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably
a good one.

One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the
phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much
sense for them to rely on this fact.

What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad,
everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice
cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.'

Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look
great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department
and how they make it look so good.

<http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8>

~~~
ajanuary
In most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice
cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.

~~~
pycassa
actually, i read some where regarding tips in food photography.. where they
dont actually use ice cream.. let me find you the link.. it is more of an
advertising thing..

~~~
allwein
The gist is that the item being advertised has to be the actual item as
offered to the consumer. So in a cereal ad, the cereal featured has to be the
actual cereal (even though they may go through hundreds of boxes picking out
the perfect corn flakes to use). However, since they're not actually selling
the milk that goes with the cereal, they're free to use glue or some other
liquid that will let the cereal maintain it's crunch or otherwise enhance
photography.

~~~
Evbn
So they are selling real flakes and a fraudulent crunch. Still fraud.

------
tribeofone
This is too funny. And on top of all this, the sheer comedy of the ad. I mean
whats going on here? Is this supposed to be some date night? A couple on
vacation? No. Felt more like a guy who somehow landed a girlfriend/date above
his league and is trying to get as much as possible on camera to show his
friends because they won't believe him.

~~~
CamperBob2
That, and the example shots all look like someone picked the wrong LASIK
surgeon.

------
kleiba
No way... Fake pictures in ads? Who would have thought!

~~~
goblin89
I've heard[0] that ‘big’ camera makes like Canon or Nikon regularly advertise
their products using photos made with completely different equipment. It would
be more surprising if Nokia used actual photos made with Lumia in promotion
materials, I guess.

[0] <http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm>: “For those of us in the
press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos
of the D3. They were shot in a studio, so of course Nikon had them shot with
an appropriate camera: a $30,000 Phase One P45 back.” Anecdotal evidence, but
I'm unable to find another source, so take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
epo
Rockwell is a noted self-publicist with a politician's reputation for truth
and accuracy. Nikon can take their PR shots with whatever is best, should P&S
publicity shots be taken with that P&S model? Of course not. If on the other
they take photos with professional equipment and claim or imply that it was
taken with a mobile phone then that is deceitful.

~~~
goblin89
Yes, I probably had confused shots _of_ the camera vs. shots _made with_ the
camera. This was ignorant of me.

Though will we consider a deceit if the camera used is the same P&S model, but
lighting is set up? And then there's extensive post-processing, which is
possible and may alter shots significantly.

------
Ono-Sendai
A small camera with a small aperture and smaller sensor than a DSLR will
produce a greater amount of aperture diffraction than a DSLR, at the same
f-value.

------
leke
[http://yle.fi/uutiset/nokia_apologises_for_misleading_lumia_...](http://yle.fi/uutiset/nokia_apologises_for_misleading_lumia_video/6284588?origin=rss)
Confusion? This is deceit! A video of just OIS? The Video states at the end,
"This is Lumia". It seems the once honest Nokia has picked up some bad habits
from their partnership with MicroSoft.

------
ivanbernat
Why so much hate on Nokia?

~~~
LaRakel
Because clearly, they lie about what their products can do.

~~~
Monotoko
People have done that since the dawn of radio adverts and billboards...

~~~
TeMPOraL
Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be penalized.

------
Lightfoot
When I have a look on the photo, I think that the depth has to be remarkably
long. That is because the sign "RESTAURANT" looks very clear. In other words
small aperture and short exposure time. This is not taken by Lumia camera
shot.

------
Lightfoot
Kirjoitin jo englanniksi. Katuvalojen lisäksi kiinnitän huomiota kylttiin
"RAVINTOLA". Pitkällä valotusajalla se "Neonvalo" tms puuroutuisi. Nyt se
näkyy selkeästi eli kyseessä on pieni aukko ja lyhyt valotusaika.

------
muratmutlu
Nokia N97 promo video was also riddled with fakeness
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1231464>

------
tripzilch
So the final photo in that article _is_ actually shot with the real Nokia
phone camera?

Because it looks really good. They didn't need to have faked anything.

------
yread
I wonder why did they do that, it was pretty obvious. The second picture looks
good enough.

------
moneypenny
I might be able to take that photo on that phone. I would use a high-output
continuous light balanced with gels to match the ambient colour, and create
diffraction stars by putting a cross filter in front of the lens. I think it's
fake too, but I'd have a go at making it.

