The Nokia Lumia 920 was recently unveiled at the Nokia World 2012 event, and it was received quite well. A feature of the mobile phone that stands out is the PureView technology used for its camera. However, since the unveiling of the handset, this device has been marred by conspiracy theories. Various blogs claim that the handset was not the one used while capturing videos and sample images. Earlier, Nokia apologised for the video captured. Now, according to a comment on our site, it appears that the brand has broadened its apology to include the photographs as well. Nokia states that the photographs were obtained from the same video that was used for the trailer.
Evidence in the lights
A post by a Nokia employee, Lee Brooke reads, “I wanted to clarify that the still images above are taken from the same video already mentioned. If you watch the video to the end you will see it contains three scenarios, girl on bike, girl on a carousel and girl in the street. All are intended to demonstrate the effect of OIS and were a simulation only. While there was no intention to mislead, the failure to add a disclaimer to the video was obviously a mistake, and we apologize for the misunderstanding it did cause.”
The evidence that possibly closes the case (DSLR circled in red)
After Nokia recently announced its flagship smartphone, the Lumia 920, the brand released a trailer portraying the advancements in its PureView technology used in the phone. This video was found to be fake and misleading. It appears that makers of the clip used a professional camera to shoot the video and not a Lumia 920. Nokia later apologised for the same and said that it was done only to show the optical image stabilisation (OIS) features of the camera, and that Nokia should have put up a disclaimer stating that it was for representational purposes only.
Later, a blogger called Youssef Sarhan found out that the sample images may have been captured by a professional camera. Sarhan explained that he had lived in Helsinki and that he understands the lighting on the roads. He said the lighting is ambient diffused and not spot lighting. He said, “Going by these still images it’s hard to tell what device really took the photos. We don’t have the EXIF data because these are part of a video, and there’s no cheeky reflections we can zoom in and enhance. However, there is one thing, that once seen can’t be unseen. Diffractions are the sparkle affect generated around the bright lights in the background.”
Sarhan explains how Nokia got it wrong, “It’s impossible for a camera with a fixed aperture of f/2 to generate so many spikes from a light source. These kind of diffractions are typical of a DLSR camera with a smaller aperture like f/22. So, it makes perfect sense that if Nokia were to fake the video, they would also fake the stills; which they almost certainly have.”
Later, an image surfaced online, which showed the set of the photoshoot. In the image, the whole set-up including the lighting equipment, is visible.
Do share your thoughts in your comments on the scenario that has unfolded.
Published Date: Sep 10, 2012 11:14 am | Updated Date: Sep 10, 2012 11:14 am