Future Image: Camera phone images print better than single-use cameras

A new study by the mobile imaging research firm Future Image concludes that prints from camera phones were significantly better than prints from single-use cameras (both film and digital), the company's press release says.

Future Image was surprised at the test results but they did have the evidence in front of them! The 36-page study, "4 x 6 Shoot-Out: Are Camera-Phones Ready To Make Consumer Prints?", is available from the company for $1,950.

The VGA camera phones produced prints that were as good as single-use cameras. The quality of prints from the two megapixel camera phone used in the tests not only blew away the single-use camera photos but also surpassed the print quality of the one, two and three megapixel digital cameras.

The release includes good information, so I'm posting much of it here:

"The purpose of the 36-page study, including 119 figures, charts, and tables, was to determine if currently available camera-phones are capable of delivering acceptable consumer prints and to assess how the images produced measure up to those produced by the most popular standalone consumer cameras.

"Prints from images obtained by camera-phones with resolutions of 640 x 480 (two models), one megapixel, and two megapixels were compared to those from a single use (OTUC) film camera, a single use (OTUC) digital camera, and digital point-and-shoot cameras of one-, two- and three-megapixel resolution.

"Six test subjects, representative of standard consumer photo activities, were photographed: a house in full sunlight, an interior shop display, an outdoor portrait in bright open shade, an indoor portrait, a close-up of small objects, and an antique spice rack in dim interior lighting.

"Standard consumer 4 x 6-inch borderless glossy prints of all 54 test shots were made using three different methods -- a home inkjet printer, thermo-autochrome equipment at a corner drug store kiosk, and an online service that uses a silver halide-based process.

"We used the prints from these various sources as the basis for our evaluation of the results. Prints were scored in four performance categories -- sharpness/level of detail, color accuracy and saturation, compression/interpolation artifacts, and dynamic range, yielding overall quantitative scores for each device for each subject and for each performance dimension.

"The evaluation shows that camera-phones deliver acceptable 4 x 6 snapshots -- suitable for the family fridge or photo album -- in virtually all cases, and the higher-resolution models deliver keepsake quality prints -- suitable for frames on the mantle or wall -- across the board.

"The study concludes that the implications of these surprising results for standalone digital cameras are serious, but the implications for single-use cameras are profound. Other than the occasional high risk or party-favor application, most of the reasons for buying an OTUC will rapidly disappear.

"'While camera-phones have closed the quality gap with surprising speed, the same is not true of the convenience gap,' said Alexis Gerard, President, Future Image Inc. 'Making prints from camera-phone images is still much less convenient than making them from a digital camera, never mind a film camera.

"'This creates a dramatic opportunity for vendors of printing services and equipment, but only if they react with speed and single-minded focus on customer benefits. Hopefully the industry will have learned from its past mistakes, having in effect encouraged early digital camera users to abandon the printing habit by failing to offer them convenient, inexpensive, and high-quality print options in a timely fashion.'"

Supporting my previous comment

Yesterday I wrote that I believed camera phones were cutting into sales of single-use disposable cameras. While the Future Image study doesn't provide statistics about this, its findings certainly help illustrate why camera phones would decimate the single-use camera marketplace.

Some clueless analysts have been discounting the effects of camera phones on the digital camera business. Mark my words: Camera phones will kill or severely cripple the disposable camera business, and one megapixel camera phones will shovel more dirt on the coffin.

But that's just the start. As I've also said, when two and three megapixel camera phones become standard -- with digital zooms, more powerfu flash and better quality lenses -- you'll see them eating into the next tier of the digital camera business for the point-and-shoot crowd.

Comments

[tychocat]

There are two ignored parts to the cellphone-camera-quality question. First off, it doesn't matter what kind of features your cellphone-camera or super-duper Nikon have, if you don't know how to take a photo. IMHO, skill can overcome a lot of technical handicaps. Woe to the guy who thinks an extra thousand dropped at the camera store means he becomes automatically endowed with the techniques of Ansel Adams.

Secondly, one overlooked facet of the problem is that cellphone displays/viewfinders aren't up to the job. When I bought my phone, a 4096-color display was pretty neat, never mind that I can barely tell where the horizon is when I'm taking a picture of a sunset. And even now, it seems to me that one of the first things a manufacturer does to cut costs is to install a display with lower resolution. I'm underwhelmed by the adequacy of the current crop of 65K-color resolution screens.

I, for one, would be very happy with the equivalent of a pinhole camera on my phone - infinite focus and depth-of-field, and with a good enough display, very predictable response to light conditions. No flash, no zoom, maybe adjustments to the length of the exposure. The folks who want more probably need to buy a dedicated camera.

[Håkon Styri]

It would be nice to know what kind of OTUC they've used in the test. Both lens and film quality varies a lot.

Likewise, there's no such thing as generic 2 MB and 3 MB digital camera.

My main issues with phone cameras are battery capacity, memory size and speed. Image quality comes close to speed, but image quality doesn't matter if you've drained the battery or filled up the memory.

It's also important to remember that the camera units used for the camera phones can be used for compact cameras as well. They certainly will be used if they're better and cheaper.

[Bryant]

I don't believe.

I've received numerous cameraphone pictures from friends in my email.

Honestly, they look like crap. They're out of focus, there isnt enough light and the images have a lot of noise and have been been overly softened to compensate.

Meanwhile, I've seen decent pictures from disposable cameras. At least they have decent resolution and a decent flash.

Next time you want a report, I'll do one for you for half price.

[Dan]

What I don't understand is how a 2 MP camera phone with fewer features than a 3 MP digital camera (zoom, focus, exposure) can take "better" pictures. Anyone?

[Dave M.]

Wouldn't it be a ton cheaper to simply take a picture with a camera phone and go to a Walgreens and get the image printed? Even buying a camera phone and testing it would be cheaper than paying almost $2000 to read a "report". Sheesh!

[tychocat]

I definitely agree with the "convenience gap" - granted, I'm dealing with a two-year-old SE T300, but it takes me 14, count 'em, 14 button-pushes for me to transmit a photo from the camera to my laptop. This is beyond the two-to-three step process for me to "snap" the initial photo. Who the heck designs these things? Doesn't anyone do focus groups or apply human-engineering principles anymore?