Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Everyone is outraged about Nokia's faked photos right?
- Thread starter smoledman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Dude" wouldn't it have just been easier to link to what you were talking about initially?
Last edited:
What this incidence should remind people is that, more than likely, every company does this, and only Nokia was caught in the act recently. Company product videos give a very abstract view of the new product and only through first hand use is when people can make decisions. No company would showcase their new product not working as they want/hope to be. It's just common sense!
Hopefully this Verge article will shut them up. It's too impressive to be drowned out by overblown controversy.
Wrong, the tech media is too fully invested in the "Nokia is evil" meme to tout that new story.
The "video" was done with a completely different device? How do you put a disclaimer on that?
It's done all the time: "Images simulated" is a popular disclaimer in print and TV ads.
It's especially common with electronic screens due to reflections, sunlight washout, glare, and refresh timing issues with filming.
Don't they say in the ad that they are just showing the technology (and not necessarily from the device)?
I understand what you're saying but it was filmed with a completely different device.
They are advertising the video camera and they didn't even use the video camera. Completely pointless.
Well, I ruined the day for one fan of Windows Phone that I work with today after they came in to work sating how they're going for the Lumia over the Ativ thanks to the awesome can he saw in a video.
I showed him all the recent furore about the vid and he was disappointed.
I showed him all the recent furore about the vid and he was disappointed.
Perhaps, but it's also done with regular camera ads. They'll often use better cameras because of the need to be in a print ad. Or they'll use simulated images to show a "snapshot" taken during a motion sequence for a TV ad.
Heck, I've read that there's even been cases where it turned out that a different company's camera was used for an ad. Ouch.
The Verge, who were the ones who originally caught the switch, wrote a later article where they went out with Nokia to Central Park and found out that the camera is as good as they claimed for night images.
Although he may still be enamoured by shots like this at night:
The ones he saw in the video area far cry from what was shown by The Verge.
And we all know how those were made....
I won't knock what Nokia have created though as this does look impressive:
When the final hardware revisions hit, the reviewers should put all this to rest.
If mcdonalds burgers would the same size as their ads look, i would be one very happy individual , but back to the issue them apologizing and admitting their mistake was the right and proper thing to do, and the camera is probably not that bad either... or is it really terrible in comparison to the video?? only time will tell
, but back to the issue them apologizing and admitting their mistake was the right and proper thing to do, and the camera is probably not that bad either... or is it really terrible in comparison to the video?? only time will tell
If mcdonalds burgers would the same size as their ads look, i would be one very happy individual
Seeing as they had no faith in the product from the start its a bit worrying.
I heard it was a DSLR being used in the ad.
Which is my point.
Anyway.....
*laughing* Exactly! ( Of course, I was talking about a DSLR maker's ads using a different maker's DSLR, which is even crazier. )
The point is, camera ads especially tend to have a difficult time using actual footage because they're usually showing the camera in use, and everything from magazine ad print quality to real life reflections gets in the way.
For example, does this video stabilization "demo" taken from Apple.com really use two different iPhones to capture the same video at the same time from the same angle? Or perhaps was the "stabilized" side (or unstabilized side!) done in post-production just to simulate what the difference could be like? Dunno. Would it matter that much?
Seeing as they had no faith in the product from the start its a bit worrying.
So every time I see a Samsung TV commercial and it says "image simulated" it means they have no faith in the product?
