Karroly: Why Dpreview (and/or Nokia) uses "oversampling" when the process of using a lower spacial sampling frequency (from 38MP down to 8/5/3 MP) actually is downsampling ?! Oversampling is just the opposite : converting a low-resolution picture to a higher resolution one (which does not increase sharpness, of course), as it is the case on digital audio devices when the digital audio signal is oversampled from, let's say 44.1 khz to 192 khz or higher to allow the use of higher-quality digital low-pass filters rather than analog filters. Did Nokia marketing guys think "downsampling" was to negative ?
It is oversampling; When producing low-res images, they are sampling at a significantly higher frequency than the output, which is the definition of oversampling. In digital audio it's just the same - oversampling delta-sigma converters typically run at ~2MHz with a 1-bit ADC internally, but output sample rates much lower than that. What you described is upsampling - converting to a higher rate than the original source - which has very few benefits.I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction: because they are oversampling to start with, they are able to downsample and gain improved anti-aliasing and signal-to-noise when producing lower-resolution images.
I think many on here are barking up the wrong tree. I'm interested in this as a replacement for action cameras like GoPros and Contours. Both of those have absolutely abysmal optics and sensors; this camera would be a massive upgrade to both.So what it needs to compete with them is a wide-angle lens (got that), decent mounting options (a chest-mount seems ideal) and the ability to use it unsighted with gloves on. I know that Oly have previously made such mounts and they've also had a tap-triggered shoot/record function on other tough cams, though I've yet to see if that's actually workable.Zoom is generally not needed for wearable cameras, though it makes it much more useful when you take it off to use it like a normal camera.It's pointless comparing with higher-end cameras when they're useless in a practical sense. If I crashed at 60mph with a DSLR strapped to my chest I'd probably trash the camera and it would probably injure me, so small, neat, rugged wins.
I always steer well clear of flickr, even to go and look at someone else's pictures. It's just so dismal and depressing, apparently designed to distract attention away from the overly small pictures, annoy you with a zillion conflicting options, ads and comments, all in a layout that looks like 'my first wordpress'. Picasa is marginally better, and even the now defunct mobileme makes a better job of the simple task of displaying images. I could never face putting my own pics on flickr as I'd never want to inflict their revolting interface on anyone that wanted to see my pics.On the upside, pretty much anything would be an improvement so hopefully they can't go far wrong.