First sample photos from new iPad show dramatic improvement over iPad 2
Ahead of Friday's launch, a series of sample photos allegedly from the rear camera of the third-generation iPad have surfaced, revealing a significant improvement over the shooter in the iPad 2.
Vietnamese website Tinh.te claimed on Tuesday to have received an LTE-capable version of Apple's new iPad. The site published an unboxing video and benchmarks for the touchscreen tablet.
Later on Tuesday, a group of photos supposedly taken by the new iPad were posted to (via MacNN) the website's forums. It's clear from the images that the new iPad camera is not as good as the 8-megapixel camera on the iPhone 4S, but, when compared to the iPad 2, which had a less-than-1-megapixel resolution, it's a definite step up.
The forum poster admitted that additional testing, including night shots, would need to be performed to accurately assess the camera, but even some of the daytime shots appeared to pose a challenge for it. MacNN surmised from the sample images that the new iPad's camera will be "truly usable for everyday shooting" and would likely produce higher quality images than tablets with comparable camera resolution, such as the Sony Tablet S or the BlackBerry PlayBook.
Click here for full-size image.
Click here for full-size image.
Click here for full-size image.
Apple announced the third-generation iPad last week at a media event in San Francisco, Calif with an improved camera that uses the same optics system as the iPhone 4S. The 5-megapixel rear camera has an infrared filter and ISP built into the device's A5X chip. It features auto-focus and auto-exposure and can record in 1080p video.
The new iPad goes on sale on Friday in the U.S. and 11 other countries or regions. Some eager customers have already begun lining up for the device at Apple Stores around the world.
The lack of a camera was one of the major criticisms leveled against the first-generation iPad. With the release of the iPad 2, some complained that the camera wasn't good enough. It remains to be seen whether the camera upgrades made to the third generation will be enough to silence the iPad's critics.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
I want to see comparisons to the camera in the iPhone 4 (not 4S), as the iPhone 4 also has a 5 megapixel camera.
No need. Have you seen the photos from the iPad 2? They're horrible in room lighting--lots of chroma noise. Very similar to the camera in the original iPhone and iPod Touch. In other words, no side-by-side comparison needed, not for me anyway.
Why upgrading least used back camera? Seriously, who is using it?
Why not to bring HD quality to the front camera for better experience in FaceTime, Skype, PhotoBooth, etc?
I can imagine front vs back camera use in iPad is at least 100 to 1.
It's showing a lack of contrast and internal glare on the garden shot (was there a fingerprint on the lens??!), a decent amount of noise on the ceiling above the bottles, and just as much noise on the shadowed back walls either side of the 'middle' door... This noise doesn't look *that* much better then the iPad 2's camera to be honest. There is a decent resolving ability but it's overtaken somewhat by the noise/noise reduction/sharpening in the images.
The noise is consistent with the iPad's built-in noise reduction (smearing) and sharpening (red channel) in Apple's New iPad demo pics:
http://images.apple.com/ipad/gallery...s/IMG_1610.JPG
(in the brighter section of shadow in the leaves, and all over the sky)
http://images.apple.com/ipad/gallery...s/IMG_1190.JPG
all across the water, noise, and smeared noise reduction, and loads of noise reduction on the grass.
Still, atleast it leaves plenty of room for an upgrade in next year's version.
Non of this is a complaint, just an observation -
At the end of the day, would you sooner take pics with your iPad or your iPhone?!
(you would carry both with you!)
I don't get Apple with this camera upgrade.
Why upgrading least used back camera? Seriously, who is using it?
Why not to bring HD quality to the front camera for better experience in FaceTime, Skype, PhotoBooth, etc?
I can imagine front vs back camera use in iPad is at least 100 to 1.
I didn't quite get it at first either. But consider what a person can do with the iPad that can't be done on other devices. For the non-tech savvy, it's super easy to film, edit, and share your photos and videos. Most people CANNOT wrap their heads around importing, sorting, non-linear editing, exporting, burning, uploading, etc. And I really can't blame them.
I'm an intermediate Final Cut/Premiere user but I just played with iMovie for iOS the other day. I threw together a trailer in about 5-10 minutes. It was fast, fun, and the result made my girlfriend laugh so hard she started crying. Sure, you might look a little silly waving your iPad around. But if you wanna trim it down, add some music, and upload it to YouTube, it's gotta be the easiest way out there.
I don't get Apple with this camera upgrade.
Why upgrading least used back camera? Seriously, who is using it?
Why not to bring HD quality to the front camera for better experience in FaceTime, Skype, PhotoBooth, etc?
I can imagine front vs back camera use in iPad is at least 100 to 1.
Firstly, front-facing camera use would warrant higher quality pictures due to the usage for landscape picture resolution and therefore warrants better camera quality.
Secondly, back camera would be used mainly for P2P use or self-portrait, therefore usually face-only detail required. If this was HD, then a new iPad-to-new iPad FaceTime™ or Skype™ video call would require substantially more bandwidth at it's highest resolution use.
I am sure ISPs and mobile operators wouldn't appreciate that and neither would you when you get the bill or get blocked for excessive bandwidth usage. Additionally, a further network upgrade would be required to cope with even more HD video calls, HD video streaming & internet usage.....and so the continual upgrade circle keeps turning.
Unlike the iPhone 4s' 1/3.2" 8MP sensor, a 5MP sensor cannot use 2x2 pixel binning to reduce noise in 1080p movie mode - there aren't enough pixels. With the competing requirements of "always on" digital image stabilisation and fractional scaling plus the microscopic noisy pixels, I don't have high hopes for the iPad's movie output.
Read my post #21 here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=146060
I don't get Apple with this camera upgrade.
Why upgrading least used back camera? Seriously, who is using it?
Why not to bring HD quality to the front camera for better experience in FaceTime, Skype, PhotoBooth, etc?
I can imagine front vs back camera use in iPad is at least 100 to 1.
I'm using the camera, at least will. Part of my job is to inspect things which includes capturing photographs while taking notes. The iPad is perfect for me. If you think about it, there are many professions that can take advantage of having a tablet with camera. Not to mention, when I am sitting around the house surfing the web on the iPad and my family does something interesting, I have the ability to capture it on the spot before the moment is gone. Not all features are for everyone. I could care less about graphics performance in Infinity Blade, for example - but lots of people DO care. I wish Apple wouldn't have gone cheap in leaving out a flash, however. Pictures in this post are waaaaaay better than my iPad 2, but not awesome like the 4S.
These guys make fakes.
Read my post #21 here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=146060
Hope so! Because those shots were not very good. And I can't imagine Apple touting their 5 lens optics system for something this bad!
NFB Pixstop app will be fantastic with this camera. Looking forward to seeing if the camera uses the full res for that kind of animation/video app.
SolipsismX was wondering why I was harping on Apple's need to double storage capacity across the board with the new iPad versus rehashing things for the third year in a row... and here it is. You?re effectively getting much less storage space for your money due to the file size increases:
Keynote went from 115MB to 327MB; Numbers increased from 109MB to 283MB, and Pages went from 95MB to 269MB. With the exception of iMovie (which also added in new support for iMovie Trailers as it ballooned from 70MB to 404MB), these apps increased their file sizes by a factor between 2.5 and 3. (iMovie is nearly six times larger than before.)
Suppose a new 16GB iPad owner wants to load up the tablet with Apple?s Retina-display ready apps: the iWork suite, the iLife suite, iBooks, Find My Friends, Find my iPhone, iTunes U, and Remote. That?s 2.24GB of apps before you?ve downloaded a single third-party app, or synced a single song, photograph, or video. Remember too that a 16GB iPad really only offers the user around 14GB of storage space; the other two gigabytes go towards the operating system and stock apps. So now your 16GB iPad offers you fewer than 12GB of storage space.
http://www.macworld.com.au/blogs/ret...-crunch-46811/
16GB users are gonna get seriously screwed. I'm now even questioning my decision to pre-order a 32GB iPad 3. I may have to get a 64GB model instead. And guess who gets doubly screwed? iPhone users with apps that are universal -- that means that their files sizes are going to jump as well.
And perhaps the most worrying effect of the new iPad?s Retina display is its impact on older owners of both iPads and iPhones: Universal apps?that is, single apps that run on both devices?will become much larger even if you don?t own a Retina-display iPad. When Apple pushed out its Retina-ready upgrades last week, I couldn?t successfully update my iPhone until I deleted my music and a few large apps. My iPhone can?t take advantage of the massive graphics that those apps need to embrace the iPad?s Retina display, but it gets no choice in the matter.
And that's just Apple apps. Imagine the size increases for third-party apps.
I've only got around 2GB of space left on my iPhone 4S and I have the feeling that I'm gonna be screwed once the universal iPhone/iPad apps are updated.
Apple hasn?t coded a means by which your iPhone could ignore iPad-only assets when it installs universal apps. In fact, most developers also will choose to keep art assets specifically for the first two iPads, in addition to new art exclusively for the third-generation iPad; trying to force the older iPads to show downscaled versions of Retina iPad artwork would slow things down too much, developers tell me.
So we end up with a situation where iPhones contain iPad graphics they can?t use, iPads contain graphics for other iPads they don?t want, and iPads hold onto iPhone-specific graphics they don?t need.
It?s gonna be a rough few weeks?
I have had a 32Gb iPhone since the 3G version and when I migrated it to the 32Gb iPhone 4 I already had a lot of App Data, photos and videos on my camera roll to transfer over. After a year of using the iPhone 4 I have now maxed out my storage and have to constantly delete files. Last week that phone broke so I bought a 64Gb iPhone 4S.. My phone data from the last 3 years is gently snowballing and I reckon by the time I get my next iPhone, the data on the current 4S will have maxed out the 64Gb storage. I know I can offload alot of things and back them up on my Mac but I want to be able to keep everything with me at all times. I know I can back up to iCloud but I would need to purchase extra storage on top of that too.
how is this even surprise news when it's touted all over Apples website that it's got a Full HD camera, when the ipad 2 only had a 720p HD version??
It's showing a lack of contrast and internal glare on the garden shot (was there a fingerprint on the lens??!), a decent amount of noise on the ceiling above the bottles, and just as much noise on the shadowed back walls either side of the 'middle' door... This noise doesn't look *that* much better then the iPad 2's camera to be honest. There is a decent resolving ability but it's overtaken somewhat by the noise/noise reduction/sharpening in the images.
The noise is consistent with the iPad's built-in noise reduction (smearing) and sharpening (red channel) in Apple's New iPad demo pics:
http://images.apple.com/ipad/gallery...s/IMG_1610.JPG
(in the brighter section of shadow in the leaves, and all over the sky)
http://images.apple.com/ipad/gallery...s/IMG_1190.JPG
all across the water, noise, and smeared noise reduction, and loads of noise reduction on the grass.
Still, atleast it leaves plenty of room for an upgrade in next year's version.
Non of this is a complaint, just an observation -
At the end of the day, would you sooner take pics with your iPad or your iPhone?!
(you would carry both with you!)
Sure, there's always room for improvement, but the noise is perfectly acceptable. The shots taken were actually pretty aggressive shots, especially the lighter bottles on dark background and darker foliage area with what looks like fog. You won't find many dedicated compact cameras that will give you anything different. Definitely impressive for a device that isn't really meant to take pictures.
I don't get Apple with this camera upgrade.
Why upgrading least used back camera? Seriously, who is using it?
Why not to bring HD quality to the front camera for better experience in FaceTime, Skype, PhotoBooth, etc?
I can imagine front vs back camera use in iPad is at least 100 to 1.
How high of quality do you need for Skype or FaceTime?
OTOH, you could use the back camera for all sorts of photos of things where the quality DOES matter. I think you have your ratios backwards.