AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Sony boss reportedly reveals Apple's plans for 8MP iPhone 5 camera - rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony boss reportedly reveals Apple's plans for 8MP iPhone 5 camera - rumor - Page 2

post #41 of 65
4/2/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It is a bad thing. Higher pixel density means more photosites. More photosites in close proximity generate more heat. More heat generates noise, especially at high ISOs.

Even large sensor pro cameras have faced this challenge: DSLRs from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony and Leica all have had to make compromises in this regard. The Nikon D3x, which is their top of the line body at 24.5MP ($7600 street price) actually gets inferior high-ISO performance than the D3s 12.1MP body ($5200 street), which is why the D3x is intended more as a sports (in bright light) and studio camera and the D3s is intended more as a street and photojournalist camera. While new models have continued to bring better performance in this regard, until someone makes a radical breakthrough in sensor design, this will continue to be the case.

And I don't know how big the sensor in an iPhone is, but I suspect it's smaller than the smallest of the point & shoots. The smallest sensor in P&S cameras is generally 1/2.5" (.4"), but I suspect the iPhone sensor is far smaller. It's amazing it works as well as it does. A 1/2.5" sensor has only 2.9% of the area of a 35mm-sized sensor and about 6.6% the area of a typical APS-sized sensor.

I can't totally agree here. The D3X has superb image quality, and is used in the studio, for fashion and other high quality work. It has excellent s/n for a 35mm size sensor camera. While the D3s has slightly better s/n, in the same size, fairly large print size, it loses out, and quite noticeably. So in that I can agree, but as far as street photography goes, unless we're talking about night photography, the D3x will still give better IQ. I know of no photographers who need to shoot above about 3200 ISO, unless they're just trying to capture an image without the highest IQ being important. As the "s" isn't much better at 3200 than the "x" I would still prefer the "x" over the "s".
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 65
4/2/11 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

And on the video side, an increase in fps from 30 to 60 is also far more important than more pixels.

iPhone 4 "HD video" is only really HD if you aren't moving the camera. It's not bad quality, but it isn't great either.

Most prosumer cameras don't record at 60 so expecting a phone to do that is not very logical. Video quality is mostly affected by compression, lighting and lens, not fps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Amazing what people expect these days isn't it? I paid over $4K for a HD video camera which I only consider prosumer. The lens on it alone would cost more than two iPhones.

I know. I just bought a 100mm macro for just under $1K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

00 DPI is pretty much considered to be an ideal resolution for prints sized 12x16 down. But my own testing in my lab showed that for most prints 200 DPI was perfectly fine for most people. The first requires a resolution from a 4/3 sensor of 8 MP, the second, 5 MP for an 8x10 print.

So the real question is; what size prints are people making from their phones, and how critical are they? It turns out that few people go bigger than about 6x8. But even at 8x10, 5 MP is fine.

High resolution is nice if you want to crop a smaller area of the original and still print at 8x10.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 65
4/2/11 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most prosumer cameras don't record at 60 so expecting a phone to do that is not very logical. Video quality is mostly affected by compression, lighting and lens, not fps.



I know. I just bought a 105mm macro for just under $2K.

Which one? I've got the older Canon 100 f2.8 auto focus but no IS, but more recently bought the Zeiss 100 f2 with no auto focus or IS, though it does use the green dot in the viewfinder for focus confirm. I was going to buy the new, better Canon "L" 100f2.8 with auto focus with IS. It was a really tough decision, but the extra stop made the decision for me.

Quote:
High resolution is nice if you want to crop a smaller area of the original and still print at 8x10.

Of course, that's the reason I almost always give as a reason for going to a higher resolution camera. But few people crop their images. What they see is what they take.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 65
4/2/11 at 1:05pm
Here's a much better direct link to Stringer's remarks. They were pretty pointed and direct. I don't see how anyone could mistake what he said. Then, there's the additional info from earlier this year that gives more confirimng evidence. As it says, this could be the reason for an iPhone delay, not a change in Apple's market positioning of the product.

http://www.9to5mac.com/59019/howard-...r-apples-ipad/
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 65
4/2/11 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

... on the video side, an increase in fps from 30 to 60 is also far more important than more pixels. iPhone 4 "HD video" is only really HD if you aren't moving the camera. It's not bad quality, but it isn't great either.

Most prosumer cameras don't record at 60 so expecting a phone to do that is not very logical. Video quality is mostly affected by compression, lighting and lens, not fps. ....

No offence but this is not correct.

The iPhone's chief competitor in handheld digital video is the Flip which all reviewers report as having a better video quality than the iPhone 4. The only real difference between the two devices (they use similar chips, lenses, methods, etc.), is the fact that the Flip shoots it's HD video at 60 fps. This is the main reason why Flip video looks better to the eye than the iPhone HD video.

You are right that the lens and the lighting makes the most difference but both of those are irrelevant qualities when we are talking about handheld digital video shooters. None of the products in this category carry enough lighting to make any kind of difference and they all use the same small plastic lenses for the most part (FLip uses some larger better ones on some products). Compression also makes a difference as do all of the various other aspects of the firmware/software in use but it's almost a given that Apple does this better than anyone.

The video shot from iPhone 4's HD camera is really top quality for that type of device with the single exception of capturing motion where it blurs and "jellies" to the point where it's really rude to even call it "HD." Getting the FPS to 60 would alleviate this known flaw and put the iPhone on par, or even better, than the current market leader for this type of video (i.e. - Flip).

I would be shocked if they don't move to 60 fps for iPhone 5 considering the A5 could easily handle it.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 65
4/2/11 at 2:04pm
I wish Stringer would "slip up" and tell the world when Sony expects to have their pro video tape factory in Sendai back up an running. The vast majority of the world's pro tape came from that factory and the loss of production cannot be filled by the smaller producers.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 65
4/2/11 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

What matters more is that they keep the sensor size/pixels ratio the same or better. Cramming that many more pixels on the same sensor would introduce more noise, and require more artificial noise reduction, and overall reduce quality.

Thanks. That explains why the 8 MP camera on my Evo sucks a$$. I wondered about that since day 1.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 65
4/2/11 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

What matters more is that they keep the sensor size/pixels ratio the same or better. Cramming that many more pixels on the same sensor would introduce more noise, and require more artificial noise reduction, and overall reduce quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Some of you guys are getting into a reverse mega pixel mentality (more megapixels = automatically bad) and not even bothering to do some research on the part in question. Do some research on the Xperia NEO's picture and video capability and come back and tell me this is a bad thing.

My brief checks found the images on the Samsung Galaxy more pleasing IMHO than any of the three reffed in the thread, tho' the iPhone had less noise on the color swatches.

What was not stated is whether or not the iPhone was working in HDR mode. On the faces the iPhone image had blown out highlights while the Galaxy had fairly pleasing skin tones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Apple's use of small, low end camera / software technology is pretty advanced. The iPhone 4 uses similar technology to the latest Nikon DSLRs that can take a photograph in a room and correctly expose the darker inside as well as the window's far brighter outside in a single shot in idiot mode. Previously high end software was used to combine several radically different exposures of Raw HD images to achieve such results. So simply comparing the hardware, be it sensor size or pixel density doesn't give the whole picture even if traditionally these were good metrics for comparisons and expected resolution / quality. This new technology is simply in another dimension. I have faith that the iPhone 5 camera will blow our socks off in price / performance and we need not worry that some Android has a seemingly better hardware configuration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

The quality of a photo depends on how much light each pixel gets. With higher megapixels the amount of light each pixel gets is less if everything else is the same.

Thankfully there's actually been some discussion of lenses, often missing in these pixel back and forths. I've never read a comparison of the various popular lenses used in smartphones, tho' there's a latent consensus they're all "cheap." But is there a hierarchy of "cheapness" and light-gathering capacity, and if so where do Apple's stand on that spectrum?

Another thing unmentioned in this thread is the light path. Every iPhone has been thinner than the last, decreasing the light path - unless it's bent, e.g., by a mirror. The same amount of light reaching different amounts of pixels/sq MM gives no advantage to a sensor of the same size but containing more pixels.

And if Apple's adding, e.g., NFC and/or LTE in a maybe thinner phone with the same or better battery life (while running an A5 and possibly more storage or RAM, it's gonna get crowded - and power hungry - in there). No room for a physically bigger sensor or ways to bring more light to it over a path that would take any real advantage of the upped pixel count.

Also mentioned briefly is the quality of the software that encodes and renders the image. Here my sense is it's generally believed that Apple's been at least up to par in getting the most out of the pixel registrations it is recording, and that the HDR is reasonably well-implemented. But there's always room for improvement.

Meanwhile, while they're focusing on marketing the current SKU to casual gamers, I keep humping for an iPodTouchCam (64 GB and up). With the extra depth of an iPhone case and unencumbered for space by phone radios/other phone parts, I believe Apple could leapfrog "smartphone quality" picture-taking and truly strike fear into the hearts of P&S cam makers, none of whose cams would include a fully functional iPT and could integrate new pix and flix into the FaceTime experience on the device. Also access to DropBox/Sugar Sync, the new Mobile Me we're all expecting, and the best on-board quick editing tools in the class.

Maybe I'm starting to sound like the eternal boosters of the MMMM (Mythical Mid-range Mac Mini-Tower), but I don't see how this cannibalizes anything Apple's offering, nor, like the MMMM would it be targeted at a stagnant market. (I'm just guessing the P&S sales trajectory looks better than that for AC-tethered PC's, btw.)

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #49 of 65
4/2/11 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

My brief checks found the images on the Samsung Galaxy more pleasing IMHO than any of the three reffed in the thread, tho' the iPhone had less noise on the color swatches.

What was not stated is whether or not the iPhone was working in HDR mode. On the faces the iPhone image had blown out highlights while the Galaxy had fairly pleasing skin tones.




Thankfully there's actually been some discussion of lenses, often missing in these pixel back and forths. I've never read a comparison of the various popular lenses used in smartphones, tho' there's a latent consensus they're all "cheap." But is there a hierarchy of "cheapness" and light-gathering capacity, and if so where do Apple's stand on that spectrum?

Another thing unmentioned in this thread is the light path. Every iPhone has been thinner than the last, decreasing the light path - unless it's bent, e.g., by a mirror. The same amount of light reaching different amounts of pixels/sq MM gives no advantage to a sensor of the same size but containing more pixels.

And if Apple's adding, e.g., NFC and/or LTE in a maybe thinner phone with the same or better battery life (while running an A5 and possibly more storage or RAM, it's gonna get crowded - and power hungry - in there). No room for a physically bigger sensor or ways to bring more light to it over a path that would take any real advantage of the upped pixel count.

Also mentioned briefly is the quality of the software that encodes and renders the image. Here my sense is it's generally believed that Apple's been at least up to par in getting the most out of the pixel registrations it is recording, and that the HDR is reasonably well-implemented. But there's always room for improvement.

Meanwhile, while they're focusing on marketing the current SKU to casual gamers, I keep humping for an iPodTouchCam (64 GB and up). With the extra depth of an iPhone case and unencumbered for space by phone radios/other phone parts, I believe Apple could leapfrog "smartphone quality" picture-taking and truly strike fear into the hearts of P&S cam makers, none of whose cams would include a fully functional iPT and could integrate new pix and flix into the FaceTime experience on the device. Also access to DropBox/Sugar Sync, the new Mobile Me we're all expecting, and the best on-board quick editing tools in the class.

Maybe I'm starting to sound like the eternal boosters of the MMMM (Mythical Mid-range Mac Mini-Tower), but I don't see how this cannibalizes anything Apple's offering, nor, like the MMMM would it be targeted at a stagnant market. (I'm just guessing the P&S sales trajectory looks better than that for AC-tethered PC's, btw.)

We've mentioned lenses. I've discussed them. You haven't read all the posts. But to be more specific, phone lenses are cheap, and not very good, but have been good enough for the low Rez sensors we've been seeing. Several things mitigate that though. One is that they aren't zooms, so they can be made much more cheaply. The second is that they have a fixed iris, so they can be optimized for that.

There are several technologies that are available or that are being worked on that will give better IQ, as well as a zoom capability, but as far as I know, none of those are yet in a product.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 65
4/2/11 at 3:00pm
Oh no he didn't. Steve Jobs is gonna get mad.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 65
4/2/11 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Which one? I've got the older Canon 100 f2.8 auto focus but no IS, but more recently bought the Zeiss 100 f2 with no auto focus or IS, though it does use the green dot in the viewfinder for focus confirm. I was going to buy the new, better Canon "L" 100f2.8 with auto focus with IS. It was a really tough decision, but the extra stop made the decision for me.

I have to check back at the office. I am pretty sure it was for our Canon. We have both Nikon and Canon set ups at the office. We are slowly converting to Canon. We were having a bit of trouble getting the lighting and depth of field on some super small close-ups with our older Nikon macro so we ordered the the new lens. Not sure of the exact cost although I can PM you next week when I get into the office.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #52 of 65
4/2/11 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

No offence but this is not correct.

The iPhone's chief competitor in handheld digital video is the Flip which all reviewers report as having a better video quality than the iPhone 4. The only real difference between the two devices (they use similar chips, lenses, methods, etc.), is the fact that the Flip shoots it's HD video at 60 fps. This is the main reason why Flip video looks better to the eye than the iPhone HD video.

Thanks for informing us that the Flip shoots at 60 however I would refer you to my original comment that was in regard to most prosumer cameras not shooting at 60.

There are $100K video cameras that are used at 30 frames exclusively and they have far better quality than any consumer camera so I maintain that it is an insignificant performance enhancement shooting at 60. A higher quality lens, a higher bit rate, and larger sensor would all offer much more noticeable improvements than increased fps.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #53 of 65
4/2/11 at 3:42pm
Speaking of higher frame rates: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ds-make-172916
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 65
4/2/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Happy you've said it, but it isn't always true...

.... This is a rapidly moving field, and I wouldn't want to be too dogmatic until we reach the limits that physics imposes upon it.

I wasn't trying to be dogmatic or to express I know anything about camera technology. I was just remembering when we didn't have these things to worry about and/or demand.

I agree with you. We should hope all innovators, manufacturers, push the limits as far as possible, while staying cost effective, before settling. Apple is way out in front in this regard.

The problem I was expressing was: "If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want some milk." We mice will never be satisfied. That was my point. When you said, "It's been said that the best camera is the one you have with you," I knew you had said it all.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 65
4/2/11 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynameisjoe View Post

What I really want is better pictures of moving objects. I have a 2 year old daughter, and she rarely stays still long enough for me to take a picture.

It's all kind of tied together. When people talk about "less noise" or "better low light performance" they are talking about the camera having good picture quality as the ISO increases.

Someone will have to correct me on this because I can't remember, but I think each time you double the ISO you can also double the shutter speed.

So, for example, if camera A can go to ISO 200 and camera B can go to ISO 800, then camera B can have a shutter speed of 250 milliseconds for the same image that camera A needs a shutter speed of 1 second for.

Obviously if the target you're trying to capture is moving then the picture with the 1 second shutter speed is going to be a lot more blurry.

In general, as you push more megapixels into the same sensor, it's ability to perform at higher ISO levels decreases. So it's a tradeoff - you can get more megapixels, but the camera will produce noisier low light pictures and will have less ability to take the moving pictures your talking about.

Personally I'm never going to print pictures I take using my iPhone (they just end up in emails or on Facebook)... so I wouldn't even mind if Apple dropped the iPhone 5 down to 2 megapixels... as long as it was matched with kick ass performance at higher ISO levels.

On a side note, if you're taking pictures of your daughter with an iPhone make sure there is enough light. Take them outside on a sunny day if you can.

More light == lower ISO == faster shutter == less blur.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 65
4/2/11 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, Sony does not currently provide image sensors to Apple, prompting speculation that the electronics giant could be set to provide a higher-resolution camera for the next iPhone.

It's not for the iPhone - they are bringing the QuickTake back!

Reply
Reply
post #57 of 65
4/2/11 at 6:06pm
If Apple's holding up the iPhone so that they can cram eight megapixels on to a phone sensor, maybe they're losing the plot a little. The camera in the iPhone 4 has been very good by a long margin the best camera I've seen on a phone. Refine it a little in terms of focus and low-light and you've got a legitimate replacement for any camera for up to about an 8x10 image. Why mess with a good thing like that and follow the crowd in the pursuit of wasting memory space on large picture files full of mush and noise and without any acuity?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 65
4/2/11 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

Big surprise is when Apple actually announces and displays the Iphone5 at the WWDC. Don't be fooled, Apple most likely has parts lined up for the Iphone5 other than Japan.
Take note of how Apple is not saying a word or dropping any hints or leaks yet.

Don't be shocked if come Monday this guy is no longer CEO of anything. Apple hates anyone dropping hints no matter how small they might seem.

As for WWDC, I won't be shocked if there is no iPhone hardware announcement. Apple doesn't like having products tied to events and could take this chance to detach the two and announce the hardware separately, especially if it is another 3GS and just little bumps but no new stuff like NFC etc that would be leaked via the software
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 65
4/2/11 at 7:57pm
8mp alone means nothing for quality unless you plan to crop on a cell phone produced photo. Without knowing all the other specs it's hard to say what the extra pixels will offer.

I have the iPhone 4 and my buddy has the Evo (keneovo) with 8 mp. The iPhone produces far better and accurate colors than the Evo. We had many blind tests with others to verify.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 65
4/2/11 at 11:21pm
Apple will stil show the iPhone 5 at WWDC. They cannot afford to delay its launch as the smart phone market evolves rapidly. Let's hope there is good reason for the need of a higher resolution camera other than just lower component prices. We'll see come WWDC.
Tory Hagen
Break the Wedge!
Reply
Tory Hagen
Break the Wedge!
Reply
post #61 of 65
4/3/11 at 9:26am
Howard Stringer is smart to latch onto iPhone prestige!

He has enough clout that if he wants to leak, he is a longtime CEO of freakin Sony. He can leak if he wants to.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 65
4/3/11 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

I hope not, 8mp would be terrible on a phone camera! Please increase the sensor size before increasing mega-pixels!

Exactly! I'd much rather have a larger sensor than a higher megapixel count.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #63 of 65
4/3/11 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Exactly! I'd much rather have a larger sensor than a higher megapixel count.

What's wrong with the concept that they would consider doing both, like other phone manufacturers have done?
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 65
4/3/11 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have to check back at the office. I am pretty sure it was for our Canon. We have both Nikon and Canon set ups at the office. We are slowly converting to Canon. We were having a bit of trouble getting the lighting and depth of field on some super small close-ups with our older Nikon macro so we ordered the the new lens. Not sure of the exact cost although I can PM you next week when I get into the office.

I'm just curious. I don't want you to have to hassle over it.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 65
4/3/11 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoeditor View Post

If Apple's holding up the iPhone so that they can cram eight megapixels on to a phone sensor, maybe they're losing the plot a little. The camera in the iPhone 4 has been very good by a long margin the best camera I've seen on a phone. Refine it a little in terms of focus and low-light and you've got a legitimate replacement for any camera for up to about an 8x10 image. Why mess with a good thing like that and follow the crowd in the pursuit of wasting memory space on large picture files full of mush and noise and without any acuity?

It's not quite that simple. If Apple decided to use this sensor 6 or more months ago, which would be very likely, then they couldn't get enough of the older 5 MP sensors at this time anyway, because the manufacturer would never have time to ramp production up enough.

If Apple had stayed with the older sensor, and THAT factory was damaged, they would have the same problem. So it's not a matter of holding up production for an 8 MP sensor, it's a matter of holding up production for the sensor chosen, whatever it may be.

This happens to be a very good sensor. Too many people here are making comments based on nothing at all.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Sony boss reportedly reveals Apple's plans for 8MP iPhone 5 camera - rumor
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Sony boss reportedly reveals Apple's plans for 8MP iPhone 5 camera - rumor