or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's next iPhone may sport HD-capable front camera, be just 7.9mm thick
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's next iPhone may sport HD-capable front camera, be just 7.9mm thick

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
Apple's sixth-generation iPhone could include a front-facing camera capable of HD resolution, according to a new reported from a trusted analyst insider.

The Cupertino, Calif., company is expected to make "quite a few essential adjustments" to its next iPhone, KGI analyst Mingchi Kuo said in a note to investors earlier this week.

In addition to the move to HD, he believes Apple will also employ a flip-chip (FC) solution for the front-facing camera on the upcoming iPhone. The camera's position would be moved to the middle, he said.

Kuo noted that an HD front camera would better suit the 4-inch display that he expects Apple's sixth-generation handset to have. Currently, the front-facing camera of the iPhone 4S is capable of VGA resolution.

As for the rear-facing camera, Kuo said Apple will likely retain the 8-megapixel camera while improving the aperture range to go up to f/2.2. The iPhone 4S has a maximum aperture of f/2.4. The analyst also predicted that the rear camera on the next iPhone will be noticeable thinner, "making it the most challenging iPhone design yet."

According to his analysis, the new iPhone's rear camera will have a CCM of 5.55mm and a lens TTL of 4mm, down from 6mm and 4.8mm on the iPhone 4S. Apple's suppliers will reportedly face "unprecedented challenges" producing the rear camera component because of the changes to the design.

iPhone cameras


Kuo issued a report in April claiming that Apple will slim down the iPhone to 7.9mm or less. The iPhone 4S has a depth of 9.3mm. The use of an in-cell touchscreen display is expected to shave as much as 0.4mm off the phone.

Sony, which provides the CMOS for the iPhone 4S, announced this January that it had developed a thinner next-generation CMOS. Last month, camera parts allegedly bound for the next iPhone surfaced online. If the parts were indeed authentic, they would suggest that Apple plans to redesign the cameras for its sixth-generation handset.

Apple is expected to launch the new iPhone this fall in either September or October. Some reports have claimed that the device will feature a redesigned form factor and 4G LTE connectivity.
post #2 of 34
Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?

New mockup:

301
Edited by PhilBoogie - 6/6/12 at 5:06am
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #3 of 34
Analyst says :
Next generation product from Apple may increase spec from current generation.

...

post #4 of 34

Better cameras would not be a surprise.

 
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #5 of 34

I use Skype in my iPad 3 / iPhone 4 very often (FT a little less, no one uses it). And the camera is VERY important for the overall experience. We avoid using the computer most of the time, at the moment.

post #6 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?

Not at all!

First; most of the time I don't want people to see me and frankly seeing others doesnt do much for me.

Second; bandwidth is an issue. WiFi is seldom available and you pay for data usage so why even think about FaceTime or Skype on a cell phone?

Third; an HD camera makes even less sense considering the two issues above.
post #7 of 34
Apple will buy Facebook - trust me, AppleFace is on the way
post #8 of 34
I always use FaceTime so this would be a welcome addition for me.
post #9 of 34

I don't think many people do.   But judging by the comments, the camera is important to those that do.  I use the front-facing camera for 2 things: to make sure my tie is straight, and occasionally to take a picture of myself.  Usually I am taking pictures of my kids, etc. and don't appear in many.
 

post #10 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Not at all!
First; most of the time I don't want people to see me and frankly seeing others doesnt do much for me.
Second; bandwidth is an issue. WiFi is seldom available and you pay for data usage so why even think about FaceTime or Skype on a cell phone?
Third; an HD camera makes even less sense considering the two issues above.

1st: That's what I thought. I don't feel inclined to show myself and don't have the need or desire to see the other person. I did try to 'test' FT just to see what the quality was like. Well, indoors in opoor lighting it is obviously poor. Never tried it outdoors.

2nd: WiFi is available pretty much everywhere I go (save for my bicycle rides) but Skype should work over 3G, which is available everywhere I go (except for the one least likely spot: the neighborhood where our largest telco's CEO lives - go figure). Dataplans are still cheap, but slowly being capped here in The Netherlands.

3rd: good point! I wouldn't mind sharing a grainy picture, but for the other party to be able to count my nasal hairs... I don't think so.

239
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #11 of 34
Man I'd love it if they kept the same thickness and added battery as allowed.
post #12 of 34
I use it when I travel and my 3 yr old loves seeing her 2 yr old neice, uncle, grandpa, grandma, etc.- it's great for kids and those with young kids or those that travel IMO.

The HD camera would be nice- not necessary, but welcome. Bandwidth isn't a problem as it has to be wifi and mine does fine now (even in most hotels).

I can say that my kids also LOVE taking pics with their mom and dad while they can see themselves. Funny faces, etc- some of my funniest pics are those.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?

As far as I can, Joe Consumer typically uses the front-facing camera for posting pictures of themselves (MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Path, whatever).

 

Lots of people use Skype, fewer use FaceTime.

post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?
New mockup:
301

 

1) That shyt looks SWEET!!!    Wonder how long before Samsung steals it?

 

2) I dont think many people over the age of 25 currently use the front camera for taking pics.  But younger users definitely love the front camera.  They use it for videochat and most for taking pics of themselves.. we've all seen the duckface pics on myspace & facebook.  Plenty of times I've seen them just taking pictures of themselves with the front camera in public, including group shots.  Making the front camera HD, will definitely strike a big chord with the under 25 crowd who already heavily use the front cam.  As it stands now, the quality & resolution most front facing cameras suck big time.  They look like the grainy old webcams that became popular a decade ago.  Of course Facetime will also recieve a boost from this, as people of all ages use it.  Will definitely be a hit among family members or those in a relationship, seperated from their loved one.

 

3) Bandwidth isnt a big of deal as you guys are making it to be.  WiFi is available for most to use at work, home, travel, restuarants, gym, etc.  And it will only get more popular, its not like WiFi is going to disappear anytime soon. The big 5 cable companies have announced they will be offering WiFi access to all of their customers in major cities.  Hell.. Even the NFL commissioner has gone on record as saying that WiFi will get installed in all NFL stadiums starting this year.  Secondly, if people find something useful.. they will pay for it.. and 4G/LTE has that capability.  While the cellphone companies are pure evil, they know they offer a must have product.  How many people cant live in todays without a cellphone?  While some people bytch and complain.. most of us pay that big cellphone bill at the end of the month without much thought.  Just like cable companies, cellular carriers will also continually adjust their data plans to make sure things are never TOO expensive for customers to drop their service.  

 

4) With 4G bandwidth & a HD-front facing camera, expect applications like Facetime to get used alot more use as individuals look to share an experience immediately with a friend, family member, co-worker, etc.  Im not talking about 30 minute conversations, I'm talking about quick 1-3mins length videochats where you just want to share something important, over live video, with something else very quickly.  A picture may be worth a 1000 words, but a video is worth a million.  The corporate world alone would kill for a feature like this, as their employees are able to voicechat quickly & conveniently while on the go.  If you build it, they will come!


Edited by Daekwan - 6/6/12 at 7:33am
post #15 of 34

Come on, analysts. Do we have to mock you for the Megapixel Myth as well as the Megahertz Myth?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Not at all!
First; most of the time I don't want people to see me and frankly seeing others doesnt do much for me.
Second; bandwidth is an issue. WiFi is seldom available and you pay for data usage so why even think about FaceTime or Skype on a cell phone?
Third; an HD camera makes even less sense considering the two issues above.

This HD capable front facing camera will make doing FT and displaying on a HD TV with the new AppleTV a very good user experience.  

post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

Better cameras would not be a surprise.

 

 

Back camera sure, but front. It would be a surprise. That camera is included for video chatting, not actual recording. To supercharge it with some mega pixel HD camera just seems like unnecessary spec wanking for the job and that's not Apple's style. Especially with the way that folks are clamoring to be able to do FaceTime over cell data. More folks don't have unlimited data and such uses will eat up a tier plan fast. With HD level video it goes even faster. Doesn't seem logical

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?

New mockup:

Video conferencing is an order of magnitude better on the iPad, but it is still useful on the iPhone. It even made me buy Facetime for my iMac at work. One of the things I like the most is having the two cameras and being able to switch between them to show people things. For me, it is complicated on the iPhone because my $3 Hong Kong case is close enough to the lens that it tints the shots, so it needs to be peeled back for use.

As for the mockup... cool and all... but I would much rather have edge to edge screen-- features that add width like rounded edges make it more cumbersome to use.
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Back camera sure, but front. It would be a surprise. That camera is included for video chatting, not actual recording. To supercharge it with some mega pixel HD camera just seems like unnecessary spec wanking for the job and that's not Apple's style.

...but it isn't that great of a camera. Expectations have risen, and the current offering is limiting. If it can accommodate low light better and be less grainy in moderate light it is a win.
post #20 of 34
Seriously AI? A typo on the heading in big bold red letters? Someone needs to be demoted to trash duty for that. The editing of these articles has gotten worse and worse since I've been reading.

Edit: thanks for fixing "thicj"

Speaking of things that have only gotten worse over time, the iPhone camera (for indoor use, strictly speaking) has been freaking abismal ever since they added a flash, and has decreased in usability since the gen 1 iPhone, which took amazing indoor shots. The light balance on the gen1&2 iphones had such better light balance and much less fuzz than the current ones do. Sure they updated the software and more megapixels and added a flash, but I used to be able to take fairly good ( if not great ) indoor shots at museums with my iPhone 3G but when I got the 3GS I Instantly noticed a fuzziness and diminished light balance. Then when I got the iPhone 4, the indoor shots were higher resolution fuzz, not to mention that the flash severally over exposes the images, like this dude's nose above. My 7 year old Nikon point-and-shoot 7mp takes way better indoor shots, with or without a flash.

Now I will say that outdoor pictures has gotten better with each new release, but camera tech. under day lighting is pretty hard to mess up.
Edited by antkm1 - 6/6/12 at 8:33am
post #21 of 34

What's the point reducing the thickness if it will still not have the useless title "thineest smartphone in the world" Its like what? 6.something mm now?

 

Makes MUCH more sense to keep the same thickness and put a battery that lasts three days in there. 

 

The thickness race is over. Phones are plenty slim enough. When you have to quote your thickness in tenths of MILLIMETER (!!!!), then its kinda ridiculous. Soon it will be "well my phone is 10 microns thinner than yours"

 

Big Batteries FTW. 

post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Never used the front facing camera. Do many people use Facetime or Skype?

I do not use Facetime because of the WiFi requirements. Much like Siri, I only used it once or twice.

post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Seriously AI? A typo on the heading in big bold red letters? Someone needs to be demoted to trash duty for that. The editing of these articles has gotten worse and worse since I've been reading.
Edit: thanks for fixing "thicj"
Speaking of things that have only gotten worse over time, the iPhone camera (for indoor use, strictly speaking) has been freaking abismal ever since they added a flash, and has decreased in usability since the gen 1 iPhone, which took amazing indoor shots. The light balance on the gen1&2 iphones had such better light balance and much less fuzz than the current ones do. Sure they updated the software and more megapixels and added a flash, but I used to be able to take fairly good ( if not great ) indoor shots at museums with my iPhone 3G but when I got the 3GS I Instantly noticed a fuzziness and diminished light balance. Then when I got the iPhone 4, the indoor shots were higher resolution fuzz, not to mention that the flash severally over exposes the images, like this dude's nose above. My 7 year old Nikon point-and-shoot 7mp takes way better indoor shots, with or without a flash.
Now I will say that outdoor pictures has gotten better with each new release, but camera tech. under day lighting is pretty hard to mess up.

Your iPhone 1 must have been very different from mine. My 4S's camera is an order of magnitude better than was my 1's.
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

...

Makes MUCH more sense to keep the same thickness and put a battery that lasts three days in there. 

. ...

 

I'd be happy with a battery that lasts ONE day.

post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Not at all!
First; most of the time I don't want people to see me and frankly seeing others doesnt do much for me.
Second; bandwidth is an issue. WiFi is seldom available and you pay for data usage so why even think about FaceTime or Skype on a cell phone?
Third; an HD camera makes even less sense considering the two issues above.

My daughter, nephew and I FaceTime frequently (up to daily).  The existing camera is okay for this purpose but I'm sure that Apple will have a solution for lower-bandwidths if required.

 

All the best.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #26 of 34

Good news if it's true - it's great to be able to snap a picture with somebody while you and they look at the front facing camera.  

post #27 of 34

Seriously, the iPad should have a HD camera on the front, given that the rear camera is wasted.
 

post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

1st: That's what I thought. I don't feel inclined to show myself and don't have the need or desire to see the other person. I did try to 'test' FT just to see what the quality was like. Well, indoors in opoor lighting it is obviously poor. Never tried it outdoors.
2nd: WiFi is available pretty much everywhere I go (save for my bicycle rides) but Skype should work over 3G, which is available everywhere I go (except for the one least likely spot: the neighborhood where our largest telco's CEO lives - go figure). Dataplans are still cheap, but slowly being capped here in The Netherlands.
3rd: good point! I wouldn't mind sharing a grainy picture, but for the other party to be able to count my nasal hairs... I don't think so.
239

That's how you see your own 'Boogies!'
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #29 of 34
I have to say as someone in the business, using both Pro HD video cameras as well as Pro DSLRs , the technology behind Apple's camera lenses to fit them in these thin devices is totally mind boggling.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

What's the point reducing the thickness if it will still not have the useless title "thineest smartphone in the world" Its like what? 6.something mm now?

Makes MUCH more sense to keep the same thickness and put a battery that lasts three days in there. 

The thickness race is over. Phones are plenty slim enough. When you have to quote your thickness in tenths of MILLIMETER (!!!!), then its kinda ridiculous. Soon it will be "well my phone is 10 microns thinner than yours"

Big Batteries FTW. 

Especially if you want a camera lens in there too!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

That's how you see your own 'Boogies!'

Hahaha good one!

Snap

I wanted to give you a thumbs-up but this Huddler tech won't allow that on an iPad. The button 'add to reputation' doesn't work. Really AI, please go back to vBulletin.

Thanks much.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's sixth-generation iPhone could include a front-facing camera capable of HD resolution, according to a new reported from a trusted analyst insider.

 

Oh, so your neighbor then? Gotcha.

post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post

Your iPhone 1 must have been very different from mine. My 4S's camera is an order of magnitude better than was my 1's.

In what aspect? Only resolution? Light balance? Indoor vs outdoor? Be more specific and we can have a conversation.
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

In what aspect? Only resolution? Light balance? Indoor vs outdoor? Be more specific and we can have a conversation.

In everything.

As a 1st gen owner and 4th gen having-seen-and-useder, the camera on mine is inferior in every possible way.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's next iPhone may sport HD-capable front camera, be just 7.9mm thick
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's next iPhone may sport HD-capable front camera, be just 7.9mm thick