or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple expected to sit out on megapixel horserace with 2014 iPhones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple expected to sit out on megapixel horserace with 2014 iPhones - Page 2

post #41 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Here is my thinking on 4K video. The 8Mpx camera can already is equivalent to a 4K frame. And Apple recently hired that sole developer who wrote a clever app that would allow the device to take something like 10-20 8Mpx images per second. If Apple can use a faster sensor they could probably get that up to 30 still shots per second which would then be 30 frames per second for 4K video.

Something like that. The current 8MP sensor on the iPhone 5s is 4:3 ratio, so the 16:9 area used for HD video is cropped to a smaller area. DSLRs that shoot video do that. To get 8MP from video--specifically 2160p 16:9, they would have to either:
(1) use a native 16:9 sensor 8MP chip, which would crop 4:3 or 3:2 ratio photos to less than 8MP, or
(2) use a 4:3 sensor at greater than 8MP in order to attain 2160p without reducing the megapixel count for 4:3 and 3:2 ratio photos.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #42 of 152

Unless you plan on making jumbo-sized prints or need extreme digital zoom capability, there's minimal utility to going 13 MP on a smartphone and plenty of downside. Diminished low light performance and increased noise occur when you increase the number of pixels without also increasing the size of the sensor or making other improvements.  Then there's the issue with the increased file size for the photos themselves, considering that iOS does not allow for adjustments to the JPEG compression level or image size, and the devices themselves cannot use external storage.  I'd much rather see improvements to the processing, low light performance, and just general image quality.  This is where the iPhone has excelled, and where megapixels for specs' sake falters.

post #43 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post
 

Somewhere around 24MP I believe.

That's no surprise.

 

Prior to dominance of the dSLR, the limit/point of diminishing returns was calculated to be around 30 megapixels under optimum conditions with the best prime lenses on 35mm film gear (with the classic 24x36mm film gate) and the best/finest grain film (like Fujichrome Velvia). Optical resolving power is the primary limiting factor.

 

In the real world, there are lens aberrations, manufacturing variances in consumer film equipment, operator behavior (hand holding). that don't translate into better image quality at higher resolutions which is why the dSLR megapixel war settled around 24MP.

 

A cellphone camera module has much smaller optics and sensor, so the practical limit is probably around 8 megapixels. For a digital point-and-shoot camera (which is usually paired with a zoom lens design), the practical limit is probably around 12-16 megapixels.

 

Going to 12-16MP on a smartphone is a waste of resources, and typically means compromising more on low light performance for no additional resolving performance. You get more data in each image, but it's just grainy noise.

post #44 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Apple is doing the right thing here.  Nobody really pays attention to the megapixels anymore - all people want is a good picture.  Apple should have no trouble convincing the average consumer that less megapixels means better pictures.

I'd say megapixels still matters to the average uninformed consumer. I learned myself that megapixels don't equate to quality. Years ago, before I knew much about photography, I bought a Nikon CoolPix S560 camera, based on specs: 5x zoom + 10MP. I naively thought I would get the same resolution as the larger 10MP camera I had at the time, one the Canon PowerShot models. But a simple side-by-side test revealed I wasn't getting anything near 10MP. I doubt Nikon is lying about the sensor specs, but I'll be damned if there was better than 2.5 to 3MP actual resolution in the JPEG images produced by the camera. Optics may have had something to do with it, as did the post-processing done in camera by the image processing chip.

I eventually learned that brands like Nikon are still playing the megapixel war--it is still prominently touted in their advertising--on low end consumer cameras, (and for whatever reason on the expensive D800). But their "pro" models, like the D90 and D4, are no longer adding megapixels. And Canon hasn't budged on megapixels in years.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #45 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

What did this megapixel race end up at (on average)?  Was it around 8 MP?

Between 12-18MP for DSLRs.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #46 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


You have a point of sorts though I consider digital zoom to be a bit of a joke. More pixels do lead to better cropping and other pic manipulation , but it generally is better to have good quality pictures to begin with.

In any event I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple add optical zoom or something in the way of interchangeable lenses. Either has far more potential than blowing out the size of the CCD. Further I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apples sapphire production is destined for camera lenses. I can very much see Apple adding a cell phone to its lineup focused on photography. It could be Tim's secret project.

The idea of having the back of the iPhone made of Sapphire and allowing a big circle in the middle to be a giant lens/sensor seems like something that could penitentially happen - as long as they could prevent it from looking terrible.

 

The potential for interchangeable lens without looking terrible would be interesting as well, though I doubt it will happen at least any time soon.

post #47 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Higher res photos and videos will require a lot more storage space. Hopefully that fact alone will push Apple towards the 32/64/128GB options.  I don't think most people shop for a smartphone based on 8MP vs. 15MP and let that be the deciding factor. Tech people know the MP count doesn't necessarily mean a better photo. I do think Apple at least has to reach 10MP though as there is a psychological threshold of going to a 2 digit MP count vs. a single digit. Although it is very true that the MP war with DSLR cameras ended years ago that is because the vast majority of those customers are very tech savvy. Smartphone consumers aren't this savvy so Apple are smart to focus on image quality but at the same time do need to at least marginally bump it up so these people can grasp there is an improvement. Either that or launch a advertising campaign explaining the difference. 

The front facing camera has become just about as important as the rear facing one so Apple do need to step up their game a bit in that one as well which has not tended to keep pace with the rear camera in improvements. Selfies are here to stay. 

Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.
post #48 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Between 12-18MP for DSLRs.

And the pixels on DSLRs are larger than those used on point-and-shoot and smartphone cameras, so they don't have the same signal noise and low light issues that smaller sensors have. I guess the marketing people can point to 13MP as matching the pixel count on DSLRs (and therefore, it's just as good as a DSLR).  But, other than specs, I just don't see the point of going into that MP range for smartphones, considering the image quality tradeoffs.

post #49 of 152

I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.

 

Granted the Lumina does have it's "low quality" mode where it takes pictures around 4MB each, but if you're using it in low quality mode... why even care about the extra MP?

 

Edit: Here's a comparison between the two. Despite the Lumina having 41 Mega-Pixel camera, the iPhone 5S scored better in most categories.

post #50 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.

I don't think so.   I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months.   The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.

 

Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012.   Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s.   The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor.   Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP.      While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.   

post #51 of 152

What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography.  Simple matter of adding a second 8 MP camera on the back of the phone, along the long edge with a typical 180 mm interpupillary distance. When phone is rotated to "landscape" orientation, an option appears for 3-D photo, and two "portrait" shots of about 4 MP each are taken, a "right" and a "left". The two shots together would occupy the same storage space as an 8 MP photo.  Apple could utilize the motion sensors already in the camera to create a display of a virtual 3-D scene on the existing screen simply by the user moving the screen about, or they could implement a true 3D retina display on the phone. As 3-D TVs are readily available, such 3-D photos could also be displayed in home.

post #52 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.

Who are you even arguing with because no where in my post did I ever suggest they add a 8 MP FaceTime camera. It is easy to win arguments when you just make up crap you hoped the other person said instead of actually arguing with what was posted. I simply said they really need to improve over the current 1.2 MP which leaves a lot of room between 1.2 MP and 8 MP.

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #53 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstarsboy View Post
 

I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.

Recall Apple get a very high margin on selling higher capacity iDevices.  If Apple was doing this purely with the interest in reducing file size, it would have an effect of lowering the need for selling higher capacity iDevices; in effect lowering their margins.   If they were concerned about file size they could always down sample in iDevice, and actually they already do this when they send up your photos to iCloud (aka Photostream). The photos are all down sampled to iPad Retina resolution (which is about 3MP IIRC).

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #54 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I don't think so.   I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months.   The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.

Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012.   Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s.   The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor.   Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP.      While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.   

It is my opinion that we've reached the point of diminishing return on megapixel density in DSLR photography. Higher megapixels might be useful for photographers replacing medium format film cameras.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #55 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Megapixels matter, but only to a point. I'm sure if they are not adding pixels this year they have their reasons. Phones are very thin, anyway. Perhaps phone manufactures including Apple should consider stacking the cameras vertically inside their phones so they can put in better cameras than the physical thickness will allow.

Earlier this week I read a competitor was having problems with its 13 MP camera lenses. Apple might have seen there were too many issues with manufacturing quality 13 MP camera lenses in the quantity it needs then decided to skip 13 MP while improving the capabilities of the 8 MP camera. All improvements for the 8 MP camera could put Apple ahead of its competitors.
post #56 of 152

SONY image sensors are 50% more than other manufacturers.  Apple is paying a premium for SONY 8MP image sensors.  Apple can not easily move up to 13MP without hurting its profit margin. 

post #57 of 152
I have a 16MP camera, but most of the time I shoot 8MP images. I get superior dynamic range and better performance in less than optimal lighting.

Many professional level cameras are only 16MP and they have sensors many times larger than mine. Megapixel count is just a number.

While it would be nice in theory for Apple to increase the size of the sensor in the iPhone there's a problem. A bigger sensor requires a longer focal length. The phone would have to be thicker (or have a huge bump sticking out like the Nokia 1020 has). I can't see Apple ever going down that road. They're obsessed with making things as thin as possible. There are still ways to improve image quality with an improved sensor and lens, and there are features like image stabilization that could be added without a huge increase in the size of the camera mechanism. The only potential problem I see with image stabilization is increased power draw leading to lower battery life. Some iPhone users already complain about not being able to make it through the day on a charge so this is a big issue.
post #58 of 152
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography.


Eh, not really. 3D’s a gimmick, and there’s zero reason for “3D pictures” until (no, not until, unless) autostereoscopic screens become the norm.

 

You want to know the real revolution? Light field photography. Focus AFTER the fact. Get Apple to miniaturize Lytro’s technology and include it. Consumers don’t have a clue about focusing correctly! So instead of having software to autofocus before the fact, allow the consumer to choose their focus AFTER the fact! 

 

Great example here with the dandelion, though I DO see that they allow some “perspective shift” which almost gives the same effect as an autostereoscopic 3D image. Yet another reason I think light field photography is everything that the gimmick of 3D is not.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #59 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post
 

There are less expensive Nikon's that are 24 MP as well (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/19/Nikon-D3200-with-WiFi-Option)

 

It has more to do with the sensor, which Apple DID update on the 5S - and would be a much less disingenuous way of upgrading the camera.  The sensor on phones is already terrible compared to high-end camera - so bumping the pixelage would create a tonne of noise

 

I think MP's are more "important" on the "entry level"  DSLR's.  Unless you are in to photography you don't know.  Our society is conditioned to think a higher number of anything is better.  (I'd mention our national debt but that's another topic completely. :lol:)  The pro's know and don't get caught up in all that stuff.

Years ago I bought a D60 instead of the venerable D40.  I don't remember the specific feature that made me choose it over the D40 but I do remember the D40 having better low light performance than it's replacement.  I think at the time I was looking for better cropping options and the higher MP gave that.  I use external flash's so low light performance wasn't an issue at the time.  Since flashes on phones are terrible I'd take better low light performance than higher MP's any day.

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #60 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.

 

You're right.  A $6,500 Nikon D4s is 16.2 Mp.  A $8,000 D3x is 24.5 MP.  Wouldn't surprise me to see the next Samsung Galaxy "whatever" advertise itself as the best camera on the market at 28 MP.  Sad thing is people (the press) will fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

It not just Nikon. The top of the line Canon 1D-X is 18.1 MP.  $7000.   We should mention that D4s is the newest Nikon DSLR.  Even newer then the mid range D800E (36 MP), $3300

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #61 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography.

Aren't these devices too small to offer a good 3D image with multiple lens? Or could they use some some or non-visual light or radio to bounce off objects to creating a map that it could then render as 3D?

What about an App Store app that uses multiple devices to take, analyze and then render a 3D image?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 152
ALL:

If a smartphone user is all about taking high-def pics this story may be of interest, otherwise the pixel density rat-race is a side issue to more important items such as battery life, screen size, new apps, etc.
post #63 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit View Post


Years ago I bought a D60 instead of the venerable D40.  I don't remember the specific feature that made me choose it over the D40 but I do remember the D40 having better low light performance than it's replacement. 

the D40 was the last (of many D70, D50, D70s, D40) 6MP CCD sensor designs in Nikon DSLR line.  D60 was one the first switch a newer 10 MP sensor (along with the D40x).

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #64 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Who are you even arguing with because no where in my post did I ever suggest they add a 8 MP FaceTime camera. It is easy to win arguments when you just make up crap you hoped the other person said instead of actually arguing with what was posted. I simply said they really need to improve over the current 1.2 MP which leaves a lot of room between 1.2 MP and 8 MP.

1.2 MP is ok for forever on a phone image never to be printed. I won't complain if it's bumped up but I'm not worried about it.
post #65 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

Due to the aspect ratio of 4K video - 16:9 and 21:9, if Apple sticks with the 4:3 ratio 8MP sensor in the next iPhone, it won't be able to incorporate 4K video even if it wanted too. It would require at least a 13MP 4:3 aspect ratio sensor to achieve that I think.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_(resolution)

Quote:
 4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines (8.3 megapixelsaspect ratio 16:9)

It's 8,294,400 pixels for a 4K 16:9 image.  It's a question of bandwidth - can the device take video at that bit rate, at 30fps?

 

Maths:  8,294,400 * 32bpp * 30fps = 949.22 MBytes/sec.  I doubt the flash storage can support that write rate - the MacPro6 can, but nothing else Apple ships at this time.  They'd either have to have crap color, or a crap framerate in order to get the throughput down:

 

8,294,400 * 24bpp * 30fps = 711.92 MBytes/sec

8,294,400 * 24bpp * 24fps = 569.53 MBytes/sec

 

Even at the 24-bit color / 24fps rate, you're still filling a 16GB iPhone with 4k video in half a minute.  Quite unlikely without a MASSIVE improvement in storage.  Of course, this is uncompressed video, so there would be gains with H.264 / H.265; but the point still stands - you have to be able to process all that data in realtime instead of storing it.


Edited by MachineShedFred - 3/20/14 at 11:22am
post #66 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

Recall Apple get a very high margin on selling higher capacity iDevices.  If Apple was doing this purely with the interest in reducing file size, it would have an effect of lowering the need for selling higher capacity iDevices; in effect lowering their margins.   If they were concerned about file size they could always down sample in iDevice, and actually they already do this when they send up your photos to iCloud (aka Photostream). The photos are all down sampled to iPad Retina resolution (which is about 3MP IIRC).

You obviously don't know Apple. They do things that make sense and they care about the user experience.

1) They would never just purposely dump megabytes of crap on your device in the interest of selling you a larger capacity one.

2) If the phone auto-down-samples the images in every export method (text, email, cloud, etc) EXCEPT through a hard cable to a PC, what's the point in having high megapixels?!

3) The processing overhead required to down-sample images that are 40MB large wastes much more battery life than the current process does

post #67 of 152
Originally Posted by dstarsboy View Post
2) If the phone auto-down-samples the images in every export method (text, email, cloud, etc) EXCEPT through a hard cable to a PC, what's the point in having high megapixels?!

 

You make a lot of sense here, but take the Nokia phone with 42 megapixels that ONLY takes downsampled images. Apparently those extra ones are just for getting “better quality” out of the downsampled pictures. 

 

I don’t know if that’s anywhere near true, and as it probably isn’t I’d much rather not waste time with such things anyway, but…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #68 of 152
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Somewhere around 24MP I believe.

My Lumix GH2 has "only" 16MP , yet every camera geek compare it not to other DSLR but professional RED camera.
post #69 of 152
I vote for 8Mp with improved sensors for low light and stabilization. File size for 8mpix is already big enough... Bigger files are just a pain to deal with. 4k video would be nice (Although I don't have a tv for it, and I imagine the file size would be brutal).
Can't wait to upgrade 4s to 6 this fall...
post #70 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I'm sorry mr. Perfect, I never realized you never made a mistake. Next time be less of a d-bag. (It's worth it). Still 1.2 MP is ok for forever on a phone image never to be printed. I won't complain if it's bumped up but I'm not worried about it.

You completely misrepresented what I said and created a fictitiously bogus straw man argument and got called out on it and I am a d-bag? I have no idea what you mean by " is ok for forever on a phone image never to be printed" My point stands. Apple need to also focus on improving the FaceTime camera as well as the rear one and I doubt few here would disagree with that statement. 

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #71 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstarsboy View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

 
Recall Apple get a very high margin on selling higher capacity iDevices.  If Apple was doing this purely with the interest in reducing file size, it would have an effect of lowering the need for selling higher capacity iDevices; in effect lowering their margins.   If they were concerned about file size they could always down sample in iDevice, and actually they already do this when they send up your photos to iCloud (aka Photostream). The photos are all down sampled to iPad Retina resolution (which is about 3MP IIRC).
You obviously don't know Apple. They do things that make sense and they care about the user experience.
1) They would never just purposely dump megabytes of crap on your device in the interest of selling you a larger capacity one.
2) If the phone auto-down-samples the images in every export method (text, email, cloud, etc) EXCEPT through a hard cable to a PC, what's the point in having high megapixels?!
3) The processing overhead required to down-sample images that are 40MB large wastes much more battery life than the current process does
I pretty sure I do know Apple. My statement about eating up storage was playing devil's advocate. As for your second point, I agree, however that is exactly what Nokia does in their 40MP camera in their phone (down samples to 5MP ).   For your 3rd point, I agree about needing to use battery but the fact of the matter is that is what Apple does to get photos from your iPhone camera into iCloud photo stream.   Waste battery, or Bandwidth sending full MP photo back and forth over the net. Those are your choices. Apple chose "Waste battery".

Ps. Down samples always get created for the thumbnails in the camera roll also.
Edited by snova - 3/20/14 at 11:34am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #72 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

But but...its all about the megapixels! More megapixels, means better photos!!!

/s

 

Remember the Megahertz Myth? Apple tried for years to convince the buying public that the speed of the processor was only one factor in system performance. Remember the PPC and its RISC instruction set that was more efficient than the Intel X86? But the buying public fell for the “faster is better” argument anyway. Remember when Apple (Jobs) finally succumbed to the myth? I certainly do since I purchased the water cooled G5 tower that leaked and fried the power supply about four years later.

 

This is the same thing happening again. It doesn’t matter that experts like Andy Ihnatko have declared the iPhone camera the best in the business because of the superior software the runs it. Joe and Judy walk into Best Buy and the sales drone quickly points out that the Samsung product has a 12 megapixel camera while the iPhone “only” has 8 megapixels. 

 

These things go both ways. Look at Apple going 64-bit and everyone else saying that it doesn't matter just to obfuscate the real changes Apple made which went beyond just 64-bit. 

 

Apple is getting better at this battle. Look at the commercials they put out with the 5S video quality and the commercials focusing on camera quality in general. Seeing is believing and people are starting to see that Apple focuses on quality and they don't have to look at a spec sheet before they buy. They are learning to trust Apple will deliver what they want without having to do a huge amount of technical research to buy a product. To me, that is a key point in that Apple is selling experiences and not specifications. Most Apple customers are buying experiences and not specifications at this point. 

post #73 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Here is my thinking on 4K video. The 8Mpx camera can already is equivalent to a 4K frame. And Apple recently hired that sole developer who wrote a clever app that would allow the device to take something like 10-20 8Mpx images per second. If Apple can use a faster sensor they could probably get that up to 30 still shots per second which would then be 30 frames per second for 4K video.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

Due to the aspect ratio of 4K video - 16:9 and 21:9, if Apple sticks with the 4:3 ratio 8MP sensor in the next iPhone, it won't be able to incorporate 4K video even if it wanted too. It would require at least a 13MP 4:3 aspect ratio sensor to achieve that I think.

 

 

What is the point of 4K unless you can store it and play it back at 30 fps? In order to do that they will likely need a faster processor and faster memory. I am waiting for the next GoPro which is rumored to have 4K and also 720 HD at 120 frames for super slowmo. Apparently it is a lot harder than many people think. You need a lot of horsepower.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #74 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineShedFred View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

Due to the aspect ratio of 4K video - 16:9 and 21:9, if Apple sticks with the 4:3 ratio 8MP sensor in the next iPhone, it won't be able to incorporate 4K video even if it wanted too. It would require at least a 13MP 4:3 aspect ratio sensor to achieve that I think.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_(resolution)

Quote:
 4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines (8.3 megapixelsaspect ratio 16:9)

It's 8,294,400 pixels for a 4K 16:9 image.  It's a question of bandwidth - can the device take video at that bit rate, at 30fps?

 

Maths:  8,294,400 * 32bpp * 30fps = 949.22 MBytes/sec.  I doubt the flash storage can support that write rate - the MacPro6 can, but nothing else Apple ships at this time.  They'd either have to have crap color, or a crap framerate in order to get the throughput down:

 

8,294,400 * 24bpp * 30fps = 711.92 MBytes/sec

8,294,400 * 24bpp * 24fps = 569.53 MBytes/sec

 

Even at the 24-bit color / 24fps rate, you're still filling a 16GB iPhone with 4k video in half a minute.  Quite unlikely without a MASSIVE improvement in storage.  Of course, this is uncompressed video, so there would be gains with H.264 / H.265; but the point still stands - you have to be able to process all that data in realtime instead of storing it.

 

Your argument is terrible. You don't store uncompressed video, so why cite the space it could take if it were sent to flash? You do know that Samsung supports 4K video right? You only need that bandwidth from the sensor to the hardware encoder. 

 

4K files are going to be roughly 4X the size of 1080p, but the final size is tied to the quality of the encoder.  I'm seeing lots of H.265 in this thread and people don't know how hard that is at the moment. It will start showing up as a decoder in mobile before you can do any reasonable resolution of encoding. I saw Cisco announced some new video conferencing  products that can encode H.265. It is worth noting that they said it was only point to point support. The same endpoints are multipoint capable with H.264 and a hosting system can decode, composite, and transcode 4 full 1080p streams for all four systems in a call in that scenario. That says quite a bit about the horsepower it requires to do H.265. We need to see some hardware decoders in SoCs, but they are still on the horizon. Obviously Apple could push it in first, but I'm not seeing that as a priority since you wouldn't be able to play the H.265 video on most devices. Same goes for 4K. Downscaling 4K to play everywhere just wastes resources. 

post #75 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

 

What is the point of 4K unless you can store it and play it back at 30 fps? In order to do that they will likely need a faster processor and faster memory. I am waiting for the next GoPro which is rumored to have 4K and also 720 HD at 120 frames for super slowmo. Apparently it is a lot harder than many people think. You need a lot of horsepower.

Agreed. Also, whats the point of 4K if it looks like crap because the sensor used to capture it was too small?  You could shoot at 1080p and linearly scale it up to 4K, and get about the same result in terms of quality with much less horsepower.  Effectively what "up converting" Bluray players do with DVDs. 

 

don't even get me started on audio quality and disk space and bandwidth required to transfer 4K video from a phone and once you have it do post. marketing insanity, even more so than the MP spec race on phones.


Edited by snova - 3/20/14 at 12:16pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #76 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Megapixel count still helps for digital zoom. Since most phones dont have optical zoom, you cant just discard that spec...


Most phones?  Has there ever been any smart phone with a true (focal length and perspective changing) optical zoom??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I don't think so.   I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months.   The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.

Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012.   Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s.   The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor.   Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP.      While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.   

 

The review I saw of the Sony Mirrorless line recommended the model with the smaller sensor for most photogs for most use cases....  ...regardless of the fact that the 24MP model is hundreds of $'s cheaper....


Edited by bigpics - 3/20/14 at 12:11pm

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #77 of 152

great to see this interview with Vincent Laforet about the need for 4K.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014108/article/Interview-Director-Pulitzer-Prizewinner-Vincent-LaForet-Part-2

 

In part 1 of this series he mentions how much to expect to pay for a decent 4K lens.    I'm not holding my breath thinking I need 4K video out of my phone.  Absolutely ridiculous.  

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #78 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post
 


Most phones?  Has there ever been any smart phone with a true (focal length and perspective changing) optical zoom??

 

 

Yes, in fact there have been dozens of phones with optical zoom and for quite a very long time. back before smart phones were even the rage my old Toshiba, Fujitsu, and Sharp clam shell type phones all had optical zoom. This was around the 1999-2004 timeframe. Most have been bulky though but they certainly existed. Just a few here

 

Images for phone with optical zoom camera

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #79 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

You make a lot of sense here, but take the Nokia phone with 42 megapixels that ONLY takes downsampled images. Apparently those extra ones are just for getting “better quality” out of the downsampled pictures. 

 

I don’t know if that’s anywhere near true, and as it probably isn’t I’d much rather not waste time with such things anyway, but…

The Lumia 1020 takes both a 5MP and 34(for 16:9)/38(for 4:3) picture. The 34/38 image is used for editing things including zoom. The purpose of the huge sensor, aside from generally sharper image quality, is to be able to zoom without having your phone look like this:

The 5MP oversampled image is for sharing via e-mail or social networks. 

 

The full high resolution photos from the Lumia 1020 range between 9 and 15MB each, with the smaller oversampled one coming in at 3MB.

Oversampling is Nokia's way of saying "taking roughly seven pixels and squashing them into one pixel".

 

But megapixels notwithstanding, it's still a great camera:

  • 41 megapixel sensor
  • Back-side illuminated (BSI) for low light performance
  • Motor-driven barrel shift optical image stabilization (OIS)
  • 6-lens ZEISS optics
  • Xenon flash (secondary LED for video, AF light)

along with manual pre-shot adjustments for ISO, white balance, exposure etc.

Source- WPCentral

 

post #80 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emes View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

You make a lot of sense here, but take the Nokia phone with 42 megapixels that ONLY takes downsampled images. Apparently those extra ones are just for getting “better quality” out of the downsampled pictures. 

 

I don’t know if that’s anywhere near true, and as it probably isn’t I’d much rather not waste time with such things anyway, but…

 

The 5MP oversampled image is for sharing via e-mail or social networks. 

 

oversampling sounds like a cool marketing term, certainly better than what is really happening which is "downsampling".    I'd like to know which social network they are talking about that lets you store 5MP images?  5MP is enough to print an 8x10 photo at full resolution.  Even Retina iPad screen is only 3MP. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple expected to sit out on megapixel horserace with 2014 iPhones