or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Future iPhones may use optical image stabilization to create 'super-resolution' images
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Future iPhones may use optical image stabilization to create 'super-resolution' images - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Love Vermeer's work. Beautifully rendered lives of often ordinary people.

Me too. Personally, if he used science to help, all power to him. It doesn't distract from the work to me at all.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Personal example I have to prove your point. In the days of dark rooms and chemicals when i was a teenager, I totally gave up on extreme shallow DOF macro photography which I longed to perfect. Only when I got to see the 8 x 10 would i discover the focus just missed the tip of a fern frond or a butterfly's antennae. It was too costly and frustrating for me. Thanks to DSLRs, preview zoom and IS and so on, now 40 years later, I can select which part of the antennae is in focus and know what the results will look like as I take the photograph.

Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.

Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Super-resolution images only if you hold the light-weight device even steadier than you have to already.

Yep I see highly mixed results for a number of reasons.

Which brings up another question/complaint/want, when will Apple come up with a standardized mounting system? 1/4-20 is probably too big so maybe something different like a dovetail that uses an adapter to existing tripod 1/4-20 studs. As camera quality increases there is a real benefit to being able to use tripods and other camera mounts.
post #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.

Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.

Couldn't agree more.

I never got my hands on the sort of camera you describe, I'd have loved that. Yes with 35 mm it was a lost cause. The only work a round was taking many shots and hoping you nailed one, not exactly a very artistic approach plus as a poverty stricken student I could't afford the film, paper or chemicals for that approach. The other problem was I was trying to use real subjects such as a mossy bank by a river and natural light, of course there was always air movement. Now I realize I should have taken chunks of real life back to a controlled studio environment but back then I was too idealistic and that would have seemed cheating. lol
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

The trouble with this approach, as I see it, is that you most need stabilisation in low light, when the camera is going to have to resort to a slow shutter speed.  A slow shutter speed makes it rather difficult to take multiple exposures in a reasonable time frame.

 

It will be very interesting to see if this makes it into production and how effective it will be.

 

Olympus make cameras with OIS that is bordering on magic.

It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...

 

All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics.  Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane.  In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels.  I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago.  This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque.  Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet.  The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.

 

By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics.  This is a great thing.  It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.

 

Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.

 

Thompson

post #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Yep I see highly mixed results for a number of reasons.

Which brings up another question/complaint/want, when will Apple come up with a standardized mounting system? 1/4-20 is probably too big so maybe something different like a dovetail that uses an adapter to existing tripod 1/4-20 studs. As camera quality increases there is a real benefit to being able to use tripods and other camera mounts.

Get your design to Kickstarter ASAP. 1smile.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #47 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Me too. Personally, if he used science to help, all power to him. It doesn't distract from the work to me at all.

 

His ability to maintain context and contact displayed brilliance. We are so much better off for his toils through adversity.

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 #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...

All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics.  Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane.  In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels.  I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago.  This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque.  Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet.  The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.

By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics.  This is a great thing.  It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.

Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.

Thompson

I think optics is exactly where Apple seems to be working the hardest just now.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #49 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...

 

All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics.  Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane.  In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels.  I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago.  This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque.  Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet.  The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.

 

By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics.  This is a great thing.  It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.

 

Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.

 

Thompson

 

Apple might be taking on a moveable lens (for focussing), which would permit faster optics and I think, a better PSF. Have to think about this but it's after midnight here, so... :\

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 #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Have you any idea how much more we photographers are willing to pay for IS on a Canon pro lens? Do you think they dumb down the DSLRs?

We aren't talking about DSLR's are we? We are talking about image stabilization that will be put into a phone and the sure to follow marking barrage that will suddenly convince the unknowing that they too can shoot like a pro. As for knowing about the cost of IS in a pro lens, I know quite well, considering I have: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 15mm Fisheye f/2.8. That's roughly $19k in lenses. All image stabilized except the 24-70mm. So yeah, I know a bit or two about the cost of image stabilized lenses.

post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

His ability to maintain context and contact displayed
 brilliance. We are so much better off for his toils through adversity.

BTW, have you seen the new film regarding the likely use of the camera obscurer in his work? I know it has long been a theory but this new documentary, which in no way tries to diminish the art, seems to confirm it pretty much. It explains the super human ability with perspective not common in the day, I suspect a chap called Leo in Italy a few centuries earlier also figured this out.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I take it you're still using a pinhole camera and wet plates? Those guys were real photographers, but they were accused of dumbing down painting.

Sorry, was in the darkroom and couldn't come out until just now. As from my post above, I have nothing wrong with IS in a camera or phone. My "problem" is that this will give the impression that the average house wife can just pick up an iPhone and shoot images just like a pro. Throw in a filter or 7 and that's all it takes.

post #53 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

We aren't talking about DSLR's are we? We are talking about image stabilization that will be put into a phone and the sure to follow marking barrage that will suddenly convince the unknowing that they too can shoot like a pro. As for knowing about the cost of IS in a pro lens, I know quite well, considering I have: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 15mm Fisheye f/2.8. That's roughly $19k in lenses. All image stabilized except the 24-70mm. So yeah, I know a bit or two about the cost of image stabilized lenses.

I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.

Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.

Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding .... 1biggrin.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Sorry, was in the darkroom and couldn't come out until just now. As from my post above, I have nothing wrong with IS in a camera or phone. My "problem" is that this will give the impression that the average house wife can just pick up an iPhone and shoot images just like a pro. Throw in a filter or 7 and that's all it takes.

That sounds a bit defensive to me. You over estimate the general public, they don't read the manuals, they don't know what their iPhones do, they just take pictures. They are not trying to be pros so relax 1wink.gif

Wait a minute .... DARK ROOM????? WTF?
Edited by digitalclips - 5/8/14 at 10:04am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #55 of 87

this doesn't sound battery friendly; multiple pictures, more processing.

 

why is battery technology so crappy.

 

there's nobel prize out there somewhere.

post #56 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

The guy behind the video toaster (if you are old enough to remember that) made it.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/tim-jenison-johannes-vermeer/#!K5vHI

Very interesting. I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way. Actually, the first transistor radio, the first SLR, well, you get the idea.
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Very interesting. I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way. Actually, the first transistor radio, the first SLR, well, you get the idea.

Talking of old video systems, back in the early 1970s I had access to a 1 inch reel to reel black and white video deck to play with that Proctor and Gamble threw out when they upgraded. Seeing TV from a tape at the time blew my mind. Amongst the tapes were some of their old TV commercials, interestingly not all their own products, including one I recall from years earlier ... 'You''ll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent" I wish I had kept that thing!
Edited by digitalclips - 5/8/14 at 3:52pm
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #58 of 87
I give up. I can't top that ^ . Was it an Ampex?

But I do remember the commercial, the American version anyway. What was the commercial TV in the UK at the time?
post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.

Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.

Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding .... 1biggrin.gif

Well Nikon does make the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market. It is so good that Canon users buy adapter rings to mount it. Losing AF, and metering. Just say... I won't mention my D800 or D4. Still just saying... :)

post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I give up. I can't top that ^ . Was it an Ampex?

But I do remember the commercial, the American version anyway. What was the commercial TV in the UK at the time?

That commercial ran in the 1950's here I seem to recall, on the one and only TV station that ran ads, ITV. P&G must have been studying the competition. I am wracking my brains to recall the make, it could well have been Ampex. The machine had been in a cupboard for years I am sure when I got my hands on it.

EDIT : said ran 'here' meaning UK but I've been 'here' 25 years in the States ... Freudian slip!
Edited by digitalclips - 5/8/14 at 3:53pm
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #61 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Well Nikon does make the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market. It is so good that Canon users buy adapter rings to mount it. Losing AF, and metering. Just say... I won't mention my D800 or D4. Still just saying... 1smile.gif

I was a Nikon devotee in film days but for some reason I forget, moved to Canon for DSLRs. They are both great companies. I spent the last few months messing with DSLRs for video and ended up with a ton of extra gadgets to get it to be useable, I eventually caved and bought a new Sony 4K dedicated video camera. I did buy a nice 17 -55 F/2.8 IS USM lens originally for just for video on the Canons but I don't regret that, I love the lens anyway. In the end I just want to get footage to play with on my new Mac Pro and FCP X 1biggrin.gif

Back on C v N though, the pro shooters seem to overwhelmingly use Canon for some reason these days, any idea why? Here is my favorite post on the subject from a guy I respect immensely:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
Edited by digitalclips - 5/8/14 at 1:16pm
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


BTW, have you seen the new film regarding the likely use of the camera obscurer in his work? I know it has long been a theory but this new documentary, which in no way tries to diminish the art, seems to confirm it pretty much. It explains the super human ability with perspective not common in the day, I suspect a chap called Leo in Italy a few centuries earlier also figured this out.

 

The film, called "Tim's Vermeer," was really great. My wife had just read a positive review and thought we should check it out. I didn't know whether it was a drama or what, and I was prepared to be somewhat bored. I was very pleasantly surprised.

 

I think there are still some out there that think Vermeer "cheated" by using an optical rig, but the take away (mine anyway) was that what Vermeer did was more like photography before photography was even invented. Like any artist, he still had to carefully compose his scenes and pay attention to lighting. Of course, the other name in the title, Tim Jenison of Video Toaster/LightWave/TriCaster fame, is a pretty amazing talent too. What a lot of work he put into this!

 
It's directed by Teller of Penn & Teller, with Penn narrating. I'd say it's somewhat appropriate to have illusionists take an interest in this and make this film. 
 

For anyone that is interested in the intersection of art and science, I highly recommend it. 

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post

The film, called "Tim's Vermeer," was really great. My wife had just read a positive review and thought we should check it out. I didn't know whether it was a drama or what, and I was prepared to be somewhat bored. I was very pleasantly surprised.

I think there are still some out there that think Vermeer "cheated" by using an optical rig, but the take away (mine anyway) was that what Vermeer did was more like photography before photography was even invented. Like any artist, he still had to carefully compose his scenes and pay attention to lighting. Of course, the other name in the title, Tim Jenison of Video Toaster/LightWave/TriCaster fame, is a pretty amazing talent too. What a lot of work he put into this!
 
It's directed by Teller of Penn & Teller, with Penn narrating. I'd say it's somewhat appropriate to have illusionists take an interest in this and make this film. 
 
For anyone that is interested in the intersection of art and science, I highly recommend it. 

I agree totally with your take.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

 

Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths.  1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more.  Which is why I mentioned it being near magic.  I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.

 


And if they did they would be following in existing footsteps:

 

http://www.gizmag.com/samsung-liquid-zoom-lens-plans/16851/

 

in 2010.

 

 

Prior art, oil and water immersion microscopy as has been done for decades.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #65 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Personal example I have to prove your point. In the days of dark rooms and chemicals when i was a teenager, I totally gave up on extreme shallow DOF macro photography which I longed to perfect. Only when I got to see the 8 x 10 would i discover the focus just missed the tip of a fern frond or a butterfly's antennae. It was too costly and frustrating for me. Thanks to DSLRs, preview zoom and IS and so on, now 40 years later, I can select which part of the antennae is in focus and know what the results will look like as I take the photograph.

 

You can also stack focal "slices" in software to create macro shots with a deeper depth of field, but only when everything is held very still.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.

Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.

 

I took a photo at a football game of a try being scored right in front of me after waiting over an hour, got a beautiful, crisp clear in focus shot...

 

...of some guy in front of me's cap, with all the action in a blurry background.

 

Damn it ;)

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #67 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...

 

All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics.  Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane.  In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels.  I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago.  This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque.  Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet.  The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.

 

By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics.  This is a great thing.  It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.

 

Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.

 

Thompson

 

Current phone megapixel race:-

 

Sony Xperia Z2 20.4

Samsung Galaxy S5 16

iPhone 5s 8

HTC One M8 4

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Current phone megapixel race:-

Sony Xperia Z2 20.4
Samsung Galaxy S5 16
iPhone 5s 8
HTC One M8 4

That's sensor resolution, if the optics among other things don't produce that effective resolution, the sensor's not going to be much benefit. The Galaxy S5 camera doesn't look to be any better than the 5S:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/iphone-5s-vs-galaxy-s5

The Lumia 1020 had a 42 megapixel sensor and it at least delivered on the quality somewhat:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/nokia-lumia-1020_Mobile-Phone_review_camera-image-quality_Page-4

"First, let’s tackle optical image stabilisation. The Lumia 1020’s lens ‘floats’, in that it can be tilted many times a second using tiny motors that live in the phone’s camera housing. This lets the phone take sharp (or relatively sharp) images using longer exposure times without using a tripod.

However, when shooting people OIS is far less useful. A longer shutter speed turns moving limbs into blurs. Unless your shots are entirely posed, OIS does not result in good low-light photos of people."
post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I took a photo at a football game of a try being scored right in front of me after waiting over an hour, got a beautiful, crisp clear in focus shot...

...of some guy in front of me's cap, with all the action in a blurry background.

Damn it 1wink.gif

That's where light field optics (https://www.lytro.com) would be nice. Imagine opening the RAW image in Aperture (future version of course) and moving the focal plane back to your player and increasing the DOF till it was just right for the ball. I really believe that technology will come from Apple one day.
Edited by digitalclips - 5/8/14 at 3:57pm
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


That's where light field optics (https://www.lytro.com) would be nice. Imagine opening the RAW image in Aperture (future version of course) and moving the focal plane back to your player and increasing the DOF till it was just right for the ball. I really believe that technology will come from Apple one day.

 

This was a Sony NEX 7 using a 300mm lens, I had it set to take fast action shots as no time to manually adjust focus, the cap guy jumped up cheering just as I snapped it.

 

The joys of photography from the stands.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Wait a minute .... DARK ROOM????? WTF?

He was making a joke at the pinhole comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way.

I loved Betamax. So much better than VHS. Stupid porn killed that off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Back on C v N though, the pro shooters seem to overwhelmingly use Canon for some reason these days, any idea why?

Supposedly women buy Canon because their cameras usually are lighter. Other than that, I have no foundation, preference, myself. I only have Nikon, but that's because a friend of mine used to work there and I got everything half price, sometimes even less.
Quote:
Here is my favorite post on the subject from a guy I respect immensely:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

I like Ken as well, been reading his site close to 10 years now. Donate him yearly. He's quite controversial, so not for everyone.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

This was a Sony NEX 7 using a 300mm lens, I had it set to take fast action shots as no time to manually adjust focus, the cap guy jumped up cheering just as I snapped it.

The joys of photography from the stands.

OK but my point was one day you'd be able to correct that in post I hope with Light Field technology. I have to think Apple are looking at this and now they are embracing my other passion, larger sensors, by hiring Ari Partinen my hopes are even higher. Apple are thinking outside the box and ignoring Pixel Myth nut jobs.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

He was making a joke at the pinhole comment.
I loved Betamax. So much better than VHS. Stupid porn killed that off.
Supposedly women buy Canon because their cameras usually are lighter. Other than that, I have no foundation, preference, myself. I only have Nikon, but that's because a friend of mine used to work there and I got everything half price, sometimes even less.
I like Ken as well, been reading his site close to 10 years now. Donate him yearly. He's quite controversial, so not for everyone.


"Supposedly women buy Canon because their cameras usually are lighter" hahaha ... Oh so beneath you 1wink.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

LOL

Then there was Johannes Vermeer who seems to have had the best of both worlds. 1biggrin.gif

Ha! So says the dumbed down iPad painter David Hockney, if I'm not mistaken.

Awwww, I love David Hockney. He captures the English countryside so well.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 5/9/14 at 1:56pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

LOL


Then there was Johannes Vermeer who seems to have had the best of both worlds. 1biggrin.gif

Love Vermeer's work. Beautifully rendered lives of often ordinary people.

Me too. And haven't his paintings been described as photo-realistic?
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkqd1337 View Post

this doesn't sound battery friendly; multiple pictures, more processing.

why is battery technology so crappy.

there's nobel prize out there somewhere.

Ha, yes. Battery technology is a real block. It seems to me that there's been no significant improvement for decades. Gradual, yes. Will the day ever come that we can make batteries that last miles longer than today? We can only dream.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Me too. And haven't his paintings been described as photo-realistic?

Check out the movie referred to earlier in the thread regarding the Photorealism ... fascinating.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Owwww, I love David Hockney. He captures the English countryside so well.

Agreed, I was being sarcastic about Hockney, since the topic was technology vs. "authentic" artistic struggle. He's done wonders for the iPad as a serious creation device.
post #79 of 87
Interesting idea. Seems like the biggest challenge will be overcoming user hand movements in a manner that's accurate enough to still guarantee that the incremental angles are as intended. The other problem is the change in angle to the subject from handheld translation issues, with phones being held at arms-length and dealing with normal movements on the order of 1-cm.

Seems like some clever software could get around these issues though, and it could fake the rest.

The other benefit is that you're looking at the ability to stack images, so resolution can go up just from the increase in contrast and correcting for any noise in the image.

Strange to call this "existing IOS tech" when so much is being added, from a hardware perspective, even in the very unlikely event of re-using a sensor.

I'm sure the Nokia camera guy will accelerate this action.
post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

"Supposedly women buy Canon because their cameras usually are lighter" hahaha ... Oh so beneath you 1wink.gif

I took this photography workshop last year and 2 women in our group of 8 said so. Not that makes it true, I was just surprised that someone else agreed with her while the difference is so small:

Nikon D7000: 24.3 oz. (690 g)
Canon EOS 60D 26.6 oz./ 755g

But I guess it was just a tongue in cheek humor (?)
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Future iPhones may use optical image stabilization to create 'super-resolution' images