or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone 3.0 beta caught hiding video editing graphics?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone 3.0 beta caught hiding video editing graphics?

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
The founder of Austrian site Benm.at claims to have found multiple unused graphical controls that relate directly to video editing. Among the controls are grab points that would let users define the start and end of clips as well as repeating, tile graphics and references to an 'edit bar.'

Brought to English readers through Gizmodo, the rumor doesn't yet show an actual video editor but further supports evidence of video capturing as a staple feature in iPhone 3.0.

People familiar with Apple's plans have previously told AppleInsider that the camera in the next-genration iPhone should include video capture abilities, an assertion supported by a screen cap for MobileMe sync that alluded to uploading video.

More recently, alleged Taiwan insiders have also said that the camera itself may be upgraded to 3.2 megapxiels, suggesting that upgraded hardware video performance is just as important to Apple as software features.

The list of supposed video editing graphics. | Image credits: Benm.at.

Apple has typically downplayed the importance of the iPhone's camera and has kept the same 2-megapixel camera since its handset's introduction in June 2007; the absence has drawn criticism from those noting that significantly less expensive phones have had video recordings in place for years. More direct competitors to the iPhone, like LG's Viewty, have even made on-camera editing a central feature rather than one feature among many.
post #2 of 43
Let's just shoe horn in a 5 MP camera and be done with it. I find 4 MP is the least I can use and be happy.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #3 of 43
I hope they split iPhone into 2 classes - one focused on being as small as possible (while keeping the same screen) and second with included a decent camera with glass lenses etc. I believe we could expect pretty cool photo applications with interesting functionality if the camera was good enough and the processor powerful enough.
post #4 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Let's just shoe horn in a 5 MP camera and be done with it. I find 4 MP is the least I can use and be happy.

I'm curious about this, assuming you're serious.

What is it about 4MP, on a camera phone, that makes you happy over, say, 3.2MP? Are you making very large prints from your phone?

I ask because the difference in resolution, even without the oft discusses downside of simply cramming more pixels onto a tiny imager, would be invisible for the uses phone images are generally put to-- as an MMS attachment, or uploaded to Flickr, or a Facebook page, or simply shown around on the phone's screen, etc.

I doubt most people could tell the difference between a 3.2MP camera and a 4MP camera until you were comparing 8x10 prints, and even then the difference would be subtle.

Are people making 8x10 prints from their phones?

As has been discussed (to death) elsewhere, a good (or better) lens and superior processing can yield a far better image from a 3.2MP imager than a mediocre lens and processing can from a 4MP, or 5MP one, so it actually doesn't make any sense to speak of having some threshold of MP to get a satisfactory image, without knowing about the entire image chain.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #5 of 43
I'd be more excited to hear about processing speed and RAM improvements. Video editing on the iPhone is pretty cool, but I can't see myself using it much at all (video chat, on the other hand, would be stellar). Would much rather Apple go for the bullet points that the Pre has over the iPhone at the moment and one-up Palm entirely, rather than focus too too much on video.
post #6 of 43
I'd be happy if Apple even kept the same resolution as long they can get the image to carry more detail, i.e. be sharper without any filters. The current iPhone camera loses most of the resolution to blurring, I usually have to bring the image resolution down to 1/4 and then sharpen.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #7 of 43
There are already lots of photo editing Apps available including some with professional level filters.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm curious about this, assuming you're serious.
What is it about 4MP, on a camera phone, that makes you happy over, say, 3.2MP? Are you making very large prints from your phone?

The importance of having high megapixels for such a small camera is only important to those people that truly believe size matters. They are in denial, believing the higher pixel count will result in an improvement in quality. Next thing they will want is the ability to record HD video for 90 minutes because without it, NO SALE!

If the photo is important enough, I'll take a real SLR camera or even a more compact camera with a bigger optical lens. Phone cameras (not just iPhone) will not have the quality of dedicated cameras. There's just not enough real-estate on the imaging chip to cleanly handle all those pixels without introducing noise. Critics can continue making their case until they're blue in the face but the reality will be the same. Don't expect higher-quality.

I'm happy with the quality of the photos my iPhone takes. I have very little expectations for such a small camera. That makes life a lot easier to deal with.

iPhone OS3.0 nonetheless will be very interesting to see!
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by wessan View Post

I hope they split iPhone into 2 classes - one focused on being as small as possible (while keeping the same screen) and second with included a decent camera with glass lenses etc. I believe we could expect pretty cool photo applications with interesting functionality if the camera was good enough and the processor powerful enough.

I think a better way may be leave the iPhone to have a small camera like the current one, and wait for companies to make a camera add-on "jacket", now that the next API includes support to control the dock connector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

As has been discussed (to death) elsewhere, a good (or better) lens and superior processing can yield a far better image from a 3.2MP imager than a mediocre lens and processing can from a 4MP, or 5MP one, so it actually doesn't make any sense to speak of having some threshold of MP to get a satisfactory image, without knowing about the entire image chain.

I agree, the problem is that it's so easy to market a single number, and that helps people to forget what makes a camera work and the real reasons why one is better than another.
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think a better way may be leave the iPhone to have a small camera like the current one, and wait for companies to make a camera add-on "jacket", now that the next API includes support to control the dock connector.

I think that will be a bigger market than people are expecting at this point. With the processing power and display you could potentially get a very good camera at a reasonable price because most of the costly HW, save for the lens, could remain in the iPhone. And if we assume that the Touch will not get a camera this time around this could be even be a bigger market.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm curious about this, assuming you're serious.

What is it about 4MP, on a camera phone, that makes you happy over, say, 3.2MP? Are you making very large prints from your phone?

&c. .

I'll second that addabox. The Megapixel Myth is a way of getting you to buy a new camera every year (coz "8MP is so much 'better' that 5MP; 5MP is so last year" etc.). However, I tested various resolutions on my Canon Powershot, and Pentax compact before that, and found that there was no visible difference between a shot taken at 2MP and one of the same image shot at 7 MP *for onscreen viewing of the whole image*. A 5MP on a phone would be more than a bit silly - indeed, I have the DSLR set to 5MP (and lowest compression) for everyday shots and it's more than enough.
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by wessan View Post

I hope they split iPhone into 2 classes - one focused on being as small as possible (while keeping the same screen) and second with included a decent camera with glass lenses etc. I believe we could expect pretty cool photo applications with interesting functionality if the camera was good enough and the processor powerful enough.

Yes- if you want a camera, it requires a reshaping. As such, I'd be interested in an Apple camera-iPod, but they need to keep the iPhone as is.

I can imagine the iPhone LCD being the entire back of a camera, and the camera being much thicker with a good lense, even optical zoom. But it's not a phone. It might have 3G connectivity, GPS for locations on photos, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think a better way may be leave the iPhone to have a small camera like the current one, and wait for companies to make a camera add-on "jacket", now that the next API includes support to control the dock connector.

That's really interesting.
A jacket with some extra battery life, better lense etc.

I wonder if there's value in a digital camera with no screen, little memory and few buttons - such that you can take GREAT photos through the eye-piece, which then (through bluetooth) transfer to the iPhone. More likely however that someone would build a standard $150 camera working like every other camera - but with bluetooth to allow configuration from the iPhone and to move pics off the camera.
post #13 of 43
it would be nice to just record a video and post it up to say... youtube or mobileme right when the event is happening... autofocus would be greatly appreciated... but just the software ability to edit and post videos is an awesome idea!!!
post #14 of 43
I have to say that I can't understand why all the articles about the camera going to 3.32 MP just HAVE to say that this will benefit video. It won't.

Unless Apple is going to do pixel binning ( adding adjacent pixels together for lower rez but better s/n dynamic range after processing), going to 3.2 MP will add nothing of value to video. As pixel binning is processor costly, I would hope that they up the cpu power considerably if they do that.

As for editing:

I'd like black point, white point, brightness, gamma, and color.

Otherwise, the ability to set the endpoints to clips, and paste various clips together would be great. So would the ability to lower the IQ, or the resolution of the movie to cut transmission time down.

The last thing would be the ability to add a title sequence to the beginning, and an ending sequence.
post #15 of 43
Those look a lot like the "trim" ui bits from the new voice memo app. Has anyone checked to see if that's a match?
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I have to say that I can't understand why all the articles about the camera going to 3.32 MP just HAVE to say that this will benefit video. It won't.

In fact most people I speak to are surprised that HD TV is actually "2 megapixel"!
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

In fact most people I speak to are surprised that HD TV is actually "2 megapixel"!

Yeah but 2megapexil of a still image and 2megapixel of a video are not the same.
On video you have at least 24 frame/s which are used to reduce noise.

I would be happy with a 3.2. Getting higher as no meaning, it would need a good autofocus and so on...

However, what about the iPod Touch getting the camera this time !?
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukei View Post

I would be happy with a 3.2. Getting higher as no meaning, it would need a good autofocus and so on...

My wife has a 12MP digital SLR camera - and she blows her pictures up for printing quite often. She's also a graphic designer. I'm really just saying people don't understand what the numbers mean when it comes to their practical/real-world meaning.

And of course I agree that the megapixels aren't the key factor in a camera phone ... the lense, focus, etc are more important.
post #19 of 43
Broadcast television is either 720 30P or 1080 60i. You are correct that the moving image has more temporal resolution. Temporal resolution doesn't eliminate noise, it improves perceived sharpness.

Actually a still 2MP image is more likely to be sharper than a frame of HD. The still image was likely posed for and had a longer exposure than a video frame. The video frame is more likely to have less exposure and motion blur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukei View Post

Yeah but 2megapexil of a still image and 2megapixel of a video are not the same.
On video you have at least 24 frame/s which are used to reduce noise.
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Yes- if you want a camera, it requires a reshaping. As such, I'd be interested in an Apple camera-iPod, but they need to keep the iPhone as is.

I can imagine the iPhone LCD being the entire back of a camera, and the camera being much thicker with a good lense, even optical zoom. But it's not a phone. It might have 3G connectivity, GPS for locations on photos, etc

I think Apple's aim here is to engineer the hell out of somewhat minimal parts to get that same "larger camera quality" in a smaller, more energy efficient package, and to use technological innovation to overcome things like the need for a good lens. The OmniVision parts do exactly that.

Apple will probably come out with a point and shoot camera capability that's good enough to make excellent colour prints that will sync to your computer automatically and likely print over bluetooth to whatever printer is in the area. That alone will make a lot of people second guess the need for even buying a new camera the next time their digital goes belly up.

The video camera capability will probably be 720p along with the ability to upload it or edit/save it, or send it to your friends. It would already be quite easy to get the same kind of quality out of the proposed parts as the average consumer video camera. Future updates will only make the quality better. Considering the things it's generally used for, I could see a lot of people *never* buying another video camera after buying something like this.

The iPhone camera on the 3G with 2mp was miles above a regular cell-phone picture in quality and sharpness even cells that used the same part for the camera. If the video quality is even above "regular" cellphone video quality by the same amount it will be a huge hit. Indications so far, are that the actual quality will be much higher than even that.

The camera or video camera as a separate device is history IMO. The abilities of this proposed video iPhone are already snapping at the heels of the market, it's only a matter off technology and time before the camera becomes as ubiquitous as the digital calculator and a similar "drop-in" part for portable devices.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #21 of 43
I think Apple is not just going to make it easy to upload videos to YouTube, but that YT and Apple have a live streaming service planned like Qik on steroids.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #22 of 43
1,000,000,000 handsets sold every year. That's a 1 with 9 zeros behind it.

I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.

What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.

Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by eh270 View Post

Those look a lot like the "trim" ui bits from the new voice memo app. Has anyone checked to see if that's a match?

Exactly what I was thinking.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg Thurman View Post

1,000,000,000 handsets sold every year. That's a 1 with 9 zeros behind it.

I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.

What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.

Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.

Ouch! That's one in the eye for the Feature Creatures!

I'm so disappointed, though, to learn that Apple isn't reading this prestigious journal to guide their product designs. I mean we could have something the size of a high-resolution-screen flip-open house brick with a 10MP concertina zooming camera, chock-a-block covered in buttons and blinking lights. (With apologies to Heath Robinson)
-Enz

ed on, that in case you find Heath to a bit of a stretch
Quote:
One of the automatic analysis machines built for Bletchley Park during the Second World War to assist in the decryption of German message traffic was named "Heath Robinson" in his honour. It was a direct predecessor to the Colossus, the world's first programmable digital electronic computer.- WikiP.
post #25 of 43
Letting you guys know... they are the guides for the VOICE editing in the 3.0 beta.

They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.

Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.

Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...

Just looking at it from both angles
post #26 of 43
Now that the dock connector and other iPhone OS 3 features are somewhat known, I foresee the day when my DSLR can act as a tether, or remote control to the camera. Imagine a photographer in the studio with live preview on his Nikon D3 and a wifi connection to the iPhone acting as a remote controller to the D3. He could stand next to his subject making lighting changes and then check his iPhone. Wonder if Nikon and Canon have SDK's to make this work with iPhone.
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by petermac View Post

Now that the dock connector and other iPhone OS 3 features are somewhat known, ... Wonder if Nikon and Canon have SDK's to make this work with iPhone.

Don't have an answer to that but I might add here that the twin-lens Kodak I bought for my daughter a few years back could send and receive photos to and from my other daughter's high-end (for 2006) phone... over Bluetooth. I think the possibilities of Bluetooth / WiFi on the iPhone (with the full power of OSX) for controlling and communicating with other devices (like *real* cameras, cars, toasters, fridges, scientific/medical equipment &c.) cannot be overstated.

-Enz
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

I think Apple is not just going to make it easy to upload videos to YouTube, but that YT and Apple have a live streaming service planned like Qik on steroids.

I totally agree. I see the next iPhone will be branded 'iPhone Video' or 'iPhone You Tube'.
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm curious about this, assuming you're serious.
As has been discussed (to death) elsewhere, a good (or better) lens and superior processing can yield a far better image from a 3.2MP imager than a mediocre lens and processing can from a 4MP, or 5MP one, so it actually doesn't make any sense to speak of having some threshold of MP to get a satisfactory image, without knowing about the entire image chain.

And more to the point, the sharpness of a lens' "point spread function" is determined not only by the lens' quality but also its diameter. A lens as small as those found on the back of smart phones can only support a certain resolution. After you get below that width, you are just adding more "blurry" dots.

This is just like the CPU MHz (now GHZ) battle. People just jump at the highest number without realizing it does them no good if something else is the limiting factor.

Thompson
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

T
More recently, alleged Taiwan insiders have also said that the camera itself may be upgraded to 3.2 megapxiels, suggesting that upgraded hardware video performance is just as important to Apple as software features..

Sigh. These two stories are clearly not related. For video, the LAST thing you want is more pixels.

It's simple physics. The more pixels you have, the less light falls on each one. That makes it harder to process the image. Furthermore, for video you're likely to want to cap out at 640x480, so all those pixels have to be interpreted in software in order to get a reasonable image.

It is much more likely that they will add a dedicated video sensor, likely on the front face.

Maury
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

There are already lots of photo editing Apps available including some with professional level filters.

The only thing I dislike about Apple speculation is, you can think, hmm vide, must mean video chat then it turns out it's more like "share you video moments on .mac" LOL
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

Letting you guys know... they are the guides for the VOICE editing in the 3.0 beta.

They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.

Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.

Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...

Just looking at it from both angles

This is sad, if true.

Could someone confirm this with some evidence though? They are labelled as "movie editing" buttons in the firmware after all.

The only screenshot I've been able to find for voice editing is this one which seems to *not* use the discovered "movie" icons in it's interface. Does anyone have a screenshot of these icons actually being used in a voice editing app?

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Broadcast television is either 720 30P or 1080 60i. You are correct that the moving image has more temporal resolution. Temporal resolution doesn't eliminate noise, it improves perceived sharpness.

Actually a still 2MP image is more likely to be sharper than a frame of HD. The still image was likely posed for and had a longer exposure than a video frame. The video frame is more likely to have less exposure and motion blur.

Plus the video frame is interlaced which means you really only get half the lines of resolution

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #34 of 43
I would much prefer to have a fairly high quality 720 x 480p SD video, tan a lower IQ720p video that will also eat up the memory too quickly. Plus, sending such a video will be a nightmare, even at 7.2 Mp/s.

It would have to be shrunk down. Who has a cell that has a 720x 480 screen? No one. There are a couple with 640 x 480, but even then, do they really need such a high quality video of someone's soon to be forgotten crap they're sent? It would have to be highly compressed to be of any immediate use.

For saving the video to computer, a higher IQ file would be needed, but for sending over the airwaves, no way.

Truth is, I'd be happy with a high quality 480 x 320.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Are people making 8x10 prints from their phones?


I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.

some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.

If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.



I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbeta View Post

I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.

some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.

If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.



I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery

It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.

Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.

There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.

Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.

There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.


That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbeta View Post

That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)

No. There isn't any such device.

The cheapest you could spend is about $450 for the cheapest D-SLR.

No compact allows for that other than a couple that cost even more, and are more difficult to use.

All other compacts have small sensors, though much bigger than the ones in phones, and can get to ISO 200 with good noise, 400 with usable noise, and higher with unusable noise. that eliminates "good" night shots, because the flashes on those cameras have little range.

A few have add-on lenses which lower the optical IQ to the point where anything over 6 x 8 prints look pretty bad.

Good video is relative. compared to what? Most offer fair to middling video IQ.
post #39 of 43
it looks like they might go after the flip, tying everything, like others have mentioned here, with iLife... i'll buy
The world belongs to who wants it , now who deserves it.
Reply
The world belongs to who wants it , now who deserves it.
Reply
post #40 of 43
I may be reading this wrong or misunderstanding but here goes:
I think this was the reason that we haven't seen video. For photo it has the photo application and they needed, well wanted, to do something similar for video, and taking it a step further by allowing editing. I've used the "video editing" if they can be called that, features on some phones, and they are more or less unusable. I think this is what Apple is trying to improve on the iPhone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone 3.0 beta caught hiding video editing graphics?