This will never be as good as dedicated device. What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone. The comment you are replying to is a pointless exercise. For that poster it was good enough for them.
Most will not tread though the thick booklets and they will not bother to navigate through the UI looking for the correct settings much less know what the best settings in a situation are. They have no idea what is a macro in relation to photography, know what an RGB histogram is or even know what an ISO is. If you attempt to teach them all they'll ask you is "How do I take a picture?"
Every camera, even SLR's have an auto mode - turn it on, put it in auto, and hit the shutter button.
For most people, that's all they do. If you want to get creative and/or start taking great pics, you put it on A/S/M, because isn't the end all be all.
This is an ugraded sensor in a phone. It's good for what it is.
About halfway down you will see the video in the page, just about it there is a link you can use to download the .mov file.
Looking at that file frame by frame, it is surprisingly good for a mini video camera, and very good for a phone. It blows the EVO out of the water, and at least for that lighting condition, it appears to be a game changer and a real threat to the flip and other budget video devices.
What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone.
Not true at all. The size and quality of the lenses and sensors shows up no matter who takes the picture. Also with digital photo's, there is a difference in the compression and smoothing and other functions in between the sensor, and the jpg file you end up with. The differences can be quite noticable and have little or nothing to do with the skill of the person pushing the button, especially in full auto "dummy mode".
Basically, if you give a bunch of soccer moms a camera to take pictures at the playground, the ones with a DSLR will get the best looking pictures on average even if they only use auto mode. The next best pictures will be the pocket P&S and then the camera phones will look the worst. The question now is will the iPhone 4 be close enough to the P&S pocket cameras that most people will be satisfied? It will never get to be as good as the DSLR, but the DSLR will never fit in your pocket.
They're certainly decent for a phone but it's pushing it to say they look anything like the snaps from an SLR. They still have that washed-out look you always get from phone cameras.
I'd like to see some pictures in lower light to make a proper judgement of the camera's quality.
yeah i'm with you. sure they look reasonable, i would assume they were taken by a decent point & click. better than a cameraphone sure, but DSLR!? not my DSLR...
The photos look ok. But does that really mean anything considered that they were taken outside in full daylight? Where digital cameras always perform rather badly is in low light situations. A better test would be taking pictures in a bar while half inebriated.
That's what Gray Powell was suppose to do but we all knew what happened there.
Yes, I do 99.99% of my photo viewing on my computer screen, so lots of megapixels aren't helpful. I'm still using a 3MP Kodak camera and I've set the preferences to use even fewer pixels than that. My iPhoto library is something like 20GB (including the iPod photo cache) so it's nice to keep the file sizes low.
Does anyone know if I'll be able to set the iPhone 4 to capture fewer than 5MP? (According to the latest in a series of contradictory conversations with AT&T, I should be receiving one next week.)
Precisely: For everyday use I set my DSLR to 5MP (fine). Can't tell the diff from 11 MP on-screen so why slow things down with huge files? With point-and-shoots (like my Canon Powershot) you can't tell the difference above 3MP. Pros shoot at higher res (and raw) because they have 24+mm sensors and like to be able to crop down to a fraction of the frame.
If you go the site and pull the images into iPhoto or Aperture you'll see from the extended info that the image is 2600 x 1900 P or 5.2 MP, that it was shot with an iPhone and processed with software 4.0 (IOS4.0?), shutter 1/642, ISO 80, aperture f/2.4, focal length 3.85mm (implying a phone-sized sensor of ca 3mm). The blown clouds give it away: better than most phone cameras, similar to point and shoot results, but nowhere near the naturalness of an SLR (that would be impossible from a 2 or 3mm sensor.)
That's what Gray Powell was suppose to do but we all knew what happened there.
Ha! Great comment. I wonder if this Czech guy is being stalked by a Gizmodo reporter who wants to highlight a 'massive Apple security breach in Prague! 300 baby seals were killed by an iPhone prototype in a bar!!' story.
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
These are not good photo's. The first looks overly compressed with too much noise in the darker areas. The brighter areas are blown out, and the fine lines in the ceiling tracing have the jaggies or compression artifacts for some reason. Did you resize it or resave it at some point?
The other pic of that capitol building is very blown out at the top of the dome, suffers from the same edge noise/jaggies/compression artifacts, and along the top of the palm trees where the light is shining down, the lighter whites are all blown out. The pine tree, in contrast, looks like it's had some sort of noise filter applied and it's a bit blurred. These may look good at a casual glance, but look at any of the detail, and they rather bad.
These are not good photo's. The first looks overly compressed with too much noise in the darker areas. The brighter areas are blown out, and the fine lines in the ceiling tracing have the jaggies or compression artifacts for some reason. Did you resize it or resave it at some point?
The other pic of that capitol building is very blown out at the top of the dome, suffers from the same edge noise/jaggies/compression artifacts, and along the top of the palm trees where the light is shining down, the lighter whites are all blown out. The pine tree, in contrast, looks like it's had some sort of noise filter applied and it's a bit blurred. These may look good at a casual glance, but look at any of the detail, and they rather bad.
Yes, these photos are heavily compressed by the phone's SW, but please show me some pics from your 3GS if it could do any better....I take it for granted that cell phone pics when viewed at full size will look pretty compressed, it's the nature of it, that's why I thought it was ridiculous when people where fawning over small shots of grass and rocks...whoopdy doo.
The overall exposure is still very good for a cell phone, and I'm expecting better examples from your 3GS since you feel so qualified.
'The tipster said the new glass front and back prevented scratches, though they guessed that the stainless steel perimeter of the device could become scuffed up over time. The report also noted that the device received a GPS signal in a "surprisingly quick" fashion, obtaining a lock "almost immediately." '
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
I fail to see what effect cellular signal strength has on GPS location..
Yes, these photos are heavily compressed by the phone's SW, but please show me some pics from your 3GS if it could do any better....I take it for granted that cell phone pics when viewed at full size will look pretty compressed, it's the nature of it, that's why I thought it was ridiculous when people where fawning over small shots of grass and rocks...whoopdy doo.
The overall exposure is still very good for a cell phone, and I'm expecting better examples from your 3GS since you feel so qualified.
No need. There are hundreds of thousands of samples of 3GS photo's online. They don't suffer from such bad compression or jaggies, and you can control blow-out by touching a properly exposed portion of the photo to adjust the luminance curve. I would say whatever you took those on needs some tweaking if they are compressing them that far. is it a customizable setting?
No need. There are hundreds of thousands of samples of 3GS photo's online. They don't suffer from such bad compression or jaggies, and you can control blow-out by touching a properly exposed portion of the photo to adjust the luminance curve. I would say whatever you took those on needs some tweaking if they are compressing them that far. is it a customizable setting?
No, you can't customize anything, it's all auto, and it doesn't have AF, but I don't think the exposure on those 2 examples is bad, nor is the dome blown out, I simply don't see it. I can make out the detail of the windows and decorative trim. If it was blown out, it would be all white. The rotunda pic shows more blooming/blowing than the exterior shot, especially around the first ring of white windows.
Those SF pics are pretty good overall, but the Nokia comparison is 50/50, I like some of the Nokia examples better, some of the 3GS contrast is better in others.
BTW, this is an example of blown out image from those SF pics (along the roof, see how it blends with the sky - there is almost no detail along the front edge):
Compared to my dSLR, it's not very impressive. But compared to my iPhone 3G or any of the other cell phones I've seen, it's VERY nice.
It is not bad at all for such a small sensor and glass.
Dynamic range is obviously limited (blown highlights on pebbles and clouds) but not horrible... anyway, that is limitation of current technology and Apple can't do much (if anything) about it.
What I'd like to see is full size images - downsizing is capable of hiding other imperfections such as noise, blurriness, compression artefacts... but as it is, it seems capable enough to create images for decent 6x4" prints, at least under preferable light.
Does anyone have a phone that is using one of the 5Mpx phone cameras with 1.75 micron pixels with the backside illuminated sensor? I know Jobs talked up the backside sensor as if it was their idea but I have a feeling this the same camera phone sensors Micron Technology, Inc introduced back in February 2007.
That doesn't mean it's old tech or that Jobs doesn't have a valid point with the 1.1 micron pixel phones trying to market >5Mpx, but I think we can get a basic idea of how they good they are from those, if anyone has their pics or a link handy.
I'm certainly not going to buy another point-and-shoot digital camera or a Flip Mino (or similar) ever again.
My next digital photograph purchase would have to be a dSLR with RAW capabilities, and if I wanted to do more high-end video, I'd buy a better videocamera.
I'm excited that the iPhone 4 is going to be a capable point-and-shoot and pocket camcorder.
I was lingering with the thought of ditching P&S camera I almost always have in my pocket/bag/car and go for phone for quick and dirty or dSLR for "serious" stuff.
Then I got Panasonic's waterproof LUMIX DMC-TS1 and forgot about using 3Gs as my pocket-camera solutions. TS1 gave me very decent 12 MP with better highlights and low light noise control than 3Gs, decent optical zoom (28 - 128mm film equivalent) which works nicely with camera's HD video mode as well, water and shock resistant case and plenty of optimized programs (night landscape and night portrait working really well for P&S camera).
Not to mention that dedicated controls work much better than "touch to focus - touch to shoot" scheme.
The only scenario I use my iPhone camera today is when doing on-site job and need some details from the client - computer's serial number, software license etc. Instead of writing them down I just snap them with iPhone and email photos to my work email. Works like a charm!
So for me, even if Apple managed to keep per-pixel quality while boosting pixel count (which is reasonable progress to hope for), it still isn't good enough... \
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
I have some Prague photos here, unfortunately not done with iPhone
These are the specific areas I was referring to. Look at any of these in detail and you will see major compression artifacts, ballooning, jaggies, blurring, and noise. These were taken pixel for pixel from your source images, and saved in PNG format.
The may appear to look good at an initial glance, but the quality is actually quite poor.
As to the picture you referenced that look blown out on an iPhone, that is a smear on the lens. Don't believe me? Put a smear on any camera phone lens, and take a picture of a bright scene, and it will appear milky and exhibit a loss of contrast, just as this one does.
Comments
This will never be as good as dedicated device. What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone. The comment you are replying to is a pointless exercise. For that poster it was good enough for them.
Most will not tread though the thick booklets and they will not bother to navigate through the UI looking for the correct settings much less know what the best settings in a situation are. They have no idea what is a macro in relation to photography, know what an RGB histogram is or even know what an ISO is. If you attempt to teach them all they'll ask you is "How do I take a picture?"
Every camera, even SLR's have an auto mode - turn it on, put it in auto, and hit the shutter button.
For most people, that's all they do. If you want to get creative and/or start taking great pics, you put it on A/S/M, because isn't the end all be all.
This is an ugraded sensor in a phone. It's good for what it is.
Anyone have a YouTube link for the video?
Youtube destroys the quality.
go here....
http://translate.google.com/translat...&sl=auto&tl=en
About halfway down you will see the video in the page, just about it there is a link you can use to download the .mov file.
Looking at that file frame by frame, it is surprisingly good for a mini video camera, and very good for a phone. It blows the EVO out of the water, and at least for that lighting condition, it appears to be a game changer and a real threat to the flip and other budget video devices.
What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone.
Not true at all. The size and quality of the lenses and sensors shows up no matter who takes the picture. Also with digital photo's, there is a difference in the compression and smoothing and other functions in between the sensor, and the jpg file you end up with. The differences can be quite noticable and have little or nothing to do with the skill of the person pushing the button, especially in full auto "dummy mode".
Basically, if you give a bunch of soccer moms a camera to take pictures at the playground, the ones with a DSLR will get the best looking pictures on average even if they only use auto mode. The next best pictures will be the pocket P&S and then the camera phones will look the worst. The question now is will the iPhone 4 be close enough to the P&S pocket cameras that most people will be satisfied? It will never get to be as good as the DSLR, but the DSLR will never fit in your pocket.
Is everyone looking at the same photos as me?
They're certainly decent for a phone but it's pushing it to say they look anything like the snaps from an SLR. They still have that washed-out look you always get from phone cameras.
I'd like to see some pictures in lower light to make a proper judgement of the camera's quality.
yeah i'm with you. sure they look reasonable, i would assume they were taken by a decent point & click. better than a cameraphone sure, but DSLR!? not my DSLR...
The photos look ok. But does that really mean anything considered that they were taken outside in full daylight? Where digital cameras always perform rather badly is in low light situations. A better test would be taking pictures in a bar while half inebriated.
That's what Gray Powell was suppose to do but we all knew what happened there.
Yes, I do 99.99% of my photo viewing on my computer screen, so lots of megapixels aren't helpful. I'm still using a 3MP Kodak camera and I've set the preferences to use even fewer pixels than that. My iPhoto library is something like 20GB (including the iPod photo cache) so it's nice to keep the file sizes low.
Does anyone know if I'll be able to set the iPhone 4 to capture fewer than 5MP? (According to the latest in a series of contradictory conversations with AT&T, I should be receiving one next week.)
Precisely: For everyday use I set my DSLR to 5MP (fine). Can't tell the diff from 11 MP on-screen so why slow things down with huge files? With point-and-shoots (like my Canon Powershot) you can't tell the difference above 3MP. Pros shoot at higher res (and raw) because they have 24+mm sensors and like to be able to crop down to a fraction of the frame.
If you go the site and pull the images into iPhoto or Aperture you'll see from the extended info that the image is 2600 x 1900 P or 5.2 MP, that it was shot with an iPhone and processed with software 4.0 (IOS4.0?), shutter 1/642, ISO 80, aperture f/2.4, focal length 3.85mm (implying a phone-sized sensor of ca 3mm). The blown clouds give it away: better than most phone cameras, similar to point and shoot results, but nowhere near the naturalness of an SLR (that would be impossible from a 2 or 3mm sensor.)
That's what Gray Powell was suppose to do but we all knew what happened there.
Ha! Great comment. I wonder if this Czech guy is being stalked by a Gizmodo reporter who wants to highlight a 'massive Apple security breach in Prague! 300 baby seals were killed by an iPhone prototype in a bar!!' story.
Clickbait? Never!
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
These are not good photo's. The first looks overly compressed with too much noise in the darker areas. The brighter areas are blown out, and the fine lines in the ceiling tracing have the jaggies or compression artifacts for some reason. Did you resize it or resave it at some point?
The other pic of that capitol building is very blown out at the top of the dome, suffers from the same edge noise/jaggies/compression artifacts, and along the top of the palm trees where the light is shining down, the lighter whites are all blown out. The pine tree, in contrast, looks like it's had some sort of noise filter applied and it's a bit blurred. These may look good at a casual glance, but look at any of the detail, and they rather bad.
These are not good photo's. The first looks overly compressed with too much noise in the darker areas. The brighter areas are blown out, and the fine lines in the ceiling tracing have the jaggies or compression artifacts for some reason. Did you resize it or resave it at some point?
The other pic of that capitol building is very blown out at the top of the dome, suffers from the same edge noise/jaggies/compression artifacts, and along the top of the palm trees where the light is shining down, the lighter whites are all blown out. The pine tree, in contrast, looks like it's had some sort of noise filter applied and it's a bit blurred. These may look good at a casual glance, but look at any of the detail, and they rather bad.
Yes, these photos are heavily compressed by the phone's SW, but please show me some pics from your 3GS if it could do any better....I take it for granted that cell phone pics when viewed at full size will look pretty compressed, it's the nature of it, that's why I thought it was ridiculous when people where fawning over small shots of grass and rocks...whoopdy doo.
The overall exposure is still very good for a cell phone, and I'm expecting better examples from your 3GS since you feel so qualified.
'The tipster said the new glass front and back prevented scratches, though they guessed that the stainless steel perimeter of the device could become scuffed up over time. The report also noted that the device received a GPS signal in a "surprisingly quick" fashion, obtaining a lock "almost immediately." '
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
I fail to see what effect cellular signal strength has on GPS location..
I fail to see what effect cellular signal strength has on GPS location..
1) His comment was a joke.
2) It allows a faster TIFF if you have a good cellular signal.
3) If you have no standard nav app then not having any signal will yield your location, but offer you no map to overlay your numerical position.
Yes, these photos are heavily compressed by the phone's SW, but please show me some pics from your 3GS if it could do any better....I take it for granted that cell phone pics when viewed at full size will look pretty compressed, it's the nature of it, that's why I thought it was ridiculous when people where fawning over small shots of grass and rocks...whoopdy doo.
The overall exposure is still very good for a cell phone, and I'm expecting better examples from your 3GS since you feel so qualified.
No need. There are hundreds of thousands of samples of 3GS photo's online. They don't suffer from such bad compression or jaggies, and you can control blow-out by touching a properly exposed portion of the photo to adjust the luminance curve. I would say whatever you took those on needs some tweaking if they are compressing them that far. is it a customizable setting?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyi/s...7619833958006/
Here's a few that are a bit closer in type to the photo's shot from the iPhone 4:
http://thenokiablog.com/2009/08/26/n...ne-3gs-photos/
No need. There are hundreds of thousands of samples of 3GS photo's online. They don't suffer from such bad compression or jaggies, and you can control blow-out by touching a properly exposed portion of the photo to adjust the luminance curve. I would say whatever you took those on needs some tweaking if they are compressing them that far. is it a customizable setting?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyi/s...7619833958006/
Here's a few that are a bit closer in type to the photo's shot from the iPhone 4:
http://thenokiablog.com/2009/08/26/n...ne-3gs-photos/
No, you can't customize anything, it's all auto, and it doesn't have AF, but I don't think the exposure on those 2 examples is bad, nor is the dome blown out, I simply don't see it. I can make out the detail of the windows and decorative trim. If it was blown out, it would be all white. The rotunda pic shows more blooming/blowing than the exterior shot, especially around the first ring of white windows.
Those SF pics are pretty good overall, but the Nokia comparison is 50/50, I like some of the Nokia examples better, some of the 3GS contrast is better in others.
BTW, this is an example of blown out image from those SF pics (along the roof, see how it blends with the sky - there is almost no detail along the front edge):
Depends on what you're comparing it to.
Compared to my dSLR, it's not very impressive. But compared to my iPhone 3G or any of the other cell phones I've seen, it's VERY nice.
It is not bad at all for such a small sensor and glass.
Dynamic range is obviously limited (blown highlights on pebbles and clouds) but not horrible... anyway, that is limitation of current technology and Apple can't do much (if anything) about it.
What I'd like to see is full size images - downsizing is capable of hiding other imperfections such as noise, blurriness, compression artefacts... but as it is, it seems capable enough to create images for decent 6x4" prints, at least under preferable light.
That doesn't mean it's old tech or that Jobs doesn't have a valid point with the 1.1 micron pixel phones trying to market >5Mpx, but I think we can get a basic idea of how they good they are from those, if anyone has their pics or a link handy.
I'm certainly not going to buy another point-and-shoot digital camera or a Flip Mino (or similar) ever again.
My next digital photograph purchase would have to be a dSLR with RAW capabilities, and if I wanted to do more high-end video, I'd buy a better videocamera.
I'm excited that the iPhone 4 is going to be a capable point-and-shoot and pocket camcorder.
I was lingering with the thought of ditching P&S camera I almost always have in my pocket/bag/car and go for phone for quick and dirty or dSLR for "serious" stuff.
Then I got Panasonic's waterproof LUMIX DMC-TS1 and forgot about using 3Gs as my pocket-camera solutions. TS1 gave me very decent 12 MP with better highlights and low light noise control than 3Gs, decent optical zoom (28 - 128mm film equivalent) which works nicely with camera's HD video mode as well, water and shock resistant case and plenty of optimized programs (night landscape and night portrait working really well for P&S camera).
Not to mention that dedicated controls work much better than "touch to focus - touch to shoot" scheme.
The only scenario I use my iPhone camera today is when doing on-site job and need some details from the client - computer's serial number, software license etc. Instead of writing them down I just snap them with iPhone and email photos to my work email. Works like a charm!
So for me, even if Apple managed to keep per-pixel quality while boosting pixel count (which is reasonable progress to hope for), it still isn't good enough...
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
I have some Prague photos here, unfortunately not done with iPhone
http://nikon133.spaces.live.com/?lc=1033
I'm just wondering where the heck someone in the Czech Republic could have gotten an iPhone 4 from...
You haven't heard?
http://scoopertino.com/if-you-cant-b...ototype-store/
http://img38.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=76099312.png
The may appear to look good at an initial glance, but the quality is actually quite poor.
As to the picture you referenced that look blown out on an iPhone, that is a smear on the lens. Don't believe me? Put a smear on any camera phone lens, and take a picture of a bright scene, and it will appear milky and exhibit a loss of contrast, just as this one does.