Should be a Sony sensor for the price of the iPhone they are producing the best out there at the moment always a little improvement for the highest cost for the iPhone
*3: Based on the method for specifying effective pixels in image sensors
Why the heck can't the iPhone be the best of the best it is a luxury priced item with some very outdated and cheap components other manufactures can beat apple out with new models much quicker.
Should be Sony? What professional uses Sony? I know of none. Canon or Nikon for pros. Unless you are talking video, which I still might argue Canon.
More than 3 or 4 MP on a phone camera is redundant. An SLR or good compact shooting at 3 MP produces a far better picture that a phone camera at 8 or 12 or whatever million pixels. They could reduce the count to 5 million bigger pixels to improve low light noise. Indoor phone shots under artificial lights are still quite horrible (digital noise being the butt ugliest artefact of the modern picture taking).
How does lower pixels equate to better low light noise?
As a phone is limited far greater than a (D)SLR in capturing and processing capabilities, they offset that with pixel count. Agreeable that is the incorrect way, but probably cheaper.
This isn't true at all. 12MP would be great if they could improve quality at the same time. I'm of the opinion that people that dismiss an increase in pixel count have very modest photography needs and probably never print anything of size. More pixels is effectively more data which leads to the ability to process that data in different ways.
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
Apple does need to upgrade the camera, there is a long ways to go to even match a decent point and shoot. The improvements need to be balanced though.
With my 8MP Canon I print amazing 13x19 images. What do you plan on printing from your phone, 4x6, 8x10? I agree that the larger pixel count allows from harder cropping while maintaining resolution, but from a phone?
I believe more people are emailing, texting, and sharing on social sites these images and having the larger file size might be a bad trade off.
Zoom adds stabilizing issues which would reduce image quality for most users.
Low light is hard. Better glass, larger aperture (although the iPhone 5 is at 2.8 already) would help greatly to bring in the light. Better sensor to capture the light (and at higher ISOs) and a better processor to clean up the noise. Many steps, so many factors. I hate low light shooting! They could go for multiple metering points (foreground/background) which would really help.
With my 8MP Canon I print amazing 13x19 images. What do you plan on printing from your phone, 4x6, 8x10? I agree that the larger pixel count allows from harder cropping while maintaining resolution, but from a phone?
I believe more people are emailing, texting, and sharing on social sites these images and having the larger file size might be a bad trade off.
Zoom adds stabilizing issues which would reduce image quality for most users.
Low light is hard. Better glass, larger aperture (although the iPhone 5 is at 2.8 already) would help greatly to bring in the light. Better sensor to capture the light (and at higher ISOs) and a better processor to clean up the noise. Many steps, so many factors. I hate low light shooting! They could go for multiple metering points (foreground/background) which would really help.
My understanding is that the aperture of iPhone 5 is f2.4.
This isn't true at all. 12MP would be great if they could improve quality at the same time. I'm of the opinion that people that dismiss an increase in pixel count have very modest photography needs and probably never print anything of size. More pixels is effectively more data which leads to the ability to process that data in different ways.
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
Apple does need to upgrade the camera, there is a long ways to go to even match a decent point and shoot. The improvements need to be balanced though.
That is true. Apple can improve image quality without a higher pixel count. You seem to be falling for the pixel myth. More pixels does not mean more information. There is so much more to the equation of image quality then pixel count. The sensors on smartphones are so small, higher pixel counts aren't going to matter. In some cases, a higher pixel count will actually be detrimental to image quality. Increasing the pixel count on these small sensors means you have to decrease the size of each pixel.
Your opinion is dead wrong. Being a photographer, it's comical to me people who argue about having a higher pixel count. The majority of smartphone users won't be using their pictures for 8x10 and higher prints or any prints for that matter. Yes, for DSLR cameras, higher pixel count is better when it comes to printing. DSLR cameras also have way better sensors and processors. You can't compare phone cameras to standalone cameras. Higher pixel counts are useless in smartphones. The sensor technology just isn't there yet on phones. HTC has the right idea by lowering pixel count and increasing pixel size captured by the sensor. By doing that, photos from the HTC One are equal, if not better then pictures taken with a higher pixel count on the iPhone 5. Phone makers should be focused on sensor technology and increasing the size of individual pixels then being in a megapixel race.
This isn't a static world you know. If Apple could deliver a 12Mpixel camera that delivered better pictures than what can be had on the "4" series iPhones would you complain? The fact is research is constant with these sensors, they improve every year and there is a lot of promising research going on. It is not out of the realm of possibilities to see a viable 12 MP sensors this year. There are a number of research paths being followed to realize these improvements, everything from quantum dots to improved pixel geometry.
Now I'd be the first tos away no way if overall picture quality takes a dive. However there is enough evidence to suggest that that might not happen. In other words don't dismiss the possibility based on what was possible in the past. Instead keep an open mind and reflect upon what is delivered in the new iPhone.
As to mega pixels. I will state flat out that 8MP is not enough, not even close. 12 MP is where digital SLRs started to come into their own and effectively replaced film. At the very least 12MP should be a target value for Apple to hit when the technology can support it. Megapixels isn't everything of course and it would be great to see the rest of the camera improve.
I agree with the notion 8MP is not enough when it comes to DSLR cameras, but it's more then enough for phones. The current technology in phones can't support higher pixel counts. Until the technology improves, it's pointless being in a pixel war. People need to stop trying to compare megapixel counts in phones to cameras. Cameras have the technology with excellent sensors and processors. Phones don't. I believe Apple knows this so unless they have some new technology in their camera hardware, I don't see why they would improve the MP count in the iPhone.
"Some of the 645 sensors with no anti aliasing filters resolve considerably more detail even compared to dslrs with similar pixel counts"
You just changed your story, and correctly that pixel count is not the factor but the processing and sensor quality, as well I would argue, the glass used.
I go off on tangents at times, but it was a bit of both. If you compared between similar sensors of a given generation, the difference was still there. Part of it was that the more expensive versions often used slightly larger sensors, although it typically wasn't as dramatic of a size difference as a D60 compared to a 1Ds, which were even earlier. My P30 vs P45 example was valid. They were reasonably similar sensors and implementations. One was claimed as 31 MP where the other was 39.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
I'm not sure optical zoom is likely. Up until now they've used simplistic designs to push lens quality. Optical zoom means adding things like motors to drive the mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As a side note 12MP is pretty close to 35mm film in capability to acquire information. To be honest 35mm film wasn't all that great of a material to work with if you wanted good results. Digital photography has effectively pushed the required camera size down a notch. In other words 35 mm sized DSLRs are effectively replacing medium format for the vast majority of professional uses, and cell phones have effectively replaced point and shoot cameras. You can whine all you want about pixels and quality but the cameras in the iPhones are damn good considering what one had to deal with 20 or 30 years ago. Considering this is in a device that is a camera, a cell phone, a GPS device, and a general purpose computer that is impressive. Don't give up on the idea that the camera in the iPhone can be improved.
It was 11 not 12. The original 1Ds probably made the biggest impact. Shots from that still look good today if properly processed. I could mention the Valeo 11, but it didn't have the same level of impact and they wrote terrible software.
I don't know how you got the 330 ppi figure. I would say 440*2/3 = 293ppi. Anyways even 293 ppi is high enough that one wouldn't easily be able to tell it apart from a "retina display". So no one would feel fooled because of the resolution. And although I prefer the iPhone 5 display's color accuracy being an avid photographer, people in general like the oversaturated displays.
As to mega pixels. I will state flat out that 8MP is not enough, not even close. 12 MP is where digital SLRs started to come into their own and effectively replaced film.
Really? Please go to my website and tell me what MP these photos were taken at? http://www.richgetz.com/photo-gallery.php and I bet you will be surprised! I also can print these out to 13x19 without issue.
DSLR replaced film the moment people did not have to go into a dark room, although I miss mine very much now.
I'd refrain using this argument as it opens up an easy rebuttal regarding Windows popularity over Mac OS X.
Well, there is a difference.
Windows computers outnumber Macs significantly, and there's no arguing they are mostly used in various productive ways.
Android phones outnumber iPhones, but data suggests iPhones are put to use much more frequently when it comes to photography and web-browsing. The top 3 Flickr cameras are iPhone 4S, 5 and 4. Two Canon DSLRs come in 4th and 5th place. Amongst camera phones, Samsung Galaxy S III comes in 4th place (after the aforementioned iPhones) but it is such a distant 4th that it has been lapped, 3 times over. To me, this is a bit surprising. Despite various "expert" opinions, most people (here and elsewhere) simply don't know photography enough to choose between cameras.
So, when it comes to photography, Android is not really in the picture.
Now, I would like to see Instagram data on this, since Instagram for Android has been out for just over 1 year now. Does anyone know whether they have released any camera data yet?
Windows computers outnumber Macs significantly, and there's no arguing they are mostly used in various productive ways.
Android phones outnumber iPhones, but data suggests iPhones are put to use much more frequently when it comes to photography and web-browsing. The top 3 Flickr cameras are iPhone 4S, 5 and 4. Two Canon DSLRs come in 4th and 5th place. Amongst camera phones, Samsung Galaxy S III comes in 4th place (after the aforementioned iPhones) but it is such a distant 4th that it has been lapped, 3 times over. <span style="line-height:1.231;">To me, this is a bit surprising. Despite various "expert" opinions, most people (here and elsewhere) simply don't know photography enough to choose between cameras. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">So, when it comes to photography, Android is not really in the picture.</span>
Now, I would like to see Instagram data on this, since Instagram for Android has been out for just over 1 year now. Does anyone know whether they have released any camera data yet?
Sure, there is a difference (there almost always is) but it's not a good opening. It's really only good later on, exactly in your post, where you've detailed the nuances. This allows that argument to remain protected without risking your queen too early on in the game.
Sure, there is a difference (there almost always is) but it's not a good opening. It's really only good later on, exactly in your post, where you've detailed the nuances. This allows that argument to remain protected without risking your queen too early on in the game.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Franks
Should be a Sony sensor for the price of the iPhone they are producing the best out there at the moment always a little improvement for the highest cost for the iPhone
Exmor RSModel Shipment date
(planned) Sample price
(incl. tax)
Type 1/3.06
13.13 effective megapixels(*3) Stacked CMOS image sensor
'IMX135' January, 2013 1,500 JPY
Imaging module
'IU135F3-Z' March, 2013 8,000 JPY
Type 1/4
8.08 effective megapixels(*3) Stacked CMOS image sensor
'IMX134' March, 2013 1,000 JPY
Imaging module
'IU134F9-Z' May, 2013 5,000 JPY
Type 1/4
8.08 effective megapixels(*3) Stacked CMOS image sensor
'ISX014' October, 2012 1,200 JPY
Imaging module
'IUS014F-Z' November, 2012 6,000 JPY
*3: Based on the method for specifying effective pixels in image sensors
Why the heck can't the iPhone be the best of the best it is a luxury priced item with some very outdated and cheap components other manufactures can beat apple out with new models much quicker.
Should be Sony? What professional uses Sony? I know of none. Canon or Nikon for pros. Unless you are talking video, which I still might argue Canon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos
More than 3 or 4 MP on a phone camera is redundant. An SLR or good compact shooting at 3 MP produces a far better picture that a phone camera at 8 or 12 or whatever million pixels. They could reduce the count to 5 million bigger pixels to improve low light noise. Indoor phone shots under artificial lights are still quite horrible (digital noise being the butt ugliest artefact of the modern picture taking).
How does lower pixels equate to better low light noise?
As a phone is limited far greater than a (D)SLR in capturing and processing capabilities, they offset that with pixel count. Agreeable that is the incorrect way, but probably cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This isn't true at all. 12MP would be great if they could improve quality at the same time. I'm of the opinion that people that dismiss an increase in pixel count have very modest photography needs and probably never print anything of size. More pixels is effectively more data which leads to the ability to process that data in different ways.
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
Apple does need to upgrade the camera, there is a long ways to go to even match a decent point and shoot. The improvements need to be balanced though.
With my 8MP Canon I print amazing 13x19 images. What do you plan on printing from your phone, 4x6, 8x10? I agree that the larger pixel count allows from harder cropping while maintaining resolution, but from a phone?
I believe more people are emailing, texting, and sharing on social sites these images and having the larger file size might be a bad trade off.
Zoom adds stabilizing issues which would reduce image quality for most users.
Low light is hard. Better glass, larger aperture (although the iPhone 5 is at 2.8 already) would help greatly to bring in the light. Better sensor to capture the light (and at higher ISOs) and a better processor to clean up the noise. Many steps, so many factors. I hate low light shooting! They could go for multiple metering points (foreground/background) which would really help.
My understanding is that the aperture of iPhone 5 is f2.4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
My understanding is that the aperture of iPhone 5 is f2.4.
Thanks for the correction, and that is good for a phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This isn't true at all. 12MP would be great if they could improve quality at the same time. I'm of the opinion that people that dismiss an increase in pixel count have very modest photography needs and probably never print anything of size. More pixels is effectively more data which leads to the ability to process that data in different ways.
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
Apple does need to upgrade the camera, there is a long ways to go to even match a decent point and shoot. The improvements need to be balanced though.
That is true. Apple can improve image quality without a higher pixel count. You seem to be falling for the pixel myth. More pixels does not mean more information. There is so much more to the equation of image quality then pixel count. The sensors on smartphones are so small, higher pixel counts aren't going to matter. In some cases, a higher pixel count will actually be detrimental to image quality. Increasing the pixel count on these small sensors means you have to decrease the size of each pixel.
Your opinion is dead wrong. Being a photographer, it's comical to me people who argue about having a higher pixel count. The majority of smartphone users won't be using their pictures for 8x10 and higher prints or any prints for that matter. Yes, for DSLR cameras, higher pixel count is better when it comes to printing. DSLR cameras also have way better sensors and processors. You can't compare phone cameras to standalone cameras. Higher pixel counts are useless in smartphones. The sensor technology just isn't there yet on phones. HTC has the right idea by lowering pixel count and increasing pixel size captured by the sensor. By doing that, photos from the HTC One are equal, if not better then pictures taken with a higher pixel count on the iPhone 5. Phone makers should be focused on sensor technology and increasing the size of individual pixels then being in a megapixel race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This isn't a static world you know. If Apple could deliver a 12Mpixel camera that delivered better pictures than what can be had on the "4" series iPhones would you complain? The fact is research is constant with these sensors, they improve every year and there is a lot of promising research going on. It is not out of the realm of possibilities to see a viable 12 MP sensors this year. There are a number of research paths being followed to realize these improvements, everything from quantum dots to improved pixel geometry.
Now I'd be the first tos away no way if overall picture quality takes a dive. However there is enough evidence to suggest that that might not happen. In other words don't dismiss the possibility based on what was possible in the past. Instead keep an open mind and reflect upon what is delivered in the new iPhone.
As to mega pixels. I will state flat out that 8MP is not enough, not even close. 12 MP is where digital SLRs started to come into their own and effectively replaced film. At the very least 12MP should be a target value for Apple to hit when the technology can support it. Megapixels isn't everything of course and it would be great to see the rest of the camera improve.
I agree with the notion 8MP is not enough when it comes to DSLR cameras, but it's more then enough for phones. The current technology in phones can't support higher pixel counts. Until the technology improves, it's pointless being in a pixel war. People need to stop trying to compare megapixel counts in phones to cameras. Cameras have the technology with excellent sensors and processors. Phones don't. I believe Apple knows this so unless they have some new technology in their camera hardware, I don't see why they would improve the MP count in the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
"Some of the 645 sensors with no anti aliasing filters resolve considerably more detail even compared to dslrs with similar pixel counts"
You just changed your story, and correctly that pixel count is not the factor but the processing and sensor quality, as well I would argue, the glass used.
I go off on tangents at times, but it was a bit of both. If you compared between similar sensors of a given generation, the difference was still there. Part of it was that the more expensive versions often used slightly larger sensors, although it typically wasn't as dramatic of a size difference as a D60 compared to a 1Ds, which were even earlier. My P30 vs P45 example was valid. They were reasonably similar sensors and implementations. One was claimed as 31 MP where the other was 39.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Admittedly there are other things that should be considered to improve iPhones picture taking ability. One would be a solid optical zoom. A zoom is in many cases as effective, maybe far more effective, than adding pixels. Low light performance is another interesting topic where in the past you had to go to larger sensors to solve the low light problem. Technology advances here too and we could see improvements to low light performance even in cell phone sized sensors.
I'm not sure optical zoom is likely. Up until now they've used simplistic designs to push lens quality. Optical zoom means adding things like motors to drive the mechanism.
Quote:Originally Posted by wizard69
As a side note 12MP is pretty close to 35mm film in capability to acquire information. To be honest 35mm film wasn't all that great of a material to work with if you wanted good results. Digital photography has effectively pushed the required camera size down a notch. In other words 35 mm sized DSLRs are effectively replacing medium format for the vast majority of professional uses, and cell phones have effectively replaced point and shoot cameras. You can whine all you want about pixels and quality but the cameras in the iPhones are damn good considering what one had to deal with 20 or 30 years ago. Considering this is in a device that is a camera, a cell phone, a GPS device, and a general purpose computer that is impressive. Don't give up on the idea that the camera in the iPhone can be improved.
It was 11 not 12. The original 1Ds probably made the biggest impact. Shots from that still look good today if properly processed. I could mention the Valeo 11, but it didn't have the same level of impact and they wrote terrible software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arch
I don't know how you got the 330 ppi figure. I would say 440*2/3 = 293ppi. Anyways even 293 ppi is high enough that one wouldn't easily be able to tell it apart from a "retina display". So no one would feel fooled because of the resolution. And although I prefer the iPhone 5 display's color accuracy being an avid photographer, people in general like the oversaturated displays.
He got to 330ppi by using correct math.
Pentile has 4 colour pixels not 3.
440 / 4 * 3 = 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to mega pixels. I will state flat out that 8MP is not enough, not even close. 12 MP is where digital SLRs started to come into their own and effectively replaced film.
Really? Please go to my website and tell me what MP these photos were taken at? http://www.richgetz.com/photo-gallery.php and I bet you will be surprised! I also can print these out to 13x19 without issue.
DSLR replaced film the moment people did not have to go into a dark room, although I miss mine very much now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'd refrain using this argument as it opens up an easy rebuttal regarding Windows popularity over Mac OS X.
Well, there is a difference.
Windows computers outnumber Macs significantly, and there's no arguing they are mostly used in various productive ways.
Android phones outnumber iPhones, but data suggests iPhones are put to use much more frequently when it comes to photography and web-browsing. The top 3 Flickr cameras are iPhone 4S, 5 and 4. Two Canon DSLRs come in 4th and 5th place. Amongst camera phones, Samsung Galaxy S III comes in 4th place (after the aforementioned iPhones) but it is such a distant 4th that it has been lapped, 3 times over. To me, this is a bit surprising. Despite various "expert" opinions, most people (here and elsewhere) simply don't know photography enough to choose between cameras.
So, when it comes to photography, Android is not really in the picture.
Now, I would like to see Instagram data on this, since Instagram for Android has been out for just over 1 year now. Does anyone know whether they have released any camera data yet?
Sure, there is a difference (there almost always is) but it's not a good opening. It's really only good later on, exactly in your post, where you've detailed the nuances. This allows that argument to remain protected without risking your queen too early on in the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure, there is a difference (there almost always is) but it's not a good opening. It's really only good later on, exactly in your post, where you've detailed the nuances. This allows that argument to remain protected without risking your queen too early on in the game.
Check.