The result of changing the size of the aperture is the ability to change the visible depth of field. By making the aperture larger, that could force the depth of field effect to be narrower, introducing the blurry bokeh in the background behind the subject.
This can’t be possibly right (conceptually). The main camera on the iPhone 16 Pro has a ƒ/1.78 aperture. You possible can’t get much more depth of field by having an even larger aperture. That would introduce serious optical challenges. I mean, even my m4/3 Voigtlander 25mm lens has an aperture of ƒ/0.95 but that means the image at that aperture is very creamy and not very sharp. That optical performance doesn’t work for phone photography.
A variable aperture on an iPhone would go in the other direction, the one of a smaller aperture); a sharper image all around. But for what purpose? I don’t see it.
Variable aperture system is a very useful thing.
1, Better corner sharpness (iPhone does not have a big problem with that even wide open, but slight improvement would not hurt)
2, Larger depth of field (Sometimes, shallow depth of field is not good. If you want to take some sort of details/macro with main camera, like bunch of flowers, some 10-15cm object on a table, the depth of field can be tooooo shallow and majority of the object is not in focus. You do not want to stack-focus images of some object when the only thing you need is ability to use a smaller aperture - even if there is only one more option like F4).
3, Video. Very important stuff. In video, you want slight motion blur (the 180° rule). Unfortunatelly, the super-bright lens of smartphones leads to extremely short exposure times which is causing that every image in the video is supersharp. So, it is sequence of supersharp images but this is something you do not want in video as it looks "choppy". A little bit solved by higher frequencies (60p) but still the problem. Can be solved by ND filter (and you may buy external one for smartphone) but it does not solve the problem 1 and 2).
Thank you, Pema, for a such a superlative summary of all your posts. Have you considered therapy for your Jobs fetish? Gosh, I hope you're not stalking Laurene just to feel "closer" to him. My advice: please avoid anything criminal and just buy a piece of Jobs memorabilia from ebay. Surely there must be a pen or something that he touched once that you can buy and worship... maybe make it the centerpiece of a homemade Steve altar, although I suspect that you've already created one.
Apple is the world's most valuable and admired company today for a long list of products and developments having nothing to do with Steve. Chief among them is the Services Division, now the 2nd highest revenue generator for Apple after iPhone and--most importantly--the fastest growing and most profitable segment for Apple BY FAR. Services now equals one half of iPhone's gross revenue, but... Services gross revenue is growing SIXTY TIMES faster than iPhone: 12% annually vs. 2/10ths of 1%. Services gross margin is also about 80% higher than iPhone gross margin: 74% vs. 42%. Do the math. Apple would be in terrible shape right now if it were relying on the products that were created under Steve--essentially, there would be little to no growth and little prospect for growth. Thanks to Tim, it has Services, Wearables and Apple Silicon that are powering an enormous amount of profitability now and a bright future for the company.
Clearly you are not all that bright! You missed the whole point about PRODUCTS THAT CHANGE THE WAY WE COMMUNICATE. Services is just that services. The fact that it is growing in leaps and bounds is not relevant. Apple is in essence and always has been a hardware/software company not a services company. But in your limited understanding you equal revenue = visionary products that change the way we live and communicate: iPhone, iPad the Mac.
All that Cook & Co. are doing is reaping the seeds he sawed. But that can only go so far. What's next iPad 95, iPhone 101 etc. etc.
We need something groundbreaking. Not some dumbass Mixed Reality headset.
But you can't see that.
If Steve were at the helm we would have the next big thing. Not services. Apple is not a digital supermarket.
Speaking of the Vision Pro, when’s the last time Apple had as big of a flop on its hands?
It’s not a flop. Sony could only make 400,000 to 500,000 pairs of screens. That’s a hard limit on sales. Apple NEVER expected large sales of this. The most important thing about this is that companies are taking this up very well. They’ve sold most of them and have finally opened it up to sales in a number of other companies. That’s why it’s called “Pro”, because it’s not expected to sell in high numbers.
The result of changing the size of the aperture is the ability to change the visible depth of field. By making the aperture larger, that could force the depth of field effect to be narrower, introducing the blurry bokeh in the background behind the subject.
This can’t be possibly right (conceptually). The main camera on the iPhone 16 Pro has a ƒ/1.78 aperture. You possible can’t get much more depth of field by having an even larger aperture. That would introduce serious optical challenges. I mean, even my m4/3 Voigtlander 25mm lens has an aperture of ƒ/0.95 but that means the image at that aperture is very creamy and not very sharp. That optical performance doesn’t work for phone photography.
A variable aperture on an iPhone would go in the other direction, the one of a smaller aperture); a sharper image all around. But for what purpose? I don’t see it.
Variable aperture system is a very useful thing.
1, Better corner sharpness (iPhone does not have a big problem with that even wide open, but slight improvement would not hurt)
2, Larger depth of field (Sometimes, shallow depth of field is not good. If you want to take some sort of details/macro with main camera, like bunch of flowers, some 10-15cm object on a table, the depth of field can be tooooo shallow and majority of the object is not in focus. You do not want to stack-focus images of some object when the only thing you need is ability to use a smaller aperture - even if there is only one more option like F4).
3, Video. Very important stuff. In video, you want slight motion blur (the 180° rule). Unfortunatelly, the super-bright lens of smartphones leads to extremely short exposure times which is causing that every image in the video is supersharp. So, it is sequence of supersharp images but this is something you do not want in video as it looks "choppy". A little bit solved by higher frequencies (60p) but still the problem. Can be solved by ND filter (and you may buy external one for smartphone) but it does not solve the problem 1 and 2).
1. I already mentioned that.
2. no real extra depth of field on a lens and sensor that’s already so small depth is already too much.
maybe there would be a very slight improvement in that area, but I doubt it’s going to matter much. The problem with video here is that there’s nothing wrong with super sharp frames. The problem is that people aren’t yet used to it. But with Tv, that’s exactly what we see.
The purpose of variable aperture lens for mobile phone is not for bokeh, or not mainly for this. It is for the speed.
Being able to reduce the size of the aperture makes the lens “slower”, not faster.
The apertures are already as large as can be practically made, so it is doubtful that a variable aperture will allow the lens to be faster.
Well you might want to stop down when there’s too much light, like the outdoors for instance.
Typically not.
As a general rule, you don't need to stop down for brightly lit subjects with a smartphone camera. The reason has to do with image noise. As a general rule, noise goes down as you capture more light. With small smartphone sensors, you need a lot of light per unit area in order to capture a lot of light. Therefore wide apertures and bright subjects are a good thing as you want to capture a lot of light.
If the light is very bright, the camera simply selects a very fast shutter speed. A faster shutter speed has the advantage that it reduces motion blur and reduces diffraction softness.
The purpose of variable aperture lens for mobile phone is not for bokeh, or not mainly for this. It is for the speed.
Being able to reduce the size of the aperture makes the lens “slower”, not faster.
The apertures are already as large as can be practically made, so it is doubtful that a variable aperture will allow the lens to be faster.
Well you might want to stop down when there’s too much light, like the outdoors for instance.
Smartphone cameras, as you know, take at least 8 pictures in varying exposures, color valances, noise measuring images, etc. they are already doing HDR in camera with the computer evaluating all of them for a blend. Using Apple RAW, I get excellently exposed images now. I really don’t see any real improvement there for a stop down mode of perhaps one, or at the most, two stops.
Comments
It’s not a flop. Sony could only make 400,000 to 500,000 pairs of screens. That’s a hard limit on sales. Apple NEVER expected large sales of this. The most important thing about this is that companies are taking this up very well. They’ve sold most of them and have finally opened it up to sales in a number of other companies. That’s why it’s called “Pro”, because it’s not expected to sell in high numbers.
2. no real extra depth of field on a lens and sensor that’s already so small depth is already too much.
maybe there would be a very slight improvement in that area, but I doubt it’s going to matter much. The problem with video here is that there’s nothing wrong with super sharp frames. The problem is that people aren’t yet used to it. But with Tv, that’s exactly what we see.
As a general rule, you don't need to stop down for brightly lit subjects with a smartphone camera. The reason has to do with image noise. As a general rule, noise goes down as you capture more light. With small smartphone sensors, you need a lot of light per unit area in order to capture a lot of light. Therefore wide apertures and bright subjects are a good thing as you want to capture a lot of light.
If the light is very bright, the camera simply selects a very fast shutter speed. A faster shutter speed has the advantage that it reduces motion blur and reduces diffraction softness.
iPhone 17 is rumored to use a metalens on the front to reduce the notch/Dynamic Island. Perhaps iPhone 17 "Air" will do the same on the back?