My trusty old Coolpix 990 with its mere 3MP can certainly do that...
And I don't see what you mean. Per definition, a HDTV image is taken by a 2mp sensor! The resolution of 1080i/p HTDV *is* 2mp. Give me a 24x26 camera with a 2mp sensor and a decent lens, and I will get you *amazing* HDTV images, even in awful light conditions... Just look at what a camera like the Nikon D2h could achieve with "only" 4mp over a decent size sensor...
No- he's actually comparing the amount of MPs on a HDTV screen versus the MPs in a camera sensor- now I ask you-does that make sense?
Oh man!! I can't wait either!! I've been hanging on to the 1st gen iPhone and I am so glad I did, so I can get the 3rd gen iPhone in the next few months.
Any idea if it is going to be a worldwide (or nearly) release, or only in USA first and then Europe? (I live in UK).
Good news, but as long as quality does not go down. I still think that for photos with good light the photos that the iPhone takes are pretty good (even when I look at them on my 20" iMac), without becoming a huge size file too (mostly due to software I imagine too).
I definitively would not like to have a "better" (take notice of the inverted comas) camera, but on a thicker phone. I think Apple people are pretty smart and going further that 3.2MP would be compromising quality, thickness, etc....
And, don't forget, if you really want to take good photos, nothing like ........what was it called? that thing that we used to use years ago??? Ah, yes!!! A CAMERA!!!! (just a little friday joke).
Exactly... Just look at what happens when the megapixel race stops... For instance, take a Nikon D3 with "only" 12mp over a 24x36 sensor. The camera is absolutely amazing in low light at high ISO.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
There is a simple test to show how well your camera can resolve detail. A picture with 4 alternating white and black squares. Take a picture of that. Then multiply to 8 alternating black and white squares, then 16, then 32. Keep multiplying until you reach the number of pixels that are on the sensor. The camera should be able to resolve most of black and white squares close to the point the squares reach the number of pixels on the sensor.
When a camera is crap the squares turn into a mass of gray long before they reach the number of pixels on the sensor.
Under this test its possible that a 2MP camera could resolve more of these squares than a 10MP camera. Which would mean the 2MP camera could resolve more real detail than the 10MP.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
Exactly. And noise and dynamic range are both dependant on pixel size. The more pixels, the smaller they are. And the worse noise and dynamic range get. Marketing has been killing image quality for years, because megapixel count is easier to market than noise and dynamic range.
But look at what people want to do with a point and shoot :
- take photos outside during their holidays and such - with a short dynamic range, this means burnt out skies with nuclear colors and shadows clipped to black.
- take photos of social events. Most of these are inside or in the evening, in low light condition. With a poor noise/signal ratio and poor noise processing, this means noisy photos with dirty colors.
- take photos with moving subjects (kids, friends). Higher shutter speed means higher ISO. Again, a lot of noise. Moreover, more pixels mean more time to process them and a camera that feels sluggish.
The megapixel race is counter-productive for most of what people use a P&S for...
Not not really much an update and still won't make the iPhone camera replacement. It's a shame as I use the camera on the iPhone quite a bit but would also like to to take good shots in all conditions, from skiing, walking about town to party photos in bad lighting.
Well if you read the background information on OmniVision, this is pretty much exactly what they are claiming. It could just be the standard hype of course, but they claim that this camera will give pictures of the same quality as a regular digital point and shoot. Hard to believe really, but we'll see I suppose.
Megapixels are nice but I want flash and zoom (optical zoom).
The iPhone can do OK if you are outdoors or are in a blindingly brightly lit room, but in less light, the pictures are unacceptable. Back in 2001, I had a 0.3 MP camera (640x480) that generally took pictures far superior to the iPhone's (it actually had a flash that was too powerful, so any subject within 6 feet was bleached.)
I just want basics. 2-3x optical zoom and a fixed power flash that is designed for a known distance. I just would like some decent quality pictures in a range of conditions.
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
Detail is just as much dependent on the lens as it is the sensor.
As the sensor gets as small as they are in phones, where they are much smaller than they are even in compact cameras, the pixels are so small that the lens can't resolve them. That's assuming a very good lens, not the junk you see on phones.
Even for my Canon 5D mkII, with a FF 35mm size sensor with 21 MP, my "L" lenses are often not sharp enough to resolve all the detail the sensor can deliver. It's even more true for Nikon and Sony with their 24.5 MP sensors.
5 MP on these phone cameras would be like over 30 MP on mine, but the processing is crap, at best, and the $5 lenses are also crap.
The problem is that they have so much noise reduction that there is little detail in the higher MP phones that isn't in lower MP phones. Right now, 3 to 4 MP is about the best you can do as a balance.
This is so true.
People forget also that as little as four years ago, a "good" consumer camera topped out at 4 megapixels. My partner's camera (a Canon point and shoot or that vintage) takes horrible pictures by today's standards but was considered fantastic at the time. My iPhone 3G takes far better pics than the Canon does under most conditions even though it has less pixels to work with.
With the original phone, Apple picked a reasonably good lens out of the crap that was available, and worked on the post processing till it was as good as it could get. With the new OmniVision part, there is some hope for a greatly improved picture again, but it's due to the (supposedly) better lens more than the increase in pixels.
Good enough for a phone. I've seen pics from phones with 5 MP sensors, and the prints are quite crappy.
Only if they use a larger sensor, which requires a larger lens, will it make sense. Then they need a cpu designed to do the processing. 3.2 MP is good enough for an acceptable 8 x10 for most people. More importantly, it will resolve a bar code, allowing programs that read them, and even pay for products.
BINGO!...A 3.2 Megapixel camera with OmniVision's TrueFocus technology will make barcode scanning a reality with the new iPhone. This opens a world of industrial uses for iPods and iPhones. Perhaps Apple will finally replace the Windows CE based handhelds they use at the Apple Store for checkout.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
3.2 is better, assuming the rest of the image chain is as well.
The question is, how much more than that is indicated these days?
I would imagine that in a few years, as everything gets better, and phone manufacturers see their way to using slightly larger sensors and better lenses, 5 MP might actually give us a good picture, but not now.
Megapixels are nice but I want flash and zoom (optical zoom).
The iPhone can do OK if you are outdoors or are in a blindingly brightly lit room, but in less light, the pictures are unacceptable. Back in 2001, I had a 0.3 MP camera (640x480) that generally took pictures far superior to the iPhone's (it actually had a flash that was too powerful, so any subject within 6 feet was bleached.)
I just want basics. 2-3x optical zoom and a fixed power flash that is designed for a known distance. I just would like some decent quality pictures in a range of conditions.
The flash wasn't too powerful, the flash exposure control of the camera was crap.
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
The only time when you would be correct is if both images have about the same pixel quality, and the lenses and processing of those images is about equal. Then, and only then, will the higher pixel image be better.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. But, we're starting out with a pretty low quality file to begin with. In real cameras, the images are so much better, and that's true even for the $99 8 MP 3x optical zoom models we see.
If people only want to see the image on the phone, and aren't interested in zooming in and out, then for the iPhone, an image with 153,600 pixels would be enough. If they want to make a usable 8 x 10, which I can assure you is rare for most people, then a 3.2 MP image is enough. It's more than good enough for a 6 x 8.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
EDIT:
I wanted to add that there is no such thing as viewing an image designated in number of pixels, at 100%, or any other percentage. A pixel is a pixel, it doesn't indicate image size.
If you wanted to view these images at 100%, the only way you could do so is at the size of the sensor, which is very tiny, and too small for you to really see the image without a magnifying lens, which would make the image larger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
There is no such thing as megpixel size and megapixel quality. He's right 1920x1080 frames are 2 megapixels. What makes the difference is that HD cameras are using better lens, better sensors, and better processing.
I've printed some pictures taken on my iPhone. The ones taken in bright light look OK for point and shoot snap shots.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
What are you two even talking about? Do you even use programs like Photoshop? Of course you can view images at their 100% magnification, ie the native resolution. As far as "designation," what do you think you're viewing when you're looking at a 1920x1080 image? That's pixel count. I also wasn't talking about processor and lens capability, because those have added influence on an image's quality, and typically better processors and lens comes with cameras that feature higher MPs anyway, so I'm not really sure what your point is and why you're trying to defend a 2MP vs. a 12MP. To say that higher pixel count don't represent quality is completely unfound. More pixels per area = a cleaner and more detailed image, all else being equal.
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
This conversation isn't really about video. It's about image IQ.
There already are apps that read bar codes in the App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
BINGO!...A 3.2 Megapixel camera with OmniVision's TrueFocus technology will make barcode scanning a reality with the new iPhone. This opens a world of industrial uses for iPods and iPhones. Perhaps Apple will finally replace the Windows CE based handhelds they use at the Apple Store for checkout.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
Not at all, I'm not sarcastic. I have all reasons to believe the resolution of the iPhone is not limited by the sensor, but either by the lens or the laws of optic (diffraction).
Increasing the megapixel count is always a balance. On one hand, you get higher resolution, on the other, you get worse noise/signal and dynamic range. If the resolution is limited by the optical system (either from bad quality or from optical laws), you get none of the advantages, but you still get all the drawbacks...
There is a very simple test. The iPhone does not have an anti-aliasing filter. It's too expensive and not used on phones and P&S. Have you ever seen any aliasing artefact on the iPhone? No? Then, it's because the lens is acting as an low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter (which is why you don't find dedicated filters in P&S and phones in the first place)... Then, increasing the resolution of the sensor behind that lens will not achieve anything. It would be like buying a better camera to make better photos of your SD television...
Moreover, beyond the quality of the lens, there is the problem of diffraction. The iPhone does not have autofocus. And I don't see it getting it without increasing its bulk. For fix focus to work, you must set the lens to the hyperfocal with an aperture small enough to give a decent depth of field. But the hyperfocal formula takes resolution into account. If you move from 2mp to 3mp, either you keep the same aperture (but you get 2mp quality overall) or you need to move to a smaller aperture to take into account the extra resolution.
A smaller aperture will mean less light. So, either slower shutter speed, leading to more motion blur - and motion blur totally kills resolution. Or increasing the gain to increase the ISO rating - which means more noise, another resolution killer.
Moreover, you can only stop down so much. Past a certain value, diffraction hits hard and kills resolution. For instance, a DX DSLR usually becomes diffraction limited around f13, or even f11 for the 14mp models. Most P&S are diffraction limited around f8 because of the smaller sensors. The P&S with insane pixel counts, such as 12mp or more, are even limited at f5.6. On the iPhone, with the sensor being so tiny, I would bet diffraction hits as soon as f4 if not sooner.
Comments
My trusty old Coolpix 990 with its mere 3MP can certainly do that...
And I don't see what you mean. Per definition, a HDTV image is taken by a 2mp sensor! The resolution of 1080i/p HTDV *is* 2mp. Give me a 24x26 camera with a 2mp sensor and a decent lens, and I will get you *amazing* HDTV images, even in awful light conditions... Just look at what a camera like the Nikon D2h could achieve with "only" 4mp over a decent size sensor...
No- he's actually comparing the amount of MPs on a HDTV screen versus the MPs in a camera sensor- now I ask you-does that make sense?
Any idea if it is going to be a worldwide (or nearly) release, or only in USA first and then Europe? (I live in UK).
Good news, but as long as quality does not go down. I still think that for photos with good light the photos that the iPhone takes are pretty good (even when I look at them on my 20" iMac), without becoming a huge size file too (mostly due to software I imagine too).
I definitively would not like to have a "better" (take notice of the inverted comas) camera, but on a thicker phone. I think Apple people are pretty smart and going further that 3.2MP would be compromising quality, thickness, etc....
And, don't forget, if you really want to take good photos, nothing like ........what was it called? that thing that we used to use years ago??? Ah, yes!!! A CAMERA!!!! (just a little friday joke).
Exactly... Just look at what happens when the megapixel race stops... For instance, take a Nikon D3 with "only" 12mp over a 24x36 sensor. The camera is absolutely amazing in low light at high ISO.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
When a camera is crap the squares turn into a mass of gray long before they reach the number of pixels on the sensor.
Under this test its possible that a 2MP camera could resolve more of these squares than a 10MP camera. Which would mean the 2MP camera could resolve more real detail than the 10MP.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
Exactly. And noise and dynamic range are both dependant on pixel size. The more pixels, the smaller they are. And the worse noise and dynamic range get. Marketing has been killing image quality for years, because megapixel count is easier to market than noise and dynamic range.
But look at what people want to do with a point and shoot :
- take photos outside during their holidays and such - with a short dynamic range, this means burnt out skies with nuclear colors and shadows clipped to black.
- take photos of social events. Most of these are inside or in the evening, in low light condition. With a poor noise/signal ratio and poor noise processing, this means noisy photos with dirty colors.
- take photos with moving subjects (kids, friends). Higher shutter speed means higher ISO. Again, a lot of noise. Moreover, more pixels mean more time to process them and a camera that feels sluggish.
The megapixel race is counter-productive for most of what people use a P&S for...
Not not really much an update and still won't make the iPhone camera replacement. It's a shame as I use the camera on the iPhone quite a bit but would also like to to take good shots in all conditions, from skiing, walking about town to party photos in bad lighting.
Well if you read the background information on OmniVision, this is pretty much exactly what they are claiming. It could just be the standard hype of course, but they claim that this camera will give pictures of the same quality as a regular digital point and shoot. Hard to believe really, but we'll see I suppose.
The iPhone can do OK if you are outdoors or are in a blindingly brightly lit room, but in less light, the pictures are unacceptable. Back in 2001, I had a 0.3 MP camera (640x480) that generally took pictures far superior to the iPhone's (it actually had a flash that was too powerful, so any subject within 6 feet was bleached.)
I just want basics. 2-3x optical zoom and a fixed power flash that is designed for a known distance. I just would like some decent quality pictures in a range of conditions.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
Detail is just as much dependent on the lens as it is the sensor.
As the sensor gets as small as they are in phones, where they are much smaller than they are even in compact cameras, the pixels are so small that the lens can't resolve them. That's assuming a very good lens, not the junk you see on phones.
Even for my Canon 5D mkII, with a FF 35mm size sensor with 21 MP, my "L" lenses are often not sharp enough to resolve all the detail the sensor can deliver. It's even more true for Nikon and Sony with their 24.5 MP sensors.
5 MP on these phone cameras would be like over 30 MP on mine, but the processing is crap, at best, and the $5 lenses are also crap.
The problem is that they have so much noise reduction that there is little detail in the higher MP phones that isn't in lower MP phones. Right now, 3 to 4 MP is about the best you can do as a balance.
This is so true.
People forget also that as little as four years ago, a "good" consumer camera topped out at 4 megapixels. My partner's camera (a Canon point and shoot or that vintage) takes horrible pictures by today's standards but was considered fantastic at the time. My iPhone 3G takes far better pics than the Canon does under most conditions even though it has less pixels to work with.
With the original phone, Apple picked a reasonably good lens out of the crap that was available, and worked on the post processing till it was as good as it could get. With the new OmniVision part, there is some hope for a greatly improved picture again, but it's due to the (supposedly) better lens more than the increase in pixels.
No- he's actually comparing the amount of MPs on a HDTV screen versus the MPs in a camera sensor- now I ask you-does that make sense?
Depending on the final print size, if there will even be a print made, it can.
The problem about focusing on specs is that too many people are oblivious to the chain of components and looking for the weakest link.
Marketing depts have confused consumers as well into thinking more MP means a better picture.
Good enough for a phone. I've seen pics from phones with 5 MP sensors, and the prints are quite crappy.
Only if they use a larger sensor, which requires a larger lens, will it make sense. Then they need a cpu designed to do the processing. 3.2 MP is good enough for an acceptable 8 x10 for most people. More importantly, it will resolve a bar code, allowing programs that read them, and even pay for products.
BINGO!...A 3.2 Megapixel camera with OmniVision's TrueFocus technology will make barcode scanning a reality with the new iPhone. This opens a world of industrial uses for iPods and iPhones. Perhaps Apple will finally replace the Windows CE based handhelds they use at the Apple Store for checkout.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
3.2 is better, assuming the rest of the image chain is as well.
The question is, how much more than that is indicated these days?
I would imagine that in a few years, as everything gets better, and phone manufacturers see their way to using slightly larger sensors and better lenses, 5 MP might actually give us a good picture, but not now.
Megapixels are nice but I want flash and zoom (optical zoom).
The iPhone can do OK if you are outdoors or are in a blindingly brightly lit room, but in less light, the pictures are unacceptable. Back in 2001, I had a 0.3 MP camera (640x480) that generally took pictures far superior to the iPhone's (it actually had a flash that was too powerful, so any subject within 6 feet was bleached.)
I just want basics. 2-3x optical zoom and a fixed power flash that is designed for a known distance. I just would like some decent quality pictures in a range of conditions.
The flash wasn't too powerful, the flash exposure control of the camera was crap.
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
And getting excited about video? You do know, if you dared to go against your overlord Apple and jailbreak your iPhone, you'd be able to record video right now, in pretty damn good quality too.
Ah, the voice of ignorance!
Actually, he's correct.
The only time when you would be correct is if both images have about the same pixel quality, and the lenses and processing of those images is about equal. Then, and only then, will the higher pixel image be better.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. But, we're starting out with a pretty low quality file to begin with. In real cameras, the images are so much better, and that's true even for the $99 8 MP 3x optical zoom models we see.
If people only want to see the image on the phone, and aren't interested in zooming in and out, then for the iPhone, an image with 153,600 pixels would be enough. If they want to make a usable 8 x 10, which I can assure you is rare for most people, then a 3.2 MP image is enough. It's more than good enough for a 6 x 8.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
EDIT:
I wanted to add that there is no such thing as viewing an image designated in number of pixels, at 100%, or any other percentage. A pixel is a pixel, it doesn't indicate image size.
If you wanted to view these images at 100%, the only way you could do so is at the size of the sensor, which is very tiny, and too small for you to really see the image without a magnifying lens, which would make the image larger.
There is no such thing as megpixel size and megapixel quality. He's right 1920x1080 frames are 2 megapixels. What makes the difference is that HD cameras are using better lens, better sensors, and better processing.
I've printed some pictures taken on my iPhone. The ones taken in bright light look OK for point and shoot snap shots.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
What are you two even talking about? Do you even use programs like Photoshop? Of course you can view images at their 100% magnification, ie the native resolution. As far as "designation," what do you think you're viewing when you're looking at a 1920x1080 image? That's pixel count. I also wasn't talking about processor and lens capability, because those have added influence on an image's quality, and typically better processors and lens comes with cameras that feature higher MPs anyway, so I'm not really sure what your point is and why you're trying to defend a 2MP vs. a 12MP. To say that higher pixel count don't represent quality is completely unfound. More pixels per area = a cleaner and more detailed image, all else being equal.
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
This conversation isn't really about video. It's about image IQ.
BINGO!...A 3.2 Megapixel camera with OmniVision's TrueFocus technology will make barcode scanning a reality with the new iPhone. This opens a world of industrial uses for iPods and iPhones. Perhaps Apple will finally replace the Windows CE based handhelds they use at the Apple Store for checkout.
You're being sarcastic- right? I can't believe they're defending 2Mp over 3.2 for detail- utter nonsense!
Not at all, I'm not sarcastic. I have all reasons to believe the resolution of the iPhone is not limited by the sensor, but either by the lens or the laws of optic (diffraction).
Increasing the megapixel count is always a balance. On one hand, you get higher resolution, on the other, you get worse noise/signal and dynamic range. If the resolution is limited by the optical system (either from bad quality or from optical laws), you get none of the advantages, but you still get all the drawbacks...
There is a very simple test. The iPhone does not have an anti-aliasing filter. It's too expensive and not used on phones and P&S. Have you ever seen any aliasing artefact on the iPhone? No? Then, it's because the lens is acting as an low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter (which is why you don't find dedicated filters in P&S and phones in the first place)... Then, increasing the resolution of the sensor behind that lens will not achieve anything. It would be like buying a better camera to make better photos of your SD television...
Moreover, beyond the quality of the lens, there is the problem of diffraction. The iPhone does not have autofocus. And I don't see it getting it without increasing its bulk. For fix focus to work, you must set the lens to the hyperfocal with an aperture small enough to give a decent depth of field. But the hyperfocal formula takes resolution into account. If you move from 2mp to 3mp, either you keep the same aperture (but you get 2mp quality overall) or you need to move to a smaller aperture to take into account the extra resolution.
A smaller aperture will mean less light. So, either slower shutter speed, leading to more motion blur - and motion blur totally kills resolution. Or increasing the gain to increase the ISO rating - which means more noise, another resolution killer.
Moreover, you can only stop down so much. Past a certain value, diffraction hits hard and kills resolution. For instance, a DX DSLR usually becomes diffraction limited around f13, or even f11 for the 14mp models. Most P&S are diffraction limited around f8 because of the smaller sensors. The P&S with insane pixel counts, such as 12mp or more, are even limited at f5.6. On the iPhone, with the sensor being so tiny, I would bet diffraction hits as soon as f4 if not sooner.