You cannot divorce the number of pixels from the lens and the processing, they are all apart of the chain that creates the final image. You can have a large number of pixels but if you have a crap lens or crap processing you can end up with a crap picture.
When you increase the number of pixels you have to improve the lens and processing to properly resolve the increased number of pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85
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 (whatever the full pixel count is). 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.
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.
You didn't "get" my reply.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
I was one of the first to use a digital editing system for photos, called the Crossfield (from England). I paid over $250,000 for that in the late '80's. I was one of the first to use Photoshop, and began as a beta tester for that program, and later other Adobe programs, with version 1. We were an Adobe partner test shop until we sold the lab 4.5 years ago. I helped to develop scanner software for them, as well as being involved in Kodaks digital program. We were also the only lab in the world to offer our own technology to process professional kodachrome, as Kodak always considered it to be an amateur film.
When we sold the lab, we had over 30 Macs for digital work.
There already are apps that read bar codes in the App Store.
I haven't seen ll of them, but the ones I have seen are not for regular bar codes. They are for those square codes. I can't remember what they are called right now.
You cannot divorce the number of pixels from the lens and the processing, they are all apart of the chain that creates the final image. You can have a large number of pixels but if you have a crap lens or crap processing you can end up with a crap picture.
When you increase the number of pixels you have to improve the lens and processing to properly resolve the increased number of pixels.
Ok, I think there was just a disconnect of understanding between us. But by your own assertion and extension then, higher MPs do represent better quality due to better processing, with the added benefit of a better lens too. Which was my point to begin with in addressing whoever's comment on the first page. The added benefits of processing and lens were assumed in addressing higher MP counts...
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
A better image quality needs a better lens, a larger sensor, better low-light performance and some variable focus.
And if you want to shoot video, you need to pull images off the chip faster. The current iPhone has a rolling shutter which gives jello-like movement.
All of these things would be desirable to the I-can't-be-arsed-to-carry-a-camera brigade. Of which I am a part-time member.
But if any of these changes causes the phone to become 1mm thicker, I'd prefer to pass.
C.
I agree and interestingly enough many don't realize 720p which is entry level for HD is 1280 x 720 pixels = only 921600 pixels per frame but you have to pump 24 or 25 of these babies per second. High quality still photography has a far higher requirement for a single image than video both in pixel density and as you say mechanical requirements. I see no reason that a new iPhone couldn't deal with HD video ... storage requirements being the issue here.
Call me weird, but I think phone camera flashes are always a mistake. And based on their ideology for the iPhone's simplicity and flexibility I think Apple would much rather enhance the camera's software to aid low-lighting than add a flash.
1) Flashes take up valuable space in the design, for a feature that is needed less than 50% of the time.
2) Low-power flashes slow down the reaction time of a camera, and the lighting is horribly unattractive anyway.
The whole premise of the touchscreen replacing a hard keypad was to do away with features that get in the way. And a camera flash gets in the way more than it enhances the phone.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
I was one of the first to use a digital editing system for photos, called the Crossfield (from England). I paid over $250,000 for that in the late '80's. I was one of the first to use Photoshop, and began as a beta tester for that program, and later other Adobe programs, with version 1. We were an Adobe partner test shop until we sold the lab 4.5 years ago. I helped to develop scanner software for them, as well as being involved in Kodaks digital program. We were also the only lab in the world to offer our own technology to process professional kodachrome, as Kodak always considered it to be an amateur film.
When we sold the lab, we had over 30 Macs for digital work.
So, yes, I do know a LITTLE about this.
How about you?
I didn't need your whole life story as proof of professional expertise, as I assume many on these boards are said professionals (as this is an Apple forum), but thank you nonetheless. I simply took what you stated in your post at face value, and responded in kind.
OK, I've never used any of them, but I've seen the advertised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
In order for the barcode scanning to become usable it needs to be effortless, fast and accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I haven't seen ll of them, but the ones I have seen are not for regular bar codes. They are for those square codes. I can't remember what they are called right now.
Yeah, what we are primarily talking about is increasing the pixels on the iPhone while in its current design can only have a crappy lens and limited processing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85
Ok, I think there was just a disconnect of understanding between us. But by your own assertion and extension then, higher MPs do represent better quality due to better processing, with the added benefit of a better lens too. Which was my point to begin with in addressing whoever's comment on the first page. The added benefits of processing and lens were assumed in addressing higher MP counts...
Call me weird, but I think phone camera flashes are always a mistake. And based on their ideology for the iPhone's simplicity and flexibility I think Apple would much rather enhance the camera's software to aid low-lighting than add a flash.
1) Flashes take up valuable space in the design, for a feature that is needed less than 50% of the time.
2) Low-power flashes slow down the reaction time of a camera, and the lighting is horribly unattractive anyway.
The whole premise of the touchscreen replacing a hard keypad was to do away with features that get in the way. And a camera flash gets in the way more than it enhances the phone.
OK Weird, (kidding). Actually the problem with Flash (assuming he doesn't mean the Adobe kind) is it is dumb on cheap cameras and most users not any smarter as to its use. Seeing an idiot using a wee camera and taking a flash lit picture of Gibraltar at night off a ship five miles away will long amuse me.
However fill flash intelligently linked to aperture and speed is awesome and with a computer (as in the iPhone's) controlling all aspects I could see the simple addition of some sliders on the screen to adjust fill flash settings as being almost usable by novices.
3rd Party Photography app for advanced users maybe?
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.
I disagree with your last comment. 100% refers to one image pixel mapped to one display pixel. If the display pixel is one inch square, or one micron square, it will still display the exact same data. In the case of the one inch square pixels you may want to back up a bit, and with the one micron pixel you would decidedly want a magnifying glass. Don't believe me, just look at any available imaging software. When you scale your view of an image in percentages, 100% is always a one to one ratio of image pixel to display pixel.
On the whole how many is enough bit, I agree with all those who say the crappy little sensors and lenses on a phone make high pixel counts pointless. 3.2 will make me very happy. When I want to take a camera along, I'll take an actual camera.
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.
If you have ever used a computer then you should know that a 100% photo size has nothing to do with it's "naive" size. If your screen resolution is 640x480 and you try to view a 1920x1080 pic at "100%" it will overflow off the sides of the screen. Now set your monitor resolution to 2560 × 1600 and you will notice your "100%" sized photo is SMALLER and fits easily within the sreen. There is no 100%, "native size" would be the size of the optical sensor on the camera. I have a projector at home and amazingly I can watch a "100%" 720p picture all the way from a 40" screen to a 200" screen, but no matter how big it's always 1280x720. HDTV (broadcast) cameras use 2.x mega pix sensors (i checked it out), but they're huge and have a awesome optics and processing. They achieve such a great picture from less pixels by being more precise. It's the complete oppisite with consumer cameras. Instead of less pixels and better optics and processing (cause numbers mean more to consumers, they're tangible, show off able) they give more pixles to make up for the fact that some pixels won't be doing shit because the lens won't get the light to the right places at the right time. It's like cathing rain through a bad roof, they just give a bigger cup and hope to catch most of it. Instead of placing the cups right where they're needed and not wasting unneeded cups.
No it isn't. Only a few post relate to that. Almost everything else ia about IQ, including most of your posts.
The whole point in the article to the thread is how this new 3.2MP camera will allow video capture.
READ:
Quote:
The report adds some corroboration to an earlier AppleInsider report, which similarly cited sources as saying the iPhone maker was due to include a higher-resolution camera with its upcoming handsets that would also be capable of capturing video.
Both the original iPhone and the iPhone 3G shipped with a 2-megapixel camera and neither version supports video recording.
We take difference to that last sentence in that it's camera's fault and not the Apple software itself. And you gave a lame excuse.
Comments
When you increase the number of pixels you have to improve the lens and processing to properly resolve the increased number of pixels.
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 (whatever the full pixel count is). 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.
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.
You didn't "get" my reply.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
I was one of the first to use a digital editing system for photos, called the Crossfield (from England). I paid over $250,000 for that in the late '80's. I was one of the first to use Photoshop, and began as a beta tester for that program, and later other Adobe programs, with version 1. We were an Adobe partner test shop until we sold the lab 4.5 years ago. I helped to develop scanner software for them, as well as being involved in Kodaks digital program. We were also the only lab in the world to offer our own technology to process professional kodachrome, as Kodak always considered it to be an amateur film.
When we sold the lab, we had over 30 Macs for digital work.
So, yes, I do know a LITTLE about this.
How about you?
This conversation isn't really about video. It's about image IQ.
Now is that a poor excuse or what? The whole thread relates to video capture.
Can you post a link reference for this so we can include it in the story?
http://www.ovt.com/products/truefocus.php
There already are apps that read bar codes in the App Store.
Not well without hacks.
The current iPhone camera can't focus well below 8"
So if you have a big barcode it will work.
The iPhone still struggles with many barcodes.
The apps that are currently available have to use a lot of processing to compensate for the poor optical system which results in slower recognition.
In order for the barcode scanning to become usable it needs to be effortless, fast and accurate.
There already are apps that read bar codes in the App Store.
I haven't seen ll of them, but the ones I have seen are not for regular bar codes. They are for those square codes. I can't remember what they are called right now.
Buy good camera in the least!
Now is that a poor excuse or what? The whole thread relates to video capture.
No it isn't. Only a few post relate to that. Almost everything else ia about IQ, including most of your posts.
You cannot divorce the number of pixels from the lens and the processing, they are all apart of the chain that creates the final image. You can have a large number of pixels but if you have a crap lens or crap processing you can end up with a crap picture.
When you increase the number of pixels you have to improve the lens and processing to properly resolve the increased number of pixels.
Ok, I think there was just a disconnect of understanding between us. But by your own assertion and extension then, higher MPs do represent better quality due to better processing, with the added benefit of a better lens too. Which was my point to begin with in addressing whoever's comment on the first page. The added benefits of processing and lens were assumed in addressing higher MP counts...
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
A better image quality needs a better lens, a larger sensor, better low-light performance and some variable focus.
And if you want to shoot video, you need to pull images off the chip faster. The current iPhone has a rolling shutter which gives jello-like movement.
All of these things would be desirable to the I-can't-be-arsed-to-carry-a-camera brigade. Of which I am a part-time member.
But if any of these changes causes the phone to become 1mm thicker, I'd prefer to pass.
C.
I agree and interestingly enough many don't realize 720p which is entry level for HD is 1280 x 720 pixels = only 921600 pixels per frame but you have to pump 24 or 25 of these babies per second. High quality still photography has a far higher requirement for a single image than video both in pixel density and as you say mechanical requirements. I see no reason that a new iPhone couldn't deal with HD video ... storage requirements being the issue here.
Can we also get flash please with the new camera?
Call me weird, but I think phone camera flashes are always a mistake. And based on their ideology for the iPhone's simplicity and flexibility I think Apple would much rather enhance the camera's software to aid low-lighting than add a flash.
1) Flashes take up valuable space in the design, for a feature that is needed less than 50% of the time.
2) Low-power flashes slow down the reaction time of a camera, and the lighting is horribly unattractive anyway.
The whole premise of the touchscreen replacing a hard keypad was to do away with features that get in the way. And a camera flash gets in the way more than it enhances the phone.
No it isn't. Only a few post relate to that. Almost everything else ia about IQ, including most of your posts.
Hey melgross, are not Global Moderators supposed to stop the in fighting
You didn't "get" my reply.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
I was one of the first to use a digital editing system for photos, called the Crossfield (from England). I paid over $250,000 for that in the late '80's. I was one of the first to use Photoshop, and began as a beta tester for that program, and later other Adobe programs, with version 1. We were an Adobe partner test shop until we sold the lab 4.5 years ago. I helped to develop scanner software for them, as well as being involved in Kodaks digital program. We were also the only lab in the world to offer our own technology to process professional kodachrome, as Kodak always considered it to be an amateur film.
When we sold the lab, we had over 30 Macs for digital work.
So, yes, I do know a LITTLE about this.
How about you?
I didn't need your whole life story as proof of professional expertise, as I assume many on these boards are said professionals (as this is an Apple forum), but thank you nonetheless. I simply took what you stated in your post at face value, and responded in kind.
In order for the barcode scanning to become usable it needs to be effortless, fast and accurate.
I haven't seen ll of them, but the ones I have seen are not for regular bar codes. They are for those square codes. I can't remember what they are called right now.
Ok, I think there was just a disconnect of understanding between us. But by your own assertion and extension then, higher MPs do represent better quality due to better processing, with the added benefit of a better lens too. Which was my point to begin with in addressing whoever's comment on the first page. The added benefits of processing and lens were assumed in addressing higher MP counts...
Call me weird, but I think phone camera flashes are always a mistake. And based on their ideology for the iPhone's simplicity and flexibility I think Apple would much rather enhance the camera's software to aid low-lighting than add a flash.
1) Flashes take up valuable space in the design, for a feature that is needed less than 50% of the time.
2) Low-power flashes slow down the reaction time of a camera, and the lighting is horribly unattractive anyway.
The whole premise of the touchscreen replacing a hard keypad was to do away with features that get in the way. And a camera flash gets in the way more than it enhances the phone.
OK Weird, (kidding). Actually the problem with Flash (assuming he doesn't mean the Adobe kind) is it is dumb on cheap cameras and most users not any smarter as to its use. Seeing an idiot using a wee camera and taking a flash lit picture of Gibraltar at night off a ship five miles away will long amuse me.
However fill flash intelligently linked to aperture and speed is awesome and with a computer (as in the iPhone's) controlling all aspects I could see the simple addition of some sliders on the screen to adjust fill flash settings as being almost usable by novices.
3rd Party Photography app for advanced users maybe?
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.
I disagree with your last comment. 100% refers to one image pixel mapped to one display pixel. If the display pixel is one inch square, or one micron square, it will still display the exact same data. In the case of the one inch square pixels you may want to back up a bit, and with the one micron pixel you would decidedly want a magnifying glass. Don't believe me, just look at any available imaging software. When you scale your view of an image in percentages, 100% is always a one to one ratio of image pixel to display pixel.
On the whole how many is enough bit, I agree with all those who say the crappy little sensors and lenses on a phone make high pixel counts pointless. 3.2 will make me very happy. When I want to take a camera along, I'll take an actual camera.
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.
All else being equal?
More MP is PROVEN (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm) to be pretty much useless.
If you have ever used a computer then you should know that a 100% photo size has nothing to do with it's "naive" size. If your screen resolution is 640x480 and you try to view a 1920x1080 pic at "100%" it will overflow off the sides of the screen. Now set your monitor resolution to 2560 × 1600 and you will notice your "100%" sized photo is SMALLER and fits easily within the sreen. There is no 100%, "native size" would be the size of the optical sensor on the camera. I have a projector at home and amazingly I can watch a "100%" 720p picture all the way from a 40" screen to a 200" screen, but no matter how big it's always 1280x720. HDTV (broadcast) cameras use 2.x mega pix sensors (i checked it out), but they're huge and have a awesome optics and processing. They achieve such a great picture from less pixels by being more precise. It's the complete oppisite with consumer cameras. Instead of less pixels and better optics and processing (cause numbers mean more to consumers, they're tangible, show off able) they give more pixles to make up for the fact that some pixels won't be doing shit because the lens won't get the light to the right places at the right time. It's like cathing rain through a bad roof, they just give a bigger cup and hope to catch most of it. Instead of placing the cups right where they're needed and not wasting unneeded cups.
http://www.ovt.com/products/truefocus.php
there is a typo in your image. they wrote "traditional" but they meant to write "doctored"
No it isn't. Only a few post relate to that. Almost everything else ia about IQ, including most of your posts.
The whole point in the article to the thread is how this new 3.2MP camera will allow video capture.
READ:
The report adds some corroboration to an earlier AppleInsider report, which similarly cited sources as saying the iPhone maker was due to include a higher-resolution camera with its upcoming handsets that would also be capable of capturing video.
Both the original iPhone and the iPhone 3G shipped with a 2-megapixel camera and neither version supports video recording.
We take difference to that last sentence in that it's camera's fault and not the Apple software itself. And you gave a lame excuse.