If Apple wants to improve the quality of the photos from the iPhone, the recipe is known, and it doesn't involve increasing the pixel count.
What is the purpose of the camera in a phone?
Is it to output A4 (letter) size? FYI, a good quality 3mp camera is enough to output A4 print, I have been doing it for years with my Coolpix 990.
Is it to display on a 24 inch LCD monitor? Those have a resolution of 2mp, the photos from the iPhone are already full size...
So, unless you intend to print bigger than A3 or to be able to zoom inside the photo on a 24" monitor, 2mp is already enough... If this is the target, 3mp is nice, because it allows for some room to crop, but beyond that, you don't gain much.
Now, what is needed to improve the quality of the iPhone?
- a better electronic shutter. I don't know what technology Apple uses, but it's awful and the photos shows tears at the slightest motion.
- better processing power, to decrease the latency and improve the frame rate.
- better algorithms. Apple should subcontract a company such as DxO to provide them with distortion correction, intelligent sharpening (the photos from the iPhone are currently very soft), chromatic aberation correction and the like. Noise reduction could also be improved.
- better more expensive lens design - with real glass, aspheric elements and the like
- autofocus - without AF, the image quality will remain crap. But AF adds thickness.
Hey melgross, are not Global Moderators supposed to stop the in fighting
My agreement with them was that I could continue to post the way I always have. If I would have been castrated in my own posting, then I would have refused to do the job, which I do my best at.
I believe in freedom of expression.
My philosophy is to always allow people go go as far as they like, as long as they don't insult others as much as they insult me.
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.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
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.
That's 100% only in the sense that there is one image pixel per screen pixel. That has no real world meaning. No one looks at an image that way other than to edit it. Outside of that, percentages mean nothing when talking about pixels. That's what I mean.
Interestingly enough, with CRT monitors, I found long ago, that you had to go to 200% to actually get each pixel right. This is less true for LCD's, but even now, 100% in PS, or other programs, doesn't get you to all the detail.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
Or when you see all the flashes during the Olympics and basball /football games.
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.
I'm not a big fan of Ken Rockwell. While some of his arguments are correct, he somehow screws things up to the point that he goes overboard in his assertions. there is a counterpoint to his argument.
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.
I believe it is more like having your bluff called..
That is an over simplification. The excellent web page article you linked to points out that the square law means the difference of "40% in the pixel count in one direction after doubling the total pixel count". To then interpret that to mean 'More MP is proven useless" is a silly extrapolation. If you were correct in this assertion then all cameras need only be 1 MP!
I agree the hype of manufacturers is over done at the consumer level and the % difference between any two cameras should be calculated before paying a premium for a few extra MP. It is simple arithmetic after all.
However, more MPs are better than less MPs if the price and storage are not issues and lots more even better. Anyone who works a lot in Photoshop knows the benefit in working in a high resolution for such things as masking and color replacement even if the final image is to be used at a lower resolution. The accuracy of the editing is significantly better when done at the highest resolution the graphic artist can comfortably work at for his own hardware's abilities.
There is a well known truism in graphics and video, 'you can always res down but you can never res up'.
The whole point in the article to the thread is how this new 3.2MP camera will allow video capture.
READ:
That's not the whole point to the article. That's just one point, and not even a good one.
Quote:
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.
Was that a quote from me? You'll have to supply a quote from me to have that make sense.
As far as video recording is involved in the phone's hardware, I don't think I said anything that made it seem as though I am precluding video recording because of hardware issues.
In fact, despite what has been said here, a 2 MP sensor is more than enough for any video a phone is going to capture. If anything, it's too much. Apple would have to use pixel binning to do video. The last thing I would want to see is a 1080i or p video.
Besides, there is no way the phone could process that much video. 720i or p would be more than enough.
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?
Yes it does!
Display a 2mp image on a HDTV and the image will be displayed at more or less it's native resolution. Put another way, there is no point displaying a 10MP image on an HDTV, as 2MP is the limit of it's resolution.
My phone has an excellent 2MP camera - obviously not an iPhone.
When I display the images on an HDTV, they look great, because leaving aside the different aspect ratios, the TV has just enough resolution to display all the information present in the images.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
I love seeing them use the flash in sports stadiums at night. Even better is when they leave the flash on during day games.
My agreement with them was that I could continue to post the way I always have. If I would have been castrated in my own posting, then I would have refused to do the job, which I do my best at.
I believe in freedom of expression.
My philosophy is to always allow people go go as far as they like, as long as they don't insult others as much as they insult me.
That's not the whole point to the article. That's just one point, and not even a good one.
Was that a quote from me? You'll have to supply a quote from me to have that make sense.
As far as video recording is involved in the phone's hardware, I don't think I said anything that made it seem as though I am precluding video recording because of hardware issues.
In fact, despite what has been said here, a 2 MP sensor is more than enough for any video a phone is going to capture. If anything, it's too much. Apple would have to use pixel binning to do video. The last thing I would want to see is a 1080i or p video.
Besides, there is no way the phone could process that much video. 720i or p would be more than enough.
You keep trying to skew what is being discussed- now you're off on some 720P /1080i or p tangent for a phone! You'll try to weezle out of anything, won't you.
You keep trying to skew what is being discussed- now you're off on some 720P /1080i or p tangent for a phone! You'll try to weezle out of anything, won't you.
Here is your direct repsonse-
LAME.
You rarely have a good argument, and that's all you usually can say to one.
If you want to argue a point with me, I'd be happy to do so, as you know. In fact, I responded to a number of your posts, and you didn't respond in kind. So, who is lame?
Present your argument to me in your next post, and we can discuss it.
You're response here is useless. You can't even respond to what I said properly.
My response to that guy was correct, considering what he said.
That is why companies like Canon and Nikon sell dedicated cameras. Camera phones aren't meant to fill all the functions of a good camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stashman
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.
Comments
What is the purpose of the camera in a phone?
Is it to output A4 (letter) size? FYI, a good quality 3mp camera is enough to output A4 print, I have been doing it for years with my Coolpix 990.
Is it to display on a 24 inch LCD monitor? Those have a resolution of 2mp, the photos from the iPhone are already full size...
So, unless you intend to print bigger than A3 or to be able to zoom inside the photo on a 24" monitor, 2mp is already enough... If this is the target, 3mp is nice, because it allows for some room to crop, but beyond that, you don't gain much.
Now, what is needed to improve the quality of the iPhone?
- a better electronic shutter. I don't know what technology Apple uses, but it's awful and the photos shows tears at the slightest motion.
- better processing power, to decrease the latency and improve the frame rate.
- better algorithms. Apple should subcontract a company such as DxO to provide them with distortion correction, intelligent sharpening (the photos from the iPhone are currently very soft), chromatic aberation correction and the like. Noise reduction could also be improved.
- better more expensive lens design - with real glass, aspheric elements and the like
- autofocus - without AF, the image quality will remain crap. But AF adds thickness.
Hey melgross, are not Global Moderators supposed to stop the in fighting
My agreement with them was that I could continue to post the way I always have. If I would have been castrated in my own posting, then I would have refused to do the job, which I do my best at.
I believe in freedom of expression.
My philosophy is to always allow people go go as far as they like, as long as they don't insult others as much as they insult me.
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.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
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.
That's 100% only in the sense that there is one image pixel per screen pixel. That has no real world meaning. No one looks at an image that way other than to edit it. Outside of that, percentages mean nothing when talking about pixels. That's what I mean.
Interestingly enough, with CRT monitors, I found long ago, that you had to go to 200% to actually get each pixel right. This is less true for LCD's, but even now, 100% in PS, or other programs, doesn't get you to all the detail.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
Or when you see all the flashes during the Olympics and basball /football games.
If Apple wants to improve the quality of the photos from the iPhone, the recipe is known, and it doesn't involve increasing the pixel count.
You are right, of course Apple knows this. I'm sure the camera is not high on their priority list.
Obviously, and look at the iMac's- merely adequate
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.
I'm not a big fan of Ken Rockwell. While some of his arguments are correct, he somehow screws things up to the point that he goes overboard in his assertions. there is a counterpoint to his argument.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...s-matter.shtml
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with what YOU'VE said here.
You didn't "get" my reply.
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.
I believe it is more like having your bluff called..
All else being equal?
More MP is PROVEN (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm) to be pretty much useless.
That is an over simplification. The excellent web page article you linked to points out that the square law means the difference of "40% in the pixel count in one direction after doubling the total pixel count". To then interpret that to mean 'More MP is proven useless" is a silly extrapolation. If you were correct in this assertion then all cameras need only be 1 MP!
I agree the hype of manufacturers is over done at the consumer level and the % difference between any two cameras should be calculated before paying a premium for a few extra MP. It is simple arithmetic after all.
However, more MPs are better than less MPs if the price and storage are not issues and lots more even better. Anyone who works a lot in Photoshop knows the benefit in working in a high resolution for such things as masking and color replacement even if the final image is to be used at a lower resolution. The accuracy of the editing is significantly better when done at the highest resolution the graphic artist can comfortably work at for his own hardware's abilities.
There is a well known truism in graphics and video, 'you can always res down but you can never res up'.
The whole point in the article to the thread is how this new 3.2MP camera will allow video capture.
READ:
That's not the whole point to the article. That's just one point, and not even a good one.
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.
Was that a quote from me? You'll have to supply a quote from me to have that make sense.
As far as video recording is involved in the phone's hardware, I don't think I said anything that made it seem as though I am precluding video recording because of hardware issues.
In fact, despite what has been said here, a 2 MP sensor is more than enough for any video a phone is going to capture. If anything, it's too much. Apple would have to use pixel binning to do video. The last thing I would want to see is a 1080i or p video.
Besides, there is no way the phone could process that much video. 720i or p would be more than enough.
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?
Yes it does!
Display a 2mp image on a HDTV and the image will be displayed at more or less it's native resolution. Put another way, there is no point displaying a 10MP image on an HDTV, as 2MP is the limit of it's resolution.
My phone has an excellent 2MP camera - obviously not an iPhone.
When I display the images on an HDTV, they look great, because leaving aside the different aspect ratios, the TV has just enough resolution to display all the information present in the images.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
I love seeing them use the flash in sports stadiums at night. Even better is when they leave the flash on during day games.
Perhaps more megapixels would have helped.
Or one flash per pixel!
My agreement with them was that I could continue to post the way I always have. If I would have been castrated in my own posting, then I would have refused to do the job, which I do my best at.
I believe in freedom of expression.
My philosophy is to always allow people go go as far as they like, as long as they don't insult others as much as they insult me.
Sounds good to me
I love seeing them use the flash in sports stadiums at night. Even better is when they leave the flash on during day games.
The bald guy in the seat in front of them really shines though!
LOL, I really started something here. We need a funniest use of Flash I have ever seen thread!
That's not the whole point to the article. That's just one point, and not even a good one.
Was that a quote from me? You'll have to supply a quote from me to have that make sense.
As far as video recording is involved in the phone's hardware, I don't think I said anything that made it seem as though I am precluding video recording because of hardware issues.
In fact, despite what has been said here, a 2 MP sensor is more than enough for any video a phone is going to capture. If anything, it's too much. Apple would have to use pixel binning to do video. The last thing I would want to see is a 1080i or p video.
Besides, there is no way the phone could process that much video. 720i or p would be more than enough.
You keep trying to skew what is being discussed- now you're off on some 720P /1080i or p tangent for a phone! You'll try to weezle out of anything, won't you.
Here is your direct repsonse-
Ah, the voice of ignorance!
LAME.
You keep trying to skew what is being discussed- now you're off on some 720P /1080i or p tangent for a phone! You'll try to weezle out of anything, won't you.
Here is your direct repsonse-
LAME.
You rarely have a good argument, and that's all you usually can say to one.
If you want to argue a point with me, I'd be happy to do so, as you know. In fact, I responded to a number of your posts, and you didn't respond in kind. So, who is lame?
Present your argument to me in your next post, and we can discuss it.
You're response here is useless. You can't even respond to what I said properly.
My response to that guy was correct, considering what he said.
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.