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.
And you rarely know what you're talking about and keeping going off on some bizarre tangents so the feeling is mutual. Good bye.
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.
He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to push people's buttons and provoke
a reaction. Notice how often his posts include references to fanboys, drinking koolaid,
and Apple products sucking. I was given some hope last night when I read a post from
Solipsism, where he seemed to be getting tired of bickering with Teckstud. Now you seem
to be volunteering to step in and satisfy Teckstud's neediness. Spare us please and just
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.
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Or it's like having 6 cup holders in 2 passengers sports car!!
It can be seen in this picture that there's access to Youtube accounts, maybe for uploading videos. Also Video Tag and the Video publish option in Mobile Me are strongly suggesting video is going to be created on the iPhone itself.
Ok I was unable to upload the picture. Check the Podcast publication of the 3.0 sneak peak (1:21:26s)
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Just so I follow you here... so this would mean 10 solar panels will get one tenth the energy as a single solar panel at the same location and same moment exposed for the same duration?
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.
It's NOT the software. There are third-party apps that record video on the existing iPhones. (OOOH, 15 frames per second?! WOW.) Those 1MP cameras you're talking about have the hardware to support it — and it's easy for them, because they're not phones (and game machines and whatever).
The number of megapixels in the sensor doesn't matter when you're talking about video recording, because it's not doing the hard work; the processor is. And the processor just isn't good enough to capture decent-quality video at 30fps. If you were Apple, and you had the choice between offering shitty video recording or just not offering it, which would you choose?
There are third-party apps that record video on the existing iPhones. They all suck my ass dry. (OOOH, 15 frames per second?! WOW.)
It's NOT the software. The hardware just isn't good enough to capture decent-quality video. If you were Apple, and you had the choice between offering shitty video recording or just not offering it, which would you choose?
I'd wait till I got it right and hopefully that is iPhone Mk 3, coming soon ... YEAH!!
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.
So maybe I'm just missing something? You say that more MPs are pretty much proven to be useless (and therefore do not add to the quality of an image), but then you go on to correctly say that for consumer devices like "point-and-shoot" cameras the additional MPs compensate for the lack of superior optics. I understand how this operates and have understood that all along. But for arguments sake, don't those additional MPs increase the quality of images, merely in a round-about way due to lesser grade parts and technology? Sure, industrial HD cameras are able to produce HD images at a mere 2MPs, but you're also talking thousands of dollars for such capability, not a consumer grade "point-and-shoot" device. I guess my point has been all along that, sure, the iPhone is capable of outputting HD imagery, but I would only rank its current 2MP as "satisfactory" due to the fact the iPhone is not first and foremost an image recording device and so does not sport any fancy optical equipment, etc etc. Therefore, given this, wouldn't an increase in MP to 3.2 (or anything above) come as an added benefit and increase the overall image quality due to its hardware limitations?
Just so I follow you here... so this would mean 10 solar panels will get one tenth the energy as a single solar panel at the same location and same moment exposed for the same duration?
I think he means that if the total area was the same, but divided up among ten times as many panels, with the attendant space between them making the total area less, and the electrical noise from each small panel being a larger part of the entire signal, the quality and quantity of the electricity would be less.
The number of megapixels in the sensor doesn't matter when you're talking about video recording, because it's not doing the hard work; the processor is ...
Partial quote
Enough with the over simplification here guys! If this were true the high definition cameras we use for shooting extreme sports for network TV would not be measured by multiple factors, lenses and 'SENSORS' being right up there. The megapixel count does matter as do many other factors. In the end it is all a balancing act at any given price /performance level. Do you think video cameras for IMAX use 2 MP sensors? Helloooo.
I think he means that if the total area was the same, but divided up among ten times as many panels, with the attendant space between them making the total area less, and the electrical noise from each small panel being a larger part of the entire signal, the quality and quantity of the electricity would be less.
Is this this theory based on; light is a wave, a particle or is this quantum mechanics?
I am being facetious, sorry. I just meant show me a camera in the same light conditions with a larger MP sensor (with associated lens) that can't do a better job.
Enough with the over simplification here guys!… The megapixel count does matter as do many other factors. In the end it is all a balancing act at any given price /performance level. Do you think video cameras for IMAX use 2 MP sensors? Helloooo.
No shit? That's not the point that I was addressing, and you know it. :P I was talking specifically about the iPhone, not in general.
Also, IMAX isn't shot digitally; it's shot on 70mm film.
No shit? That's not the point that I was addressing, and you know it. :P
Also, IMAX isn't shot digitally; it's shot on 70mm film.
Sorry, I meant to say RED cameras not IMAX and mentally blinked ...
The Red info is a good indicator of sensors quality, drool. I quote ..
"Typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1M pixel sensors and record with 3:1:1 color sub-sampled video at up to 30fps. RED offers the Mysterium ? Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW. At 4K, that?s more than 5 times the amount of information available every second and a vastly superior recording quality. In addition, you get the same breathtaking Depth of Field and selective focus as found in film cameras using equivalent 35mm P/L mount lenses. Mysterium ? boasts greater than 66db Dynamic Range thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition."
Comments
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.
And you rarely know what you're talking about and keeping going off on some bizarre tangents so the feeling is mutual. Good bye.
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.
OMG, you just freaked me out. Were you on my ship???
And you rarely know what you're talking about and keeping going off on some bizarre tangents so the feeling is mutual. Good bye.
Sure.
Typical.
Chicken!
Sure.
Typical.
Chicken!
OMG, you just freaked me out. Were you on my ship???
Ha ha, I doubt it but maybe ...
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.
He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to push people's buttons and provoke
a reaction. Notice how often his posts include references to fanboys, drinking koolaid,
and Apple products sucking. I was given some hope last night when I read a post from
Solipsism, where he seemed to be getting tired of bickering with Teckstud. Now you seem
to be volunteering to step in and satisfy Teckstud's neediness. Spare us please and just
ignore him.
He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to push people's buttons and provoke
a reaction. Notice how often his posts include references to fanboys, drinking koolaid,
and Apple products sucking. I was given some hope last night when I read a post from
Solipsism, where he seemed to be getting tired of bickering with Teckstud. Now you seem
to be volunteering to step in and satisfy Teckstud's neediness. Spare us please and just
ignore him.
If he went away for a while, then it worked.
I just got a post, as a mod, reporting my post!
I tried to explain that it's a way of dealing with him when he gets too far out.
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.
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Or it's like having 6 cup holders in 2 passengers sports car!!
Ok I was unable to upload the picture. Check the Podcast publication of the 3.0 sneak peak (1:21:26s)
Your subject title says "3.2 megapixels is still poor".
Keep in mind that more megapixels won't fill your need. It's a lot like giving someone dry bread when they're really asking for water. If you take a certain amount of light and divide it amongst more pixels, you're going to get a worse image.
Just so I follow you here... so this would mean 10 solar panels will get one tenth the energy as a single solar panel at the same location and same moment exposed for the same duration?
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.
It's NOT the software. There are third-party apps that record video on the existing iPhones. (OOOH, 15 frames per second?! WOW.) Those 1MP cameras you're talking about have the hardware to support it — and it's easy for them, because they're not phones (and game machines and whatever).
The number of megapixels in the sensor doesn't matter when you're talking about video recording, because it's not doing the hard work; the processor is. And the processor just isn't good enough to capture decent-quality video at 30fps. If you were Apple, and you had the choice between offering shitty video recording or just not offering it, which would you choose?
There are third-party apps that record video on the existing iPhones. They all suck my ass dry. (OOOH, 15 frames per second?! WOW.)
It's NOT the software. The hardware just isn't good enough to capture decent-quality video. If you were Apple, and you had the choice between offering shitty video recording or just not offering it, which would you choose?
I'd wait till I got it right and hopefully that is iPhone Mk 3, coming soon ... YEAH!!
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.
So maybe I'm just missing something? You say that more MPs are pretty much proven to be useless (and therefore do not add to the quality of an image), but then you go on to correctly say that for consumer devices like "point-and-shoot" cameras the additional MPs compensate for the lack of superior optics. I understand how this operates and have understood that all along. But for arguments sake, don't those additional MPs increase the quality of images, merely in a round-about way due to lesser grade parts and technology? Sure, industrial HD cameras are able to produce HD images at a mere 2MPs, but you're also talking thousands of dollars for such capability, not a consumer grade "point-and-shoot" device. I guess my point has been all along that, sure, the iPhone is capable of outputting HD imagery, but I would only rank its current 2MP as "satisfactory" due to the fact the iPhone is not first and foremost an image recording device and so does not sport any fancy optical equipment, etc etc. Therefore, given this, wouldn't an increase in MP to 3.2 (or anything above) come as an added benefit and increase the overall image quality due to its hardware limitations?
ps. your cup analogy is a good one.
Just so I follow you here... so this would mean 10 solar panels will get one tenth the energy as a single solar panel at the same location and same moment exposed for the same duration?
I think he means that if the total area was the same, but divided up among ten times as many panels, with the attendant space between them making the total area less, and the electrical noise from each small panel being a larger part of the entire signal, the quality and quantity of the electricity would be less.
The number of megapixels in the sensor doesn't matter when you're talking about video recording, because it's not doing the hard work; the processor is ...
Partial quote
Enough with the over simplification here guys! If this were true the high definition cameras we use for shooting extreme sports for network TV would not be measured by multiple factors, lenses and 'SENSORS' being right up there. The megapixel count does matter as do many other factors. In the end it is all a balancing act at any given price /performance level. Do you think video cameras for IMAX use 2 MP sensors? Helloooo.
I think he means that if the total area was the same, but divided up among ten times as many panels, with the attendant space between them making the total area less, and the electrical noise from each small panel being a larger part of the entire signal, the quality and quantity of the electricity would be less.
Is this this theory based on; light is a wave, a particle or is this quantum mechanics?
I am being facetious, sorry. I just meant show me a camera in the same light conditions with a larger MP sensor (with associated lens) that can't do a better job.
Enough with the over simplification here guys!… The megapixel count does matter as do many other factors. In the end it is all a balancing act at any given price /performance level. Do you think video cameras for IMAX use 2 MP sensors? Helloooo.
No shit? That's not the point that I was addressing, and you know it. :P I was talking specifically about the iPhone, not in general.
Also, IMAX isn't shot digitally; it's shot on 70mm film.
No shit? That's not the point that I was addressing, and you know it. :P
Also, IMAX isn't shot digitally; it's shot on 70mm film.
Sorry, I meant to say RED cameras not IMAX and mentally blinked ...
The Red info is a good indicator of sensors quality, drool. I quote ..
"Typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1M pixel sensors and record with 3:1:1 color sub-sampled video at up to 30fps. RED offers the Mysterium ? Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW. At 4K, that?s more than 5 times the amount of information available every second and a vastly superior recording quality. In addition, you get the same breathtaking Depth of Field and selective focus as found in film cameras using equivalent 35mm P/L mount lenses. Mysterium ? boasts greater than 66db Dynamic Range thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition."