Eventually, that might be possible. But it would require much more intelligence on the part of the program. How would it recognize what part of the image should be in focus, and by how much. How would that slider "know" what to affect? Would we have to make image selections first? How accurate would that selection need to be. What about depth inside the selection. We don't want that artificial cardboard cutout 3D effect.
We can do this in a way now, by taking photographs with different focus, and using a program that combines them in CS4 to make one image. It's crude, but it can work in a post way. But it's not really accurate. You can't pick what you want to be in focus, and what you don't want to be in focus. There are other problems too, but it's sometimes ok when you need the entire image to be in focus.
Well leave CS4 out of this were talking about was depth of focus not post production! Alll that is required is the speed /ISO/ and aperture settings to be manipulated. It would be simple to have sliders for advanced users and also an 'idiots' option with various sample images demonstrating different results from certain presets. This already exists in many low end cameras anyway so i am not suggesting anything new, merely that Apple could make a really cool set of controls with the SDK. Think about it, they could put SLR type control on the screen!
Well leave PS4 out of this were talking about was depth of focus not post production! Alll that is required is the speed /ISO/ and aperture settings to be manipulated. It would be simple to have sliders for advanced users and also an 'idiots' option with various sample images demonstrating different results from certain presets. This already exists in many low end cameras anyway so i am not suggesting anything new, merely that Apple could make a really cool set of controls with the SDK. Think about it, they could put SLR type control on the screen!
I can't see how that would work. So you focus on a subject, but not doing it optically, where you would normally close the lens down, or open it up, it would be done in software. I think that's what you're suggesting.
I have nothing against the concept. It would be brilliant if it could be done.
ISO settings are already done in software, not with a slider, but in software all the same. But the actual work is done by amplifying the signal.
Let's get to the level below the onscreen controls. How would the camera actually do this in software?
You said that I'm thinking in an analog way. i guess I am, as the sensors are analog, and the ISO changes are done in analog. The only thing there that is done digitally is noise reduction, and even there, before the processing, which turns it into a digital signal after the amplification is done, and where most of the NR is done, there is analog NR.
So, what are you saying? What I thought you said at the top of my post, or something else?
I can't see how that would work. So you focus on a subject, but not doing it optically, where you would normally close the lens down, or open it up, it would be done in software. I think that's what you're suggesting.
I have nothing against the concept. It would be brilliant if it could be done.
ISO settings are already done in software, not with a slider, but in software all the same. But the actual work is done by amplifying the signal.
Let's get to the level below the onscreen controls. How would the camera actually do this in software?
You said that I'm thinking in an analog way. i guess I am, as the sensors are analog, and the ISO changes are done in analog. The only thing there that is done digitally is noise reduction, and even there, before the processing, which turns it into a digital signal after the amplification is done, and where most of the NR is done, there is analog NR.
So, what are you saying? What I thought you said at the top of my post, or something else?
I may have drifted off your post, can't remember ... I am editing in FCPro for a client on two screens and following you guys on a third ... So forgive me if I lose track
I realize the lack of optics means it is guess work, so the idiot settings would work fine as in CLICK HERE FOR 'close person background blurry' setting etc. For me I'd rather be able to change settings in a 'manual' way and have a visual light meter perhaps showing over areas I can select. I can throw open the shutter and crank the speed to hold the reading on the desired area knowing the depth of focus just dropped even if I can't see it.
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.
...
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.
I don't wish to be pedantic - well maybe just a bit - but the usually quoted resolution for decent photo printing is 300dpi. To print A4 at that resolution would require an 8.7 MP camera. A3 of course would be double that. I do understand that an A4 print that is to be viewed from some distance can get away with a lower dpi, so I can well imagine 3mp printed to A4 would be acceptable in some circumstances, but not for detailed photos viewed at close range - IMO.
Quote:
The human eye, under best lighting conditions, can resolve objects slightly less than one arc minute (Blackwell, 1946; reference and plots are in my book Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky, click here to go to my visual astronomy pages ). One arc-minute corresponds to 0.003 inch at a distance of 10 inches. The inverse of 0.003 = 344, but it takes at least two pixels to resolve something, so double this number and we get about 700 ppi as the resolution of the eye at one arc-minute. The eye can do a little better, so perhaps 1000 ppi is the limit.
Why don't you actually do some good, and give us a definitive argument about this, instead of making useless comments?
Everything I said, as most people likely realize, applies to low rez cameras with tiny sensors as well, as was the point. Most people are likely also familiar with the compact and D-SLR camera rez vs IQ argument.
Come on. Give us some of your understanding of what should be done and why. I promise to read it. Really!
What should be done is what's being done- upgrading the camera and adding video capability to the iPhone itself. I have been arguing that these were features that I would like on the iPhone for months - which you and your friends like to label as "complaining". Obviously I was right and now you're try to explain it to us all.
There is nothing more that needs to be done except read you dissertations now on how light is refracted , etc, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to your biography of George Eastman next.
And I can't wait for future threads where you explain the quantum physics of MMS texting and pics.
I may have drifted off your post, can't remember ... I am editing in FCPro for a client on two screens and following you guys on a third ... So forgive me if I lose track
That's ok, one third of your brain is better than two thirds of some others.
Quote:
I realize the lack of optics means it is guess work, so the idiot settings would work fine as in CLICK HERE FOR 'close person background blurry' setting etc. For me I'd rather be able to change settings in a 'manual' way and have a visual light meter perhaps showing over areas I can select. I can throw open the shutter and crank the speed to hold the reading on the desired area knowing the depth of focus just dropped even if I can't see it.
I think we're talking past each other, which is why we're not getting together on this. That's why posting isn't always the best method of communication.
Canon used to have, in the '90's, a system where it would track your eye movements for focus. They dropped it when they came out with digital. Too bad, as it worked pretty well, and with advances, it would work much better today.
The system could be expanded so that you could look off frame, say, to select a function which would then appear in frame, and allow you to adjust it with your eye. This could work. But it would still be making the actual adjustments the old fashioned way.
What should be done is what's being done- upgrading the camera and adding video capability to the iPhone itself. I have been arguing that these were features that I would like on the iPhone for months - which you and your friends like to label as "complaining". Obviously I was right and now you're try to explain it to us all.
There is nothing more that needs to be done except read you dissertations now on how light is refracted , etc, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to your biography of George Eastman next.
And I can't wait for future threads where you explain the quantum physics of MMS texting and pics.
Your response is reasonable. I never disliked the idea of video on the phone. Though I did say that most people didn't seem to think they needed it.
But, if you stopped being such a wiseguy, then people would stop complaining about you, publicly, and to the mods.
Just respond without the wisecracks.
All of us have been talking to one another without problems. We don't all agree on everything, we don't always understand what others are saying at first, but the only one who is having problems here is you. Why is that?
That's ok, one third of your brain is better than two thirds of some others.
I think we're talking past each other, which is why we're not getting together on this. That's why posting isn't always the best method of communication.
Canon used to have, in the '90's, a system where it would track your eye movements for focus. They dropped it when they came out with digital. Too bad, as it worked pretty well, and with advances, it would work much better today.
The system could be expanded so that you could look off frame, say, to select a function which would then appear in frame, and allow you to adjust it with your eye. This could work. But it would still be making the actual adjustments the old fashioned way.
Ha ha ... can I quote that to my wife ?
I am probably describing something more simple - NOT. OK let me describe what I am seeing in my mind's eye: This assumes a pretty nice lens from apple with a wee motor not a pin hole fixed and a minute focusing system. OK OK I am dreaming
Then assume we have a full screen image on iPhone as I pan around to compose. First I set the ISO manually say from a range of 400 to 1600 (this will depend on chip) for the desired results. Now I can draw with my finger an area which is used as focusing point and also gives me a light meter level (-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 ) with a floating needle indicator and also I have two graphical controls for aperture control and shutter speed I can alter.
Voila I may not see depth of focus changes but I am experienced enough to get a pretty good result with the afore mentioned controls.
Your response is reasonable. I never disliked the idea of video on the phone. Though I did say that most people didn't seem to think they needed it.
But, if you stopped being such a wiseguy, then people would stop complaining about you, publicly, and to the mods.
Just respond without the wisecracks.
All of us have been talking to one another without problems. We don't all agree on everything, we don't always understand what others are saying at first, but the only one who is having problems here is you. Why is that?
And, no, it's not me.
OK- cool- I think I misunderstand you before.
I have argued that video is important on any phone/mobile device as we have witnessed the capturing on many important events over the last several years with them- earthquakes , tsunamis, Bhutto's assasination, wars, etc. Though some of the quality has not been great- they are recording history nonetheless. It's an important tool- the capturing of the moving image in addition to stills.
I am probably describing something more simple - NOT. OK let me describe what I am seeing in my mind's eye: This assumes a pretty nice lens from apple with a wee motor not a pin hole fixed and a minute focusing system. OK OK I am dreaming
Then assume we have a full screen image on iPhone as I pan around to compose. First I set the ISO manually say from a range of 400 to 1600 (this will depend on chip) for the desired results. Now I can draw with my finger an area which is used as focusing point and also gives me a light meter level (-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 ) with a floating needle indicator and also I have two graphical controls for aperture speed and shutter speed I can alter.
Voila I may not see depth of focus changes but I am experienced enough to get a pretty good result with the afore mentioned controls.
Next I need the beam me up option ...
Ok, its coming into focus (sigh!) now. so you're not opposed to the work being done in an analog way, just having on screen controls?
Ok, first of all, while that could work, you would really want to just touch a spot for focus. Possibly even magnify that spot (perhaps it could call up magnification automatically!) so you could pinpoint the very point you want in best focus.
Maybe you COULD circle an area that would be used for the metering, and then it would find the center of that spot for focus, with the magnification so you could adjust it.
I think that could be done faster and better with an eye controlled system. Otherwise, this would take a while to do, and you would have to hold the camera with one hand, away from your face, make the adjustments while making sure nothing moved, then taking the picture quickly, with one hand, as you wouldn't have the time to get to a two handed grip, unless the subject was static. If you move the camera just a bit during this, every adjustment could go off.
ISO of 400 to 1600. Ho ho. That's pretty high for a flyspeck sized sensor. Maybe 40 to 200.
Ok, its coming into focus (sigh!) now. so you're not opposed to the work being done in an analog way, just having on screen controls?
Ok, first of all, while that could work, you would really want to just touch a spot for focus. Possibly even magnify that spot (perhaps it could call up magnification automatically!) so you could pinpoint the very point you want in best focus.
Maybe you COULD circle an area that would be used for the metering, and then it would find the center of that spot for focus, with the magnification so you could adjust it.
I think that could be done faster and better with an eye controlled system. Otherwise, this would take a while to do, and you would have to hold the camera with one hand, away from your face, make the adjustments while making sure nothing moved, then taking the picture quickly, with one hand, as you wouldn't have the time to get to a two handed grip, unless the subject was static. If you move the camera just a bit during this, every adjustment could go off.
ISO of 400 to 1600. Ho ho. That's pretty high for a flyspeck sized sensor. Maybe 40 to 200.
Hey it's my wish list
The box / circle you draw could be spot or averaging.
With an iPhone I'm sure 99% would be done on fully auto so this stuff is just for the creative moments and ppl with too much time on their hands (or left the Rebel in the car)
Why is nobody here discussing the very real possibility that the camera Apple has chosen could be using the Omnivision Truefocus technology as mentioned by retroneo in the 8th post on this thread?
Truefocus (aka: Wavefront Coding) is a paradigm shift in the history of imaging and optics. Originialy developed by the Imaging Systems Laboratory at the University of Colorado, the technology was privatized by CDM Optics in order to develop products for the scientific and medical industry. CDM was aquired by Omnivision in 2005 opening the door for consumer application of Wavefront Coding technology.
From the Omnivision website:
?A revolutionary technology called Wavefront Coding? is set to fundamentally change the nature of digital imaging. Wavefront Coding is the joint optimization of non-traditional, specialized optics and sophisticated signal processing. Unlike conventional imaging systems, with Wavefront Coded systems optics and signal processing are closely tied together to facilitate a new and improved image formation process that produces images with significantly increased depth of field without sacrificing light gathering. This close relationship between optics (encoding) and image processing (decoding) enables digital cameras to capture images that are sharp and clear at any time and throughout the object field without the need to physically move optics to focus. Wavefront Coding enables true 'point-and-shoot' digital cameras. Because Wavefront Coded systems shift a large portion of traditional optics and the auto focus mechanics into novel fixed optics and silicon, Wavefront Coded camera systems enable reduction in overall camera module size as well as continued systems cost reductions that follow Moore's Law.
Wavefront Coding is now for the first time available in commercial applications, more specifically mobile-phone cameras where proximity focusing, low height optics and low tolerance assembly are combined with high target yields. Marketed under the name TrueFocus?, Wavefront Coding is used to optimize optics, sensors,and processors to maximize imaging performance and minimize costs. Such advances have not been possible until now. Using TrueFocus technology offers real and instant one-click photography without delay in image capture or spoiled pictures for the end user, effectively paving the way for the next wave of affordable camera phones offering superior imaging capability at higher resolutions without the need for auto focus. ?
Although Omnivision also makes traditional image sensors, I think it's highly likely that Apple will use their TrueFocus?. If thats the case then all this talk of depth of field, sensor size, number & quality of lens elements, etc. will need to be reconsidered.
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'.
Said "...pretty much useless" in the case of the iphone going up from 3.2 to anything any other camera phone would have.
Why is nobody here discussing the very real possibility that the camera Apple has chosen could be using the Omnivision Truefocus technology as mentioned by retroneo in the 8th post on this thread?
Truefocus (aka: Wavefront Coding) is a paradigm shift in the history of imaging and optics. Originialy developed by the Imaging Systems Laboratory at the University of Colorado, the technology was privatized by CDM Optics in order to develop products for the scientific and medical industry. CDM was aquired by Omnivision in 2005 opening the door for consumer application of Wavefront Coding technology.
From the Omnivision website:
“A revolutionary technology called Wavefront Coding™ is set to fundamentally change the nature of digital imaging. Wavefront Coding is the joint optimization of non-traditional, specialized optics and sophisticated signal processing. Unlike conventional imaging systems, with Wavefront Coded systems optics and signal processing are closely tied together to facilitate a new and improved image formation process that produces images with significantly increased depth of field without sacrificing light gathering. This close relationship between optics (encoding) and image processing (decoding) enables digital cameras to capture images that are sharp and clear at any time and throughout the object field without the need to physically move optics to focus. Wavefront Coding enables true 'point-and-shoot' digital cameras. Because Wavefront Coded systems shift a large portion of traditional optics and the auto focus mechanics into novel fixed optics and silicon, Wavefront Coded camera systems enable reduction in overall camera module size as well as continued systems cost reductions that follow Moore's Law.
Wavefront Coding is now for the first time available in commercial applications, more specifically mobile-phone cameras where proximity focusing, low height optics and low tolerance assembly are combined with high target yields. Marketed under the name TrueFocus™, Wavefront Coding is used to optimize optics, sensors,and processors to maximize imaging performance and minimize costs. Such advances have not been possible until now. Using TrueFocus technology offers real and instant one-click photography without delay in image capture or spoiled pictures for the end user, effectively paving the way for the next wave of affordable camera phones offering superior imaging capability at higher resolutions without the need for auto focus. “
Although Omnivision also makes traditional image sensors, I think it's highly likely that Apple will use their TrueFocus™. If thats the case then all this talk of depth of field, sensor size, number & quality of lens elements, etc. will need to be reconsidered.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
maybe the mods just expect more from you..and teckstud seems, well, so steadfastly teckstud.
of course, this report from MR could be false:
"In a brief report, DigiTimes claims that Apple has placed orders with OmniVision Technologies for both 3.2 and 5-megapixel image sensors. The 3.2-megapixel sensor is reportedly destined for the next-generation iPhone, while the 5-megapixel sensor is claimed to be for a separate product launching later this year."
but, what product could Apple release that would benefit from a 5MP sensor?
With this expected increase in megapixels and processing power with the next iPhone, are we to expect a better and bigger lens or will Apple most likely keep the small size lens it currently uses?
Will video recording be able to use a lower megapixel than 3.2 in order to allow for more framerates while maintaining adequate power usage? Something that jailbroken video recording apps can't do.
Are there any phones that are currently using this CMOS so we can get a real idea of what to expect from the next iPhone's camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Well I am mod.
But you fail to realize that I usually get attacked first , like you just have,with usuallly something entirely not related to my posts, which are always topic related.
Even you can't be that daft to believe a word of that garbage.
Separately, DigiTimes claims that OmniVision "is also said to have secured 5-megapixel CIS orders for another Apple product expected to be launched later in the year." The fabless CMOS image sensor designer reportedly beat out STMicroelectronics and Aptina Imaging for the orders.
The upcoming quad-core Core i7 iMac with Snow Leopard deserves to get the 5 MP camera later this Fall (in line with the expected launch date).
The upcoming quad-core Core i7 iMac with Snow Leopard deserves to get the 5 MP camera later this Fall (in line with the expected launch date).
I don't think i7 will work in the iMac. All the power ratings were too high. The next best fit I've seen is the low-power Core 2 Quad desktop Nehalems, which is a considerable step up from the mobile chips Apple has had to use.
As for the 5Mpx camera, all Macs could run that just fine. I just don't think Apple fines it necessary. If they add anything to the camera I would rather like to see one that is more robust with various lighting types than using a higher megapixel.
Comments
Eventually, that might be possible. But it would require much more intelligence on the part of the program. How would it recognize what part of the image should be in focus, and by how much. How would that slider "know" what to affect? Would we have to make image selections first? How accurate would that selection need to be. What about depth inside the selection. We don't want that artificial cardboard cutout 3D effect.
We can do this in a way now, by taking photographs with different focus, and using a program that combines them in CS4 to make one image. It's crude, but it can work in a post way. But it's not really accurate. You can't pick what you want to be in focus, and what you don't want to be in focus. There are other problems too, but it's sometimes ok when you need the entire image to be in focus.
Well leave CS4 out of this were talking about was depth of focus not post production! Alll that is required is the speed /ISO/ and aperture settings to be manipulated. It would be simple to have sliders for advanced users and also an 'idiots' option with various sample images demonstrating different results from certain presets. This already exists in many low end cameras anyway so i am not suggesting anything new, merely that Apple could make a really cool set of controls with the SDK. Think about it, they could put SLR type control on the screen!
Well leave PS4 out of this were talking about was depth of focus not post production! Alll that is required is the speed /ISO/ and aperture settings to be manipulated. It would be simple to have sliders for advanced users and also an 'idiots' option with various sample images demonstrating different results from certain presets. This already exists in many low end cameras anyway so i am not suggesting anything new, merely that Apple could make a really cool set of controls with the SDK. Think about it, they could put SLR type control on the screen!
I can't see how that would work. So you focus on a subject, but not doing it optically, where you would normally close the lens down, or open it up, it would be done in software. I think that's what you're suggesting.
I have nothing against the concept. It would be brilliant if it could be done.
ISO settings are already done in software, not with a slider, but in software all the same. But the actual work is done by amplifying the signal.
Let's get to the level below the onscreen controls. How would the camera actually do this in software?
You said that I'm thinking in an analog way. i guess I am, as the sensors are analog, and the ISO changes are done in analog. The only thing there that is done digitally is noise reduction, and even there, before the processing, which turns it into a digital signal after the amplification is done, and where most of the NR is done, there is analog NR.
So, what are you saying? What I thought you said at the top of my post, or something else?
I can't see how that would work. So you focus on a subject, but not doing it optically, where you would normally close the lens down, or open it up, it would be done in software. I think that's what you're suggesting.
I have nothing against the concept. It would be brilliant if it could be done.
ISO settings are already done in software, not with a slider, but in software all the same. But the actual work is done by amplifying the signal.
Let's get to the level below the onscreen controls. How would the camera actually do this in software?
You said that I'm thinking in an analog way. i guess I am, as the sensors are analog, and the ISO changes are done in analog. The only thing there that is done digitally is noise reduction, and even there, before the processing, which turns it into a digital signal after the amplification is done, and where most of the NR is done, there is analog NR.
So, what are you saying? What I thought you said at the top of my post, or something else?
I may have drifted off your post, can't remember ... I am editing in FCPro for a client on two screens and following you guys on a third ... So forgive me if I lose track
I realize the lack of optics means it is guess work, so the idiot settings would work fine as in CLICK HERE FOR 'close person background blurry' setting etc. For me I'd rather be able to change settings in a 'manual' way and have a visual light meter perhaps showing over areas I can select. I can throw open the shutter and crank the speed to hold the reading on the desired area knowing the depth of focus just dropped even if I can't see it.
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.
...
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.
I don't wish to be pedantic - well maybe just a bit
The human eye, under best lighting conditions, can resolve objects slightly less than one arc minute (Blackwell, 1946; reference and plots are in my book Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky, click here to go to my visual astronomy pages ). One arc-minute corresponds to 0.003 inch at a distance of 10 inches. The inverse of 0.003 = 344, but it takes at least two pixels to resolve something, so double this number and we get about 700 ppi as the resolution of the eye at one arc-minute. The eye can do a little better, so perhaps 1000 ppi is the limit.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/
Why don't you actually do some good, and give us a definitive argument about this, instead of making useless comments?
Everything I said, as most people likely realize, applies to low rez cameras with tiny sensors as well, as was the point. Most people are likely also familiar with the compact and D-SLR camera rez vs IQ argument.
Come on. Give us some of your understanding of what should be done and why. I promise to read it. Really!
What should be done is what's being done- upgrading the camera and adding video capability to the iPhone itself. I have been arguing that these were features that I would like on the iPhone for months - which you and your friends like to label as "complaining". Obviously I was right and now you're try to explain it to us all.
There is nothing more that needs to be done except read you dissertations now on how light is refracted , etc, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to your biography of George Eastman next.
And I can't wait for future threads where you explain the quantum physics of MMS texting and pics.
I may have drifted off your post, can't remember ... I am editing in FCPro for a client on two screens and following you guys on a third ... So forgive me if I lose track
That's ok, one third of your brain is better than two thirds of some others.
I realize the lack of optics means it is guess work, so the idiot settings would work fine as in CLICK HERE FOR 'close person background blurry' setting etc. For me I'd rather be able to change settings in a 'manual' way and have a visual light meter perhaps showing over areas I can select. I can throw open the shutter and crank the speed to hold the reading on the desired area knowing the depth of focus just dropped even if I can't see it.
I think we're talking past each other, which is why we're not getting together on this. That's why posting isn't always the best method of communication.
Canon used to have, in the '90's, a system where it would track your eye movements for focus. They dropped it when they came out with digital. Too bad, as it worked pretty well, and with advances, it would work much better today.
The system could be expanded so that you could look off frame, say, to select a function which would then appear in frame, and allow you to adjust it with your eye. This could work. But it would still be making the actual adjustments the old fashioned way.
What should be done is what's being done- upgrading the camera and adding video capability to the iPhone itself. I have been arguing that these were features that I would like on the iPhone for months - which you and your friends like to label as "complaining". Obviously I was right and now you're try to explain it to us all.
There is nothing more that needs to be done except read you dissertations now on how light is refracted , etc, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to your biography of George Eastman next.
And I can't wait for future threads where you explain the quantum physics of MMS texting and pics.
Your response is reasonable. I never disliked the idea of video on the phone. Though I did say that most people didn't seem to think they needed it.
But, if you stopped being such a wiseguy, then people would stop complaining about you, publicly, and to the mods.
Just respond without the wisecracks.
All of us have been talking to one another without problems. We don't all agree on everything, we don't always understand what others are saying at first, but the only one who is having problems here is you. Why is that?
And, no, it's not me.
That's ok, one third of your brain is better than two thirds of some others.
I think we're talking past each other, which is why we're not getting together on this. That's why posting isn't always the best method of communication.
Canon used to have, in the '90's, a system where it would track your eye movements for focus. They dropped it when they came out with digital. Too bad, as it worked pretty well, and with advances, it would work much better today.
The system could be expanded so that you could look off frame, say, to select a function which would then appear in frame, and allow you to adjust it with your eye. This could work. But it would still be making the actual adjustments the old fashioned way.
Ha ha ... can I quote that to my wife ?
I am probably describing something more simple - NOT. OK let me describe what I am seeing in my mind's eye: This assumes a pretty nice lens from apple with a wee motor not a pin hole fixed and a minute focusing system. OK OK I am dreaming
Then assume we have a full screen image on iPhone as I pan around to compose. First I set the ISO manually say from a range of 400 to 1600 (this will depend on chip) for the desired results. Now I can draw with my finger an area which is used as focusing point and also gives me a light meter level (-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 ) with a floating needle indicator and also I have two graphical controls for aperture control and shutter speed I can alter.
Voila I may not see depth of focus changes but I am experienced enough to get a pretty good result with the afore mentioned controls.
Next I need the beam me up option ...
Your response is reasonable. I never disliked the idea of video on the phone. Though I did say that most people didn't seem to think they needed it.
But, if you stopped being such a wiseguy, then people would stop complaining about you, publicly, and to the mods.
Just respond without the wisecracks.
All of us have been talking to one another without problems. We don't all agree on everything, we don't always understand what others are saying at first, but the only one who is having problems here is you. Why is that?
And, no, it's not me.
OK- cool- I think I misunderstand you before.
I have argued that video is important on any phone/mobile device as we have witnessed the capturing on many important events over the last several years with them- earthquakes , tsunamis, Bhutto's assasination, wars, etc. Though some of the quality has not been great- they are recording history nonetheless. It's an important tool- the capturing of the moving image in addition to stills.
Ha ha ... can I quote that to my wife ?
I am probably describing something more simple - NOT. OK let me describe what I am seeing in my mind's eye: This assumes a pretty nice lens from apple with a wee motor not a pin hole fixed and a minute focusing system. OK OK I am dreaming
Then assume we have a full screen image on iPhone as I pan around to compose. First I set the ISO manually say from a range of 400 to 1600 (this will depend on chip) for the desired results. Now I can draw with my finger an area which is used as focusing point and also gives me a light meter level (-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 ) with a floating needle indicator and also I have two graphical controls for aperture speed and shutter speed I can alter.
Voila I may not see depth of focus changes but I am experienced enough to get a pretty good result with the afore mentioned controls.
Next I need the beam me up option ...
Ok, its coming into focus (sigh!) now. so you're not opposed to the work being done in an analog way, just having on screen controls?
Ok, first of all, while that could work, you would really want to just touch a spot for focus. Possibly even magnify that spot (perhaps it could call up magnification automatically!) so you could pinpoint the very point you want in best focus.
Maybe you COULD circle an area that would be used for the metering, and then it would find the center of that spot for focus, with the magnification so you could adjust it.
I think that could be done faster and better with an eye controlled system. Otherwise, this would take a while to do, and you would have to hold the camera with one hand, away from your face, make the adjustments while making sure nothing moved, then taking the picture quickly, with one hand, as you wouldn't have the time to get to a two handed grip, unless the subject was static. If you move the camera just a bit during this, every adjustment could go off.
ISO of 400 to 1600. Ho ho. That's pretty high for a flyspeck sized sensor. Maybe 40 to 200.
Ok, its coming into focus (sigh!) now. so you're not opposed to the work being done in an analog way, just having on screen controls?
Ok, first of all, while that could work, you would really want to just touch a spot for focus. Possibly even magnify that spot (perhaps it could call up magnification automatically!) so you could pinpoint the very point you want in best focus.
Maybe you COULD circle an area that would be used for the metering, and then it would find the center of that spot for focus, with the magnification so you could adjust it.
I think that could be done faster and better with an eye controlled system. Otherwise, this would take a while to do, and you would have to hold the camera with one hand, away from your face, make the adjustments while making sure nothing moved, then taking the picture quickly, with one hand, as you wouldn't have the time to get to a two handed grip, unless the subject was static. If you move the camera just a bit during this, every adjustment could go off.
ISO of 400 to 1600. Ho ho. That's pretty high for a flyspeck sized sensor. Maybe 40 to 200.
Hey it's my wish list
The box / circle you draw could be spot or averaging.
With an iPhone I'm sure 99% would be done on fully auto so this stuff is just for the creative moments and ppl with too much time on their hands (or left the Rebel in the car)
Truefocus (aka: Wavefront Coding) is a paradigm shift in the history of imaging and optics. Originialy developed by the Imaging Systems Laboratory at the University of Colorado, the technology was privatized by CDM Optics in order to develop products for the scientific and medical industry. CDM was aquired by Omnivision in 2005 opening the door for consumer application of Wavefront Coding technology.
From the Omnivision website:
?A revolutionary technology called Wavefront Coding? is set to fundamentally change the nature of digital imaging. Wavefront Coding is the joint optimization of non-traditional, specialized optics and sophisticated signal processing. Unlike conventional imaging systems, with Wavefront Coded systems optics and signal processing are closely tied together to facilitate a new and improved image formation process that produces images with significantly increased depth of field without sacrificing light gathering. This close relationship between optics (encoding) and image processing (decoding) enables digital cameras to capture images that are sharp and clear at any time and throughout the object field without the need to physically move optics to focus. Wavefront Coding enables true 'point-and-shoot' digital cameras. Because Wavefront Coded systems shift a large portion of traditional optics and the auto focus mechanics into novel fixed optics and silicon, Wavefront Coded camera systems enable reduction in overall camera module size as well as continued systems cost reductions that follow Moore's Law.
Wavefront Coding is now for the first time available in commercial applications, more specifically mobile-phone cameras where proximity focusing, low height optics and low tolerance assembly are combined with high target yields. Marketed under the name TrueFocus?, Wavefront Coding is used to optimize optics, sensors,and processors to maximize imaging performance and minimize costs. Such advances have not been possible until now. Using TrueFocus technology offers real and instant one-click photography without delay in image capture or spoiled pictures for the end user, effectively paving the way for the next wave of affordable camera phones offering superior imaging capability at higher resolutions without the need for auto focus. ?
Although Omnivision also makes traditional image sensors, I think it's highly likely that Apple will use their TrueFocus?. If thats the case then all this talk of depth of field, sensor size, number & quality of lens elements, etc. will need to be reconsidered.
http://www.ovt.com/products/truefocus.php
http://www.cdm-optics.com/?section=Tutorials
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'.
Said "...pretty much useless" in the case of the iphone going up from 3.2 to anything any other camera phone would have.
Why is nobody here discussing the very real possibility that the camera Apple has chosen could be using the Omnivision Truefocus technology as mentioned by retroneo in the 8th post on this thread?
Truefocus (aka: Wavefront Coding) is a paradigm shift in the history of imaging and optics. Originialy developed by the Imaging Systems Laboratory at the University of Colorado, the technology was privatized by CDM Optics in order to develop products for the scientific and medical industry. CDM was aquired by Omnivision in 2005 opening the door for consumer application of Wavefront Coding technology.
From the Omnivision website:
“A revolutionary technology called Wavefront Coding™ is set to fundamentally change the nature of digital imaging. Wavefront Coding is the joint optimization of non-traditional, specialized optics and sophisticated signal processing. Unlike conventional imaging systems, with Wavefront Coded systems optics and signal processing are closely tied together to facilitate a new and improved image formation process that produces images with significantly increased depth of field without sacrificing light gathering. This close relationship between optics (encoding) and image processing (decoding) enables digital cameras to capture images that are sharp and clear at any time and throughout the object field without the need to physically move optics to focus. Wavefront Coding enables true 'point-and-shoot' digital cameras. Because Wavefront Coded systems shift a large portion of traditional optics and the auto focus mechanics into novel fixed optics and silicon, Wavefront Coded camera systems enable reduction in overall camera module size as well as continued systems cost reductions that follow Moore's Law.
Wavefront Coding is now for the first time available in commercial applications, more specifically mobile-phone cameras where proximity focusing, low height optics and low tolerance assembly are combined with high target yields. Marketed under the name TrueFocus™, Wavefront Coding is used to optimize optics, sensors,and processors to maximize imaging performance and minimize costs. Such advances have not been possible until now. Using TrueFocus technology offers real and instant one-click photography without delay in image capture or spoiled pictures for the end user, effectively paving the way for the next wave of affordable camera phones offering superior imaging capability at higher resolutions without the need for auto focus. “
Although Omnivision also makes traditional image sensors, I think it's highly likely that Apple will use their TrueFocus™. If thats the case then all this talk of depth of field, sensor size, number & quality of lens elements, etc. will need to be reconsidered.
http://www.ovt.com/products/truefocus.php
http://www.cdm-optics.com/?section=Tutorials
Cool! Sorry I missed that. Thanks for update. You have to think Apple will do something out of the box.
However isn't that the company with the doctored image in their ad? Just don't know enough about it to be honest.
Said "...pretty much useless" in the case of the iphone going up from 3.2 to anything any other camera phone would have.
Ok. sorry if I misunderstood you.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
maybe the mods just expect more from you..and teckstud seems, well, so steadfastly teckstud.
of course, this report from MR could be false:
"In a brief report, DigiTimes claims that Apple has placed orders with OmniVision Technologies for both 3.2 and 5-megapixel image sensors. The 3.2-megapixel sensor is reportedly destined for the next-generation iPhone, while the 5-megapixel sensor is claimed to be for a separate product launching later this year."
but, what product could Apple release that would benefit from a 5MP sensor?
Will video recording be able to use a lower megapixel than 3.2 in order to allow for more framerates while maintaining adequate power usage? Something that jailbroken video recording apps can't do.
Are there any phones that are currently using this CMOS so we can get a real idea of what to expect from the next iPhone's camera?
Well I am mod.
But you fail to realize that I usually get attacked first , like you just have,with usuallly something entirely not related to my posts, which are always topic related.
Even you can't be that daft to believe a word of that garbage.
Separately, DigiTimes claims that OmniVision "is also said to have secured 5-megapixel CIS orders for another Apple product expected to be launched later in the year." The fabless CMOS image sensor designer reportedly beat out STMicroelectronics and Aptina Imaging for the orders.
The upcoming quad-core Core i7 iMac with Snow Leopard deserves to get the 5 MP camera later this Fall (in line with the expected launch date).
5 MegaPixel camera for the Core i7 iMac
The upcoming quad-core Core i7 iMac with Snow Leopard deserves to get the 5 MP camera later this Fall (in line with the expected launch date).
I don't think i7 will work in the iMac. All the power ratings were too high. The next best fit I've seen is the low-power Core 2 Quad desktop Nehalems, which is a considerable step up from the mobile chips Apple has had to use.
As for the 5Mpx camera, all Macs could run that just fine. I just don't think Apple fines it necessary. If they add anything to the camera I would rather like to see one that is more robust with various lighting types than using a higher megapixel.