How can a manufacturer possibly cheat here? They have their hardware, and they make improvements in the software, whatever they may be.
What can you even come up with that could be called a "cheat"?
An improvement is just that, no matter how they figure out how to do it.
It's not about what manufacturer did or reported to have done, if you need my opinion. It's about what guys write in their blogs.
By cheating at the time I meant: 1) possible usage of another, better, camera to make better pictures; 2) possible using hardware glass filters; the telescope lens for iPhone exists since years, you know, and it can bear filters.
No, I don't think all that's the case.
Yes, night picture "made by 2.2.1" is absolutely realistic. The picture of a cat, on the contrary, is not at all. I'd say 2.2.1 in such conditions produces pictures of quality similar to what was attributed to 3.0.
But the quality differences are abnormally big and suspicious. And I still give considerable - and yes, dominant - share of probability to the option this was done with image processing software on a desktop computer.
The series of pictures from Polish blog looks far more natural. And certainly it presents improvements brought by 3.0, too.
The cat photo on the right was taken when it was moving so naturally it is more blurry because iPhone shutter speed sucks. Those photos are not identical. Identical means same place , same lighting, still subjects.
The bottom photo merely looks like a dirty lens. Drastic improvements like those are not had via software alone. Complete BS.
Someone was paid off.
Who the H does photo comparisons with moving subjects?
Thanks for the info, Mel, but now you've made me go and look it up (admired their design but never owned a Leica, more's the shame).
... In fact, Leitz is no more, it is now Leica (not that I knew this before posting); but with the naming of lenses it's more complicated than that:
> The Leica went through several iterations, and in 1923 Barnack convinced his boss, Ernst Leitz II, to make a prototype series of 31. The camera was an immediate success when introduced at the 1925 Leipzig, Germany Spring Fair as the Leica I (for Leitz camera). The Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 lens (a 4-elements design influenced by the Zeiss Tessar) was designed by Dr. Max Berek at Leitz etc. etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera
Back to iPhone. I just came across this on Macdailynews..
> Comment from: Spartacus
> The MPxls amount does not, necessarily, lead to image quality. This weekend I've made some tests, comparing a Nokia N80 (with a 3.2 Mpx camera) and my iPhone. It's amazing how the iPhone always produce better images all the time in all light circumstances. Images from the iphone are sharp and colorful (and I'm using 3.0). Nokia images, by the contrary, are dull, blured and with very poor resolution. I've made some cleanup of the external lenses prior to this test. I don't know what makes such a huge difference but certainly is linked to the optical quality of the transparent materials and the anti-reflection surface and to the processing software for sure.
My impression of common-or-garden variety Nokia camera phones (2 mp on mine and 3.2 on a colleague's) is that they are utterly useless. Nokia has gone to pot.
In contrast, I've seen a lot of quite presentable iPhone-captured images on the web (check out Flickr which gives the exif data, e.g. this stunner of the grand canyon http://www.flickr.com/photos/imago20...57616816402786 ).
What is sad about the two year time frame? Software can usually always be improved. That is why it is upgraded. Companies can't sit around until software is perfect or products would never ship. Apple does a lot in it's iPhone upgrades.
Then where has video been? Surely Apple is not inventing it.
Oh, yeah. And that kitten dances wildly enough to shake the appliance beneath. It's cameraman's tremor.
Can you not see the motion blur? The cat moved a lot on the right photo and didn't in the left photo. Is another explanation really needed? Why else would there be massive blur JUST with the head.
Can you not see the motion blur? The cat moved a lot on the right photo and didn't in the left photo. Is another explanation really needed? Why else would there be massive blur JUST with the head.
This is not motion blur. Not at all. Magnify the image. You'll see the fur is not moving. This is gaussian or average blur applied to the portion of image. And that points once more to heavy image processing software.
Well the only gripe I have about it is how they release the updates. Wouldn't it be better to release things as they're finished, and not bundle them up as one big release? .... but if MMS was done at Christmas, imagine how many Christmas photos could have been sent lol.
But that's all speculation. Each development team could have just been given a deadline.......
Ok, I'm done ranting
Hey, its OK to rant once in a while. I have been known to do it myself. :-) but to comment..
There is a lot of work that goes on in releasing software, including testing -- inhouse and outside, advertising to allow people to know about it (besides tech heads. :-) ), budgeting for the advertising and creating ads for the effort, etc, etc..
So while a 15 year old can be breathlessly awaiting any new free software to come down the pike, most of us need to be informed that its here and given a reason to check it out / buy it.
Is it possible that iPhone 3.0 will be able to shoot video on the 3G, i.e., can software turn the 3G still camera into a video camera?
I'm not sure, but I've read that video is difficult on the 3g due to the processor speed, available RAM, and the hit on the battery. This has been posted in various places, but I'm not an expert so I cant confirm if this is true. I guess we'll know soon enough. There are apps available for jail broken 3g iphones, but I don't know how they perform. Maybe someone else here does???
I'm not sure, but I've read that video is difficult on the 3g due to the processor speed, available RAM, and the hit on the battery. This has been posted in various places, but I'm not an expert so I cant confirm if this is true. I guess we'll know soon enough. There are apps available for jail broken 3g iphones, but I don't know how they perform. Maybe someone else here does???
It's not in the current Betas just some hidden scrubber image and a hidden YouTube video upload screen. The issue isn't so much with the process speed which is 612MHz and under clocked to just over 400MHz or the 128MB RAM, but with the resources left for video after the iPhone OS and all the background processes get their cut. The jailbreak solution is quite poor and maxs out the system while draining the battery to get the crappy video it does so we'll have to wait to see what Apple does with the next iPhone.
I figure at least 192MB RAM but hope for 256MB and a newer, faster ARM processor type would be nice, of course these will use more power unless finds a way to counter it. I look forward to seeing what Palm has done with the Pre since they tout some hefty power in the device.
It's not in the current Betas just some hidden scrubber image and a hidden YouTube video upload screen. The issue isn't so much with the process speed which is 612MHz and under clocked to just over 400MHz or the 128MB RAM, but with the resources left for video after the iPhone OS and all the background processes get their cut. The jailbreak solution is quite poor and maxs out the system while draining the battery to get the crappy video it does so we'll have to wait to see what Apple does with the next iPhone.
I figure at least 192MB RAM but hope for 256MB and a newer, faster ARM processor type would be nice, of course these will use more power unless finds a way to counter it. I look forward to seeing what Palm has done with the Pre since they tout some hefty power in the device.
Thanks for the info on the jailbreak solution and for clarifying what I was not clear about - that it's "what's left" of the system resources after everything else gets it cut. I'm really hoping for a big jump in ram and processor in the next phone as long as it does not drain the battery too much. Hopefully we won't have to wait very long to find out.
It's not about what manufacturer did or reported to have done, if you need my opinion. It's about what guys write in their blogs.
By cheating at the time I meant: 1) possible usage of another, better, camera to make better pictures; 2) possible using hardware glass filters; the telescope lens for iPhone exists since years, you know, and it can bear filters.
No, I don't think all that's the case.
Yes, night picture "made by 2.2.1" is absolutely realistic. The picture of a cat, on the contrary, is not at all. I'd say 2.2.1 in such conditions produces pictures of quality similar to what was attributed to 3.0.
But the quality differences are abnormally big and suspicious. And I still give considerable - and yes, dominant - share of probability to the option this was done with image processing software on a desktop computer.
The series of pictures from Polish blog looks far more natural. And certainly it presents improvements brought by 3.0, too.
Thanks for the info, Mel, but now you've made me go and look it up (admired their design but never owned a Leica, more's the shame).
... In fact, Leitz is no more, it is now Leica (not that I knew this before posting); but with the naming of lenses it's more complicated than that:
> The Leica went through several iterations, and in 1923 Barnack convinced his boss, Ernst Leitz II, to make a prototype series of 31. The camera was an immediate success when introduced at the 1925 Leipzig, Germany Spring Fair as the Leica I (for Leitz camera). The Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 lens (a 4-elements design influenced by the Zeiss Tessar) was designed by Dr. Max Berek at Leitz etc. etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera
Yes, you're right. I did forget that they went through this transformation recently. But the rest of what I said is still correct.
The Wiki does contain more than a few of its own errors though.
The first major one is that the SLRs have been discontinued, along with all the lenses, and the S2 won't be available for several more months, at best. They've made other mistakes as well, but I won't bother with it.
Thanks for the info on the jailbreak solution and for clarifying what I was not clear about - that it's "what's left" of the system resources after everything else gets it cut. I'm really hoping for a big jump in ram and processor in the next phone as long as it does not drain the battery too much. Hopefully we won't have to wait very long to find out.
Supposedly, there's twice as much program RAM in the new device.
Hopefully, the processor is souped up as well. At least, that's what we're reading.
Supposedly, there's twice as much program RAM in the new device.
Hopefully, the processor is souped up as well. At least, that's what we're reading.
I haven't heard that it will 256MB RAM, though it has been assumed as the most likely.
The CPU and GPU changes is more difficult to rationalize. What chips are they going to use and are they going to use a more expensive, faster chip again that they underclock to get a little more power efficiency over a slower, less expensive chip in the same class that isn't underclocked.
Regardless, I do look forward to the next iPhone release.
Absolutely. This is why I do my best to not cry "Fake! Forgery! Bullshit!" I trust sincerely 3.0 firmware improves picture quality. We'll see how exactly will that compare to 2.2.1.
I don't see a reason to suspect faked results. There were two sites confirming the results. The result published by the Polish site might look a little bit different, but not that much:
- The first scene shows a more stable image for 3.0.
- On the second scene both images are fairly stable with the most notable difference the exposure and the white balance. This could be contributed by the large screen which is part of the image. May be it had different content or the two iPhone OS versions process the highlights differently, or both.
Analyzing the images from the three sites my guess is that the following changes were made:
1. Some sort of image stabilization. Since there is no change of the image size, the possible solution is that the software picks a better moment for the shot within a certain time window, based on the accelerometer input.
2. Enhancement in processing highlights, e.g. their overall weight in evaluating the white balance and the exposure and tuning them down a little bit.
Another guess:
Apple made this enhancement while working with the new CCD which is supposed to have advantages on it's own. If Apple selects a slightly larger sensor or a slightly longer focal length they could implement software stabilization. Thanks to the presence of accelerometer data his could be more efficient both in terms of quality and processor speed than oftware stabilization based on image analysis only (used in some consumer digital cameras).
I'd be seriously disappointed if Apple would use a 3.2 megapixel camera in the new iPhone. That would be an "update" not an "upgrade". A min. of 5 megapixels would put the iPhone at the same level as the upcoming Samsung I7500. And shouldn't the iPhone 3.0 video output "support" iMovie's HD format?
Comments
How can a manufacturer possibly cheat here? They have their hardware, and they make improvements in the software, whatever they may be.
What can you even come up with that could be called a "cheat"?
An improvement is just that, no matter how they figure out how to do it.
It's not about what manufacturer did or reported to have done, if you need my opinion. It's about what guys write in their blogs.
By cheating at the time I meant: 1) possible usage of another, better, camera to make better pictures; 2) possible using hardware glass filters; the telescope lens for iPhone exists since years, you know, and it can bear filters.
No, I don't think all that's the case.
Yes, night picture "made by 2.2.1" is absolutely realistic. The picture of a cat, on the contrary, is not at all. I'd say 2.2.1 in such conditions produces pictures of quality similar to what was attributed to 3.0.
But the quality differences are abnormally big and suspicious. And I still give considerable - and yes, dominant - share of probability to the option this was done with image processing software on a desktop computer.
The series of pictures from Polish blog looks far more natural. And certainly it presents improvements brought by 3.0, too.
The bottom photo merely looks like a dirty lens. Drastic improvements like those are not had via software alone. Complete BS.
Someone was paid off.
Who the H does photo comparisons with moving subjects?
The cat photo on the right was taken when it was moving
Oh, yeah. And that kitten dances wildly enough to shake the appliance beneath.
... In fact, Leitz is no more, it is now Leica (not that I knew this before posting); but with the naming of lenses it's more complicated than that:
> The Leica went through several iterations, and in 1923 Barnack convinced his boss, Ernst Leitz II, to make a prototype series of 31. The camera was an immediate success when introduced at the 1925 Leipzig, Germany Spring Fair as the Leica I (for Leitz camera). The Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 lens (a 4-elements design influenced by the Zeiss Tessar) was designed by Dr. Max Berek at Leitz etc. etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera
Back to iPhone. I just came across this on Macdailynews..
> Comment from: Spartacus
> The MPxls amount does not, necessarily, lead to image quality. This weekend I've made some tests, comparing a Nokia N80 (with a 3.2 Mpx camera) and my iPhone. It's amazing how the iPhone always produce better images all the time in all light circumstances. Images from the iphone are sharp and colorful (and I'm using 3.0). Nokia images, by the contrary, are dull, blured and with very poor resolution. I've made some cleanup of the external lenses prior to this test. I don't know what makes such a huge difference but certainly is linked to the optical quality of the transparent materials and the anti-reflection surface and to the processing software for sure.
My impression of common-or-garden variety Nokia camera phones (2 mp on mine and 3.2 on a colleague's) is that they are utterly useless. Nokia has gone to pot.
In contrast, I've seen a lot of quite presentable iPhone-captured images on the web (check out Flickr which gives the exif data, e.g. this stunner of the grand canyon http://www.flickr.com/photos/imago20...57616816402786 ).
What is sad about the two year time frame? Software can usually always be improved. That is why it is upgraded. Companies can't sit around until software is perfect or products would never ship. Apple does a lot in it's iPhone upgrades.
Then where has video been? Surely Apple is not inventing it.
Must be battery issues- no?
Oh, yeah. And that kitten dances wildly enough to shake the appliance beneath.
Can you not see the motion blur? The cat moved a lot on the right photo and didn't in the left photo. Is another explanation really needed? Why else would there be massive blur JUST with the head.
Can you not see the motion blur? The cat moved a lot on the right photo and didn't in the left photo. Is another explanation really needed? Why else would there be massive blur JUST with the head.
This is not motion blur. Not at all. Magnify the image. You'll see the fur is not moving. This is gaussian or average blur applied to the portion of image. And that points once more to heavy image processing software.
Well the only gripe I have about it is how they release the updates. Wouldn't it be better to release things as they're finished, and not bundle them up as one big release? .... but if MMS was done at Christmas, imagine how many Christmas photos could have been sent lol.
But that's all speculation. Each development team could have just been given a deadline.......
Ok, I'm done ranting
Hey, its OK to rant once in a while. I have been known to do it myself. :-) but to comment..
There is a lot of work that goes on in releasing software, including testing -- inhouse and outside, advertising to allow people to know about it (besides tech heads. :-) ), budgeting for the advertising and creating ads for the effort, etc, etc..
So while a 15 year old can be breathlessly awaiting any new free software to come down the pike, most of us need to be informed that its here and given a reason to check it out / buy it.
Just a thought.
en
Is it possible that iPhone 3.0 will be able to shoot video on the 3G, i.e., can software turn the 3G still camera into a video camera?
I'm not sure, but I've read that video is difficult on the 3g due to the processor speed, available RAM, and the hit on the battery. This has been posted in various places, but I'm not an expert so I cant confirm if this is true. I guess we'll know soon enough. There are apps available for jail broken 3g iphones, but I don't know how they perform. Maybe someone else here does???
I'm not sure, but I've read that video is difficult on the 3g due to the processor speed, available RAM, and the hit on the battery. This has been posted in various places, but I'm not an expert so I cant confirm if this is true. I guess we'll know soon enough. There are apps available for jail broken 3g iphones, but I don't know how they perform. Maybe someone else here does???
It's not in the current Betas just some hidden scrubber image and a hidden YouTube video upload screen. The issue isn't so much with the process speed which is 612MHz and under clocked to just over 400MHz or the 128MB RAM, but with the resources left for video after the iPhone OS and all the background processes get their cut. The jailbreak solution is quite poor and maxs out the system while draining the battery to get the crappy video it does so we'll have to wait to see what Apple does with the next iPhone.
I figure at least 192MB RAM but hope for 256MB and a newer, faster ARM processor type would be nice, of course these will use more power unless finds a way to counter it. I look forward to seeing what Palm has done with the Pre since they tout some hefty power in the device.
It's not in the current Betas just some hidden scrubber image and a hidden YouTube video upload screen. The issue isn't so much with the process speed which is 612MHz and under clocked to just over 400MHz or the 128MB RAM, but with the resources left for video after the iPhone OS and all the background processes get their cut. The jailbreak solution is quite poor and maxs out the system while draining the battery to get the crappy video it does so we'll have to wait to see what Apple does with the next iPhone.
I figure at least 192MB RAM but hope for 256MB and a newer, faster ARM processor type would be nice, of course these will use more power unless finds a way to counter it. I look forward to seeing what Palm has done with the Pre since they tout some hefty power in the device.
Thanks for the info on the jailbreak solution and for clarifying what I was not clear about - that it's "what's left" of the system resources after everything else gets it cut. I'm really hoping for a big jump in ram and processor in the next phone as long as it does not drain the battery too much. Hopefully we won't have to wait very long to find out.
This is not motion blur. Not at all. Magnify the image. You'll see the fur is not moving.
The cat didn't move - the guy taking the picture did.
It's not about what manufacturer did or reported to have done, if you need my opinion. It's about what guys write in their blogs.
By cheating at the time I meant: 1) possible usage of another, better, camera to make better pictures; 2) possible using hardware glass filters; the telescope lens for iPhone exists since years, you know, and it can bear filters.
No, I don't think all that's the case.
Yes, night picture "made by 2.2.1" is absolutely realistic. The picture of a cat, on the contrary, is not at all. I'd say 2.2.1 in such conditions produces pictures of quality similar to what was attributed to 3.0.
But the quality differences are abnormally big and suspicious. And I still give considerable - and yes, dominant - share of probability to the option this was done with image processing software on a desktop computer.
The series of pictures from Polish blog looks far more natural. And certainly it presents improvements brought by 3.0, too.
That's just total guesswork on your part.
Thanks for the info, Mel, but now you've made me go and look it up (admired their design but never owned a Leica, more's the shame).
... In fact, Leitz is no more, it is now Leica (not that I knew this before posting); but with the naming of lenses it's more complicated than that:
> The Leica went through several iterations, and in 1923 Barnack convinced his boss, Ernst Leitz II, to make a prototype series of 31. The camera was an immediate success when introduced at the 1925 Leipzig, Germany Spring Fair as the Leica I (for Leitz camera). The Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 lens (a 4-elements design influenced by the Zeiss Tessar) was designed by Dr. Max Berek at Leitz etc. etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera
Yes, you're right. I did forget that they went through this transformation recently. But the rest of what I said is still correct.
The Wiki does contain more than a few of its own errors though.
The first major one is that the SLRs have been discontinued, along with all the lenses, and the S2 won't be available for several more months, at best. They've made other mistakes as well, but I won't bother with it.
Thanks for the info on the jailbreak solution and for clarifying what I was not clear about - that it's "what's left" of the system resources after everything else gets it cut. I'm really hoping for a big jump in ram and processor in the next phone as long as it does not drain the battery too much. Hopefully we won't have to wait very long to find out.
Supposedly, there's twice as much program RAM in the new device.
Hopefully, the processor is souped up as well. At least, that's what we're reading.
Supposedly, there's twice as much program RAM in the new device.
Hopefully, the processor is souped up as well. At least, that's what we're reading.
I haven't heard that it will 256MB RAM, though it has been assumed as the most likely.
The CPU and GPU changes is more difficult to rationalize. What chips are they going to use and are they going to use a more expensive, faster chip again that they underclock to get a little more power efficiency over a slower, less expensive chip in the same class that isn't underclocked.
Regardless, I do look forward to the next iPhone release.
That's just total guesswork on your part.
Absolutely. This is why I do my best to not cry "Fake! Forgery! Bullshit!" I trust sincerely 3.0 firmware improves picture quality. We'll see how exactly will that compare to 2.2.1.
- The first scene shows a more stable image for 3.0.
- On the second scene both images are fairly stable with the most notable difference the exposure and the white balance. This could be contributed by the large screen which is part of the image. May be it had different content or the two iPhone OS versions process the highlights differently, or both.
Analyzing the images from the three sites my guess is that the following changes were made:
1. Some sort of image stabilization. Since there is no change of the image size, the possible solution is that the software picks a better moment for the shot within a certain time window, based on the accelerometer input.
2. Enhancement in processing highlights, e.g. their overall weight in evaluating the white balance and the exposure and tuning them down a little bit.
Another guess:
Apple made this enhancement while working with the new CCD which is supposed to have advantages on it's own. If Apple selects a slightly larger sensor or a slightly longer focal length they could implement software stabilization. Thanks to the presence of accelerometer data his could be more efficient both in terms of quality and processor speed than oftware stabilization based on image analysis only (used in some consumer digital cameras).
The cat didn't move - the guy taking the picture did.
Very unlikely. This is not directional blur. I still suspect the picture having been taken with iPhone was "spoiled" artificially.