Briefly: iPhone Software 3.0 taking better camera snapshots

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 170
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I agree the use of camera phones will grow. But I don't believe camera companies will cede their point and shoot market to phone manufacturers. They will adjust and figure out how to out market phones.



    They won't want to and they'll try to adjust, but when a camera phone can take a pretty nice picture that looks fine as a 4x6 print or on Flickr or your web page on displayed on your screen, they've got a tough job ahead of them.



    I'm not saying camera phones are quite there yet, but they're getting there. And once the average camera phone produces "pretty good to quite nice" results, why would the average person want a separate camera? They're not looking to create archival images, they just want something for spontaneous documentation of their life, to be shared easily then filed away on a drive.



    Of course there will still be a market for cameras, but the lower end point and shoots will almost certainly fade, with most of the action around digital SLRs and the larger, better fixed lens cameras with plenty of manual controls.
  • Reply 142 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The biggest problem in filmmaking is that everyone competes in a total sense. Every camera manufacturer has their own codec and HD format. Sony and Panasonic have around 12 different HD formats between the two of them. Then every other camera manufacturer has their own codec/format.



    Post Production houses then have acquire equipment and software to deal with all of those formats. On top of eventually most of these formats are eventually going to be abandoned and some companies are not going to survive.



    The only resolution I can see to this problem is one standard post production format that is supported by everyone regardless of which camera is used. This would go along way to the adoption of digital moviemaking, but no one seems motivated to do this.



    Funny enough in the lower budget realm the one format that is filling the role of this universal format is Apple's Pro Res 422. A growing number of cameras and acquisition equipment can record data natively in Pro Res 422.



    The project money is also larger in your industry. I haven't worked in it for a while, but My ad shoot budgets were a couple hundred thou back in the early '70's. After that we did some post in my company.



    It's interesting, but FCS has pushed Avid out of a lot of work, and that includes Flame work as well with Apple's Color.
  • Reply 143 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Of course, but that certainly isn't going to be the mass market norm, any more than "audiophile" home stereo systems are going come roaring back against cheap digital players and docking systems.



    The home audio industry has been an object lesson in how, once the tech reaches a certain point, the up-sell gets harder and harder and further advances are just churning a small percentage of the market.



    Sure, I'm not talking about mass market, it's just in response to the post you made about pixel numbers.



    As long as the IQ is good, more pixels don't hurt. And it's getting cheaper to deliver a good quality small pixel. That's progress.
  • Reply 144 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    In the digital video world sensors are improving but not nearly at the pace that software improves. Everyone basically has access to the same sensor technology.



    Digital video standards dictate fixed pixel numbers and ratios, being to follow by all makers. There's no point in inflating number of pixels in the matrix. What manufacturers should do is to enlarge dimensions of each single pixel to improve sensitivity. Not that I digged this deeply; but I remember to read some reports, having said it's sensor prices, which always slowed down the progress in the area.
  • Reply 145 of 170
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The number of pixels is largely dictated by the type of camera, the purpose of the camera, and the cost. Consumer HD cameras with 1/3 inch sensors typically have hundreds of thousands of photosites on their sensors, pro ENG style HD cameras with 2/3 inch sensors typically have around 2 million photosites, their are some high end HD cameras with 35mm size sensors intended for filmmaking that have 12 million photosites. The larger the sensor and the more photosites the better the image.



    Now HD camera manufacturers want to get into 2K and 4K you have to have more pixels to gain more resolution.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Digital video standards dictate fixed pixel numbers and ratios, being to follow by all makers. There's no point in inflating number of pixels in the matrix. What manufacturers should do is to enlarge dimensions of each single pixel to improve sensitivity. Not that I digged this deeply; but I remember to read some reports, having said it's sensor prices, which always slowed down the progress in the area.



  • Reply 146 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Digital video standards dictate fixed pixel numbers and ratios, being to follow by all makers. There's no point in inflating number of pixels in the matrix. What manufacturers should do is to enlarge dimensions of each single pixel to improve sensitivity. Not that I digged this deeply; but I remember to read some reports, having said it's sensor prices, which always slowed down the progress in the area.



    You can only have certain fixed size sensors for interchangeable format pro cameras, as the lens manufacturers only make lenses in a few sensor sizes, as you noted.



    But, because of that, it's not possible to enlarge the sensing sites. As we go up in resolution, the sites get smaller. Nothing can be done about that.



    There is one advantage to semi and pro equipment. Some of it uses three sensors, one for each color. While that causes a slight dip in sensitivity, it means that the sites on each sensor can be dedicated to just one color. In turn, that means that the sensor is much simpler, and that the sites are larger.



    Too bad that we're seeing less of this these days. My Canons still use that approach.
  • Reply 147 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The number of pixels is largely dictated by the type of camera, the purpose of the camera, and the cost. Consumer HD cameras with 1/3 inch sensors typically have hundreds of thousands of photosites on their sensors, pro ENG style HD cameras with 2/3 inch sensors typically have around 2 million photosites, their are some high end HD cameras with 35mm size sensors intended for filmmaking that have 12 million photosites. The larger the sensor and the more photosites the better the image.



    Now HD camera manufacturers want to get into 2K and 4K you have to have more pixels to gain more resolution.



    Yet any HD compatible mass market device should produce video, each frame of which is exactly 1920 pix by 1080 pix, which gives ~2 Mpix. And you have to average/filter/lose/whatever everything else, no choice. Sure, more pixels make each still frame sharper, but movie camera can't really benefit from it. (I heard Quad HD needs somewhat about 9 Mpix, but it isn't here right now.)

    So, from the consumer point of view enlarging sensor surface of movie camera (after having reached 2 Mpix resolution) is far better, than further increasing number of pixels. Sad enough, this point isn't shared by camera makers. They prefer to combine photo camera and movie camera in one single device. The more pixels in your sensor, the better your photo camera is thought to be. Movie camera, though, can not really utilize it. Keeping sensor dimensions the same you spoil the sensitivity of both cameras. In the case of photo camera it is somewhat recompensed by getting sharper still images. And movie camera just becomes worse, more restrained, useless at the night time, etc. without getting any advantages...
  • Reply 148 of 170
    One question for you pixel-heads (said with a smile so no harm intended).



    I plan to trade up from my Nikon D300 to a Nikon D700. Advantages, disadvantages please if you do not mind.



    TIA
  • Reply 149 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You can only have certain fixed size sensors for interchangeable format pro cameras, as the lens manufacturers only make lenses in a few sensor sizes, as you noted.



    But, because of that, it's not possible to enlarge the sensing sites. As we go up in resolution, the sites get smaller. Nothing can be done about that.



    There is one advantage to semi and pro equipment. Some of it uses three sensors, one for each color. While that causes a slight dip in sensitivity, it means that the sites on each sensor can be dedicated to just one color. In turn, that means that the sensor is much simpler, and that the sites are larger.



    Too bad that we're seeing less of this these days. My Canons still use that approach.



    Khm... You should be completely right. No way out of this for mass market devices. And consumers are just left to dream about sensors like those used in astronomical instruments...

    P.S. 3CCD brings very little actually. Each part of spectrum carries only 1/3 of the total incoming energy.
  • Reply 150 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post


    One question for you pixel-heads (said with a smile so no harm intended).



    I plan to trade up from my Nikon D300 to a Nikon D700. Advantages, disadvantages please if you do not mind.



    TIA



    Personally I use photo camera (some Canon from 1999-2000) only to make panoramas at wherever I stop during my rides (I'm seriously going to beat Google's street view ). So, advantages of D700 aren't worth price increase for me. I know, this would hardly help...
  • Reply 151 of 170
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Personally I use photo camera (some Canon from 1999-2000) only to make panoramas at wherever I stop during my rides (I'm seriously going to beat Google's street view ). So, advantages of D700 aren't worth price increase for me. I know, this would hardly help...



    No worries dude. It's all good. I am sure someone else will step in.
  • Reply 152 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member


  • Reply 153 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Yet any HD compatible mass market device should produce video, each frame of which is exactly 1920 pix by 1080 pix, which gives ~2 Mpix. And you have to average/filter/lose/whatever everything else, no choice. Sure, more pixels make each still frame sharper, but movie camera can't really benefit from it. (I heard Quad HD needs somewhat about 9 Mpix, but it isn't here right now.)

    So, from the consumer point of view enlarging sensor surface of movie camera (after having reached 2 Mpix resolution) is far better, than further increasing number of pixels. Sad enough, this point isn't shared by camera makers. They prefer to combine photo camera and movie camera in one single device. The more pixels in your sensor, the better your photo camera is thought to be. Movie camera, though, can not really utilize it. Keeping sensor dimensions the same you spoil the sensitivity of both cameras. In the case of photo camera it is somewhat recompensed by getting sharper still images. And movie camera just becomes worse, more restrained, useless at the night time, etc. without getting any advantages...



    It won't happen because mass market buyers want smaller and smaller. Bigger sensors make that impossible. They are going to smaller sensors all the time.



    What's the other thing consumers want? Cheaper and cheaper. That also mitigates against anything that will increase prices, such as bigger lenses.
  • Reply 154 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Khm... You should be completely right. No way out of this for mass market devices. And consumers are just left to dream about sensors like those used in astronomical instruments...

    P.S. 3CCD brings very little actually. Each part of spectrum carries only 1/3 of the total incoming energy.



    It actually brings much better quality. The sensing sites are much larger, and the chip is much simpler. There is no need for interpolation as we get with single sensor cameras. These trilinear sensing units give much cleaner color, better contrast, no moire, don't need antialiasing filters because of that, and so give better sharpness.
  • Reply 155 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post








    What exactly are we supposed to get from that?
  • Reply 156 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It won't happen because mass market buyers want smaller and smaller. Bigger sensors make that impossible. They are going to smaller sensors all the time.



    What's the other thing consumers want? Cheaper and cheaper. That also mitigates against anything that will increase prices, such as bigger lenses.



    True, sure, but to certain extent only. There is quite big crowd of photographers (it's there, that I picked all my "expertise" about pixels), which do want better larger more sensitive sensors and which are by no means enchanted by that witchcraft of pixel numbers. No offer, plainly and simply. 1/6", lightweight cameras, trembling and swinging in your hand, only.
  • Reply 157 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What exactly are we supposed to get from that?



    Nothing much, apart from 2.2.1 camera f/w is not completely bad in night conditions.
  • Reply 158 of 170
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It actually brings much better quality. The sensing sites are much larger, and the chip is much simpler. There is no need for interpolation as we get with single sensor cameras. These trilinear sensing units give much cleaner color, better contrast, no moire, don't need antialiasing filters because of that, and so give better sharpness.



    I take your word for it. I always thought 3CCD cameras won because of optical stabilizers, thus better sharpness, less blur, and, sure, better color processing. Never heard they are much more sensitive... But my knowledge in the area is simply incomparable with yours, sure.
  • Reply 159 of 170
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    What you have to take into consideration is that a sensor has to record four channels of light information. A channel for RED, GREEN, BLUE, and Luminance. Their are various different ways for sensor technology to record these different channels. Consumer cameras essentially combine them all together. As you move into professional cameras they are divided up more. For movie style cameras they are all completely divided so that RED GREEN, Blue are recorded on completely different channels. To be able to record them all separately requires more pixels, which is why movie cameras have as much as 12 million pixels.



    With imaging in general to record a sharper picture, with more dynamic range, and a deeper color gamut requires over sampling. The original always needs to record more information than will be used in the final presentation.



    People think Blu-ray looks really good. It pales in comparison to the original camera footage.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    Yet any HD compatible mass market device should produce video, each frame of which is exactly 1920 pix by 1080 pix, which gives ~2 Mpix. And you have to average/filter/lose/whatever everything else, no choice. Sure, more pixels make each still frame sharper, but movie camera can't really benefit from it. (I heard Quad HD needs somewhat about 9 Mpix, but it isn't here right now.)



    So, from the consumer point of view enlarging sensor surface of movie camera (after having reached 2 Mpix resolution) is far better, than further increasing number of pixels. Sad enough, this point isn't shared by camera makers. They prefer to combine photo camera and movie camera in one single device. The more pixels in your sensor, the better your photo camera is thought to be. Movie camera, though, can not really utilize it. Keeping sensor dimensions the same you spoil the sensitivity of both cameras. In the case of photo camera it is somewhat recompensed by getting sharper still images. And movie camera just becomes worse, more restrained, useless at the night time, etc. without getting any advantages...



  • Reply 160 of 170
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    True, sure, but to certain extent only. There is quite big crowd of photographers (it's there, that I picked all my "expertise" about pixels), which do want better larger more sensitive sensors and which are by no means enchanted by that witchcraft of pixel numbers. No offer, plainly and simply. 1/6", lightweight cameras, trembling and swinging in your hand, only.



    I'm one of those people who come from the pro market, so I don't need convincing about quality.



    But, what, maybe 99.9% of all those buying camcorders and sill cameras are wanting small and cheap.



    The thing is that digital has made things so much better even in the cheapest models that people are often happy with what I consider to be junk.



    Many people used to buy, and in smaller numbers still buy, throwaway film cameras with deplorable IQ. Sometimes we would have customers bring them in to us to print on our minilab. Often you couldn't even get a decent 3.5 x 5 or 4 x 6. Exposure and color were so far off that Herculean measures were called for as the machine couldn't fix it itself. The one element plastic lenses didn't help either.



    When compared to that, the iPhone's 2 MP camera is a marvel of IQ. I've seen phones with higher rez cameras with poorer pictures.



    With camcorders, 1/3" sensors, and even 1/4" sensors are common on the low end. Depth of field is so great with these things that focus is sloppy on these cameras, because except at high tele extensions, it isn't needed.
Sign In or Register to comment.