1,000,000,000 handsets sold every year. That's a 1 with 9 zeros behind it.
I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.
What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.
Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.
1,000,000,000 handsets sold every year. That's a 1 with 9 zeros behind it.
I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.
What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.
Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.
Ouch! That's one in the eye for the Feature Creatures!
I'm so disappointed, though, to learn that Apple isn't reading this prestigious journal to guide their product designs. I mean we could have something the size of a high-resolution-screen flip-open house brick with a 10MP concertina zooming camera, chock-a-block covered in buttons and blinking lights. (With apologies to Heath Robinson)
-Enz
ed on, that in case you find Heath to a bit of a stretch
Quote:
One of the automatic analysis machines built for Bletchley Park during the Second World War to assist in the decryption of German message traffic was named "Heath Robinson" in his honour. It was a direct predecessor to the Colossus, the world's first programmable digital electronic computer.- WikiP.
Letting you guys know... they are the guides for the VOICE editing in the 3.0 beta.
They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.
Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.
Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...
Now that the dock connector and other iPhone OS 3 features are somewhat known, I foresee the day when my DSLR can act as a tether, or remote control to the camera. Imagine a photographer in the studio with live preview on his Nikon D3 and a wifi connection to the iPhone acting as a remote controller to the D3. He could stand next to his subject making lighting changes and then check his iPhone. Wonder if Nikon and Canon have SDK's to make this work with iPhone.
Now that the dock connector and other iPhone OS 3 features are somewhat known, ... Wonder if Nikon and Canon have SDK's to make this work with iPhone.
Don't have an answer to that but I might add here that the twin-lens Kodak I bought for my daughter a few years back could send and receive photos to and from my other daughter's high-end (for 2006) phone... over Bluetooth. I think the possibilities of Bluetooth / WiFi on the iPhone (with the full power of OSX) for controlling and communicating with other devices (like *real* cameras, cars, toasters, fridges, scientific/medical equipment &c.) cannot be overstated.
I think Apple is not just going to make it easy to upload videos to YouTube, but that YT and Apple have a live streaming service planned like Qik on steroids.
I totally agree. I see the next iPhone will be branded 'iPhone Video' or 'iPhone You Tube'.
As has been discussed (to death) elsewhere, a good (or better) lens and superior processing can yield a far better image from a 3.2MP imager than a mediocre lens and processing can from a 4MP, or 5MP one, so it actually doesn't make any sense to speak of having some threshold of MP to get a satisfactory image, without knowing about the entire image chain.
And more to the point, the sharpness of a lens' "point spread function" is determined not only by the lens' quality but also its diameter. A lens as small as those found on the back of smart phones can only support a certain resolution. After you get below that width, you are just adding more "blurry" dots.
This is just like the CPU MHz (now GHZ) battle. People just jump at the highest number without realizing it does them no good if something else is the limiting factor.
More recently, alleged Taiwan insiders have also said that the camera itself may be upgraded to 3.2 megapxiels, suggesting that upgraded hardware video performance is just as important to Apple as software features..
Sigh. These two stories are clearly not related. For video, the LAST thing you want is more pixels.
It's simple physics. The more pixels you have, the less light falls on each one. That makes it harder to process the image. Furthermore, for video you're likely to want to cap out at 640x480, so all those pixels have to be interpreted in software in order to get a reasonable image.
It is much more likely that they will add a dedicated video sensor, likely on the front face.
There are already lots of photo editing Apps available including some with professional level filters.
The only thing I dislike about Apple speculation is, you can think, hmm vide, must mean video chat then it turns out it's more like "share you video moments on .mac" LOL
Letting you guys know... they are the guides for the VOICE editing in the 3.0 beta.
They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.
Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.
Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...
Just looking at it from both angles
This is sad, if true.
Could someone confirm this with some evidence though? They are labelled as "movie editing" buttons in the firmware after all.
The only screenshot I've been able to find for voice editing is this one which seems to *not* use the discovered "movie" icons in it's interface. Does anyone have a screenshot of these icons actually being used in a voice editing app?
Broadcast television is either 720 30P or 1080 60i. You are correct that the moving image has more temporal resolution. Temporal resolution doesn't eliminate noise, it improves perceived sharpness.
Actually a still 2MP image is more likely to be sharper than a frame of HD. The still image was likely posed for and had a longer exposure than a video frame. The video frame is more likely to have less exposure and motion blur.
Plus the video frame is interlaced which means you really only get half the lines of resolution
I would much prefer to have a fairly high quality 720 x 480p SD video, tan a lower IQ720p video that will also eat up the memory too quickly. Plus, sending such a video will be a nightmare, even at 7.2 Mp/s.
It would have to be shrunk down. Who has a cell that has a 720x 480 screen? No one. There are a couple with 640 x 480, but even then, do they really need such a high quality video of someone's soon to be forgotten crap they're sent? It would have to be highly compressed to be of any immediate use.
For saving the video to computer, a higher IQ file would be needed, but for sending over the airwaves, no way.
Truth is, I'd be happy with a high quality 480 x 320.
I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.
some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.
If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.
I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery
I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.
some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.
If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.
I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery
It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.
Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.
There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.
It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.
Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.
There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.
That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)
That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)
No. There isn't any such device.
The cheapest you could spend is about $450 for the cheapest D-SLR.
No compact allows for that other than a couple that cost even more, and are more difficult to use.
All other compacts have small sensors, though much bigger than the ones in phones, and can get to ISO 200 with good noise, 400 with usable noise, and higher with unusable noise. that eliminates "good" night shots, because the flashes on those cameras have little range.
A few have add-on lenses which lower the optical IQ to the point where anything over 6 x 8 prints look pretty bad.
Good video is relative. compared to what? Most offer fair to middling video IQ.
I may be reading this wrong or misunderstanding but here goes:
I think this was the reason that we haven't seen video. For photo it has the photo application and they needed, well wanted, to do something similar for video, and taking it a step further by allowing editing. I've used the "video editing" if they can be called that, features on some phones, and they are more or less unusable. I think this is what Apple is trying to improve on the iPhone.
The cheapest you could spend is about $450 for the cheapest D-SLR.
No compact allows for that other than a couple that cost even more, and are more difficult to use.
All other compacts have small sensors, though much bigger than the ones in phones, and can get to ISO 200 with good noise, 400 with usable noise, and higher with unusable noise. that eliminates "good" night shots, because the flashes on those cameras have little range.
A few have add-on lenses which lower the optical IQ to the point where anything over 6 x 8 prints look pretty bad.
Good video is relative. compared to what? Most offer fair to middling video IQ.
All good points. Coming from slide-film SLR photography, I got tired of the technical limitations, the butt-ugly digital grain, the lens flare, the narrow exposure range, and the lack of detailed control on compacts. Finally splurged out on a DSLR several weeks ago and am loving photography again. New camera will do 3200 ASA and at 800 ASA, or even 1600 ASA, it gives quite decent smooth-grained shots indoors sans flash. The Canon Sureshot has been relegated for places I don't want to take the full kit-SLR (like on the reef walk at the Coral Coast the other week [I live in Fiji]).
Guess the message is that, unless you're prepared to compromise, it's SLR with razor sharp lenses and manual overrides for photos, a video camera for video.. a point and shoot for happy snaps... and a phone for rough impressions of what things looked like (and for making calls).
That said, I'll be interested to see what the Apple designers, boffins and engineers can come up with for the video side of iPhone. They really do work on a different level of expectation to all the others.
Comments
I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.
What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.
Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.
Those look a lot like the "trim" ui bits from the new voice memo app. Has anyone checked to see if that's a match?
Exactly what I was thinking.
1,000,000,000 handsets sold every year. That's a 1 with 9 zeros behind it.
I'll bet everyone of them has a favorite feature that IS NOT on the iPhone.
What strikes me is that so many of those handset users think they know better than the manufacturer, and yet, I'll wager few have managed anything more difficult than a coffee stand. For sure none have managed anything as complex, or as successful, as the iPhone project.
Get a life. Apple is not reading comments on AppleInsider to find out what should be the next improvement to anything.
Ouch! That's one in the eye for the Feature Creatures!
I'm so disappointed, though, to learn that Apple isn't reading this prestigious journal to guide their product designs. I mean we could have something the size of a high-resolution-screen flip-open house brick with a 10MP concertina zooming camera, chock-a-block covered in buttons and blinking lights. (With apologies to Heath Robinson)
-Enz
ed on, that in case you find Heath to a bit of a stretch
One of the automatic analysis machines built for Bletchley Park during the Second World War to assist in the decryption of German message traffic was named "Heath Robinson" in his honour. It was a direct predecessor to the Colossus, the world's first programmable digital electronic computer.- WikiP.
They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.
Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.
Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...
Just looking at it from both angles
Now that the dock connector and other iPhone OS 3 features are somewhat known, ... Wonder if Nikon and Canon have SDK's to make this work with iPhone.
Don't have an answer to that but I might add here that the twin-lens Kodak I bought for my daughter a few years back could send and receive photos to and from my other daughter's high-end (for 2006) phone... over Bluetooth. I think the possibilities of Bluetooth / WiFi on the iPhone (with the full power of OSX) for controlling and communicating with other devices (like *real* cameras, cars, toasters, fridges, scientific/medical equipment &c.) cannot be overstated.
-Enz
I think Apple is not just going to make it easy to upload videos to YouTube, but that YT and Apple have a live streaming service planned like Qik on steroids.
I totally agree. I see the next iPhone will be branded 'iPhone Video' or 'iPhone You Tube'.
I'm curious about this, assuming you're serious.
As has been discussed (to death) elsewhere, a good (or better) lens and superior processing can yield a far better image from a 3.2MP imager than a mediocre lens and processing can from a 4MP, or 5MP one, so it actually doesn't make any sense to speak of having some threshold of MP to get a satisfactory image, without knowing about the entire image chain.
And more to the point, the sharpness of a lens' "point spread function" is determined not only by the lens' quality but also its diameter. A lens as small as those found on the back of smart phones can only support a certain resolution. After you get below that width, you are just adding more "blurry" dots.
This is just like the CPU MHz (now GHZ) battle. People just jump at the highest number without realizing it does them no good if something else is the limiting factor.
Thompson
T
More recently, alleged Taiwan insiders have also said that the camera itself may be upgraded to 3.2 megapxiels, suggesting that upgraded hardware video performance is just as important to Apple as software features..
Sigh. These two stories are clearly not related. For video, the LAST thing you want is more pixels.
It's simple physics. The more pixels you have, the less light falls on each one. That makes it harder to process the image. Furthermore, for video you're likely to want to cap out at 640x480, so all those pixels have to be interpreted in software in order to get a reasonable image.
It is much more likely that they will add a dedicated video sensor, likely on the front face.
Maury
There are already lots of photo editing Apps available including some with professional level filters.
The only thing I dislike about Apple speculation is, you can think, hmm vide, must mean video chat then it turns out it's more like "share you video moments on .mac" LOL
Letting you guys know... they are the guides for the VOICE editing in the 3.0 beta.
They're probably planned for movie editing at some stage, maybe with a new handset, but I think that its important to mention they already are used in the new beta, and it isn't specific to movie editing.
Nevertheless the movie naming is a bit intriguing.
Or for all we know he dived into the beta and removed a few images for voice editing and then renamed them...
Just looking at it from both angles
This is sad, if true.
Could someone confirm this with some evidence though? They are labelled as "movie editing" buttons in the firmware after all.
The only screenshot I've been able to find for voice editing is this one which seems to *not* use the discovered "movie" icons in it's interface. Does anyone have a screenshot of these icons actually being used in a voice editing app?
Broadcast television is either 720 30P or 1080 60i. You are correct that the moving image has more temporal resolution. Temporal resolution doesn't eliminate noise, it improves perceived sharpness.
Actually a still 2MP image is more likely to be sharper than a frame of HD. The still image was likely posed for and had a longer exposure than a video frame. The video frame is more likely to have less exposure and motion blur.
Plus the video frame is interlaced which means you really only get half the lines of resolution
It would have to be shrunk down. Who has a cell that has a 720x 480 screen? No one. There are a couple with 640 x 480, but even then, do they really need such a high quality video of someone's soon to be forgotten crap they're sent? It would have to be highly compressed to be of any immediate use.
For saving the video to computer, a higher IQ file would be needed, but for sending over the airwaves, no way.
Truth is, I'd be happy with a high quality 480 x 320.
Are people making 8x10 prints from their phones?
I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.
some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.
If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.
I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery
I think the point here is that you want to be able to print an 8x10 or bigger, if you get a great shot.
some people don't like to take pics on their phone.. but I do.. and I think it would be great for my phone's camera to be good enough to take all my pics.
If I get a few great ones on a ski trip or something, and want to print a poster, I think i should be able to.
I agree, I would be happier with a slightly bigger device that had a better camera, flash, video & battery
It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.
Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.
There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.
It won't be good enough even with an 8 MP camera unless your standards are shocking low.
Life is a compromise. Right now, the technology for cell cameras is not that good. Having higher rez sensors hasn't made the images taken on those phones any better.
There's no point in having larger files when those larger sizes contribute nothing to the image IQ.
That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)
That said, and I know it's OT, but could anyone recommend me a really awesome pocket camera that takes great pictures can handle add-on lenses, and does good video as well.... and also takes good night shots ? (feel free to message me on this)
No. There isn't any such device.
The cheapest you could spend is about $450 for the cheapest D-SLR.
No compact allows for that other than a couple that cost even more, and are more difficult to use.
All other compacts have small sensors, though much bigger than the ones in phones, and can get to ISO 200 with good noise, 400 with usable noise, and higher with unusable noise. that eliminates "good" night shots, because the flashes on those cameras have little range.
A few have add-on lenses which lower the optical IQ to the point where anything over 6 x 8 prints look pretty bad.
Good video is relative. compared to what? Most offer fair to middling video IQ.
I think this was the reason that we haven't seen video. For photo it has the photo application and they needed, well wanted, to do something similar for video, and taking it a step further by allowing editing. I've used the "video editing" if they can be called that, features on some phones, and they are more or less unusable. I think this is what Apple is trying to improve on the iPhone.
No. There isn't any such device.
The cheapest you could spend is about $450 for the cheapest D-SLR.
No compact allows for that other than a couple that cost even more, and are more difficult to use.
All other compacts have small sensors, though much bigger than the ones in phones, and can get to ISO 200 with good noise, 400 with usable noise, and higher with unusable noise. that eliminates "good" night shots, because the flashes on those cameras have little range.
A few have add-on lenses which lower the optical IQ to the point where anything over 6 x 8 prints look pretty bad.
Good video is relative. compared to what? Most offer fair to middling video IQ.
All good points. Coming from slide-film SLR photography, I got tired of the technical limitations, the butt-ugly digital grain, the lens flare, the narrow exposure range, and the lack of detailed control on compacts. Finally splurged out on a DSLR several weeks ago and am loving photography again. New camera will do 3200 ASA and at 800 ASA, or even 1600 ASA, it gives quite decent smooth-grained shots indoors sans flash. The Canon Sureshot has been relegated for places I don't want to take the full kit-SLR (like on the reef walk at the Coral Coast the other week [I live in Fiji]).
Guess the message is that, unless you're prepared to compromise, it's SLR with razor sharp lenses and manual overrides for photos, a video camera for video.. a point and shoot for happy snaps... and a phone for rough impressions of what things looked like (and for making calls).
That said, I'll be interested to see what the Apple designers, boffins and engineers can come up with for the video side of iPhone. They really do work on a different level of expectation to all the others.
-Enz