The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
We're NOT getting excited about a 3.2mp camera. That's the whole point. By saying 3.2mp is behind the times it just goes to show how uneducated you are regarding CCD technology.
Why do I think that this information is being twisted by Apple to make the rumors undermine the actual event. If its true that Apple plans on releasing two version of the phone one for a chepaer geographical market and another more expensive.
I think apple will update the photo only camera of the cheaper version to a 3.2
while updating the one with video recording capabilities to a 5.0
Apple doesnt let this kinda information get out and makes it this obvious, so if the reports of two distinct versions of the new iPhone are true I think thats exactly the road they are gonna go.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
You're confusing two different discussions. If anything is "stopping" video, it is the encoding end, and of course, Apple. People do complain about the low frame rate, depending on the program, it seems to be 10-20 fps, not 24 or 30 that would be good for decent frame rate. The current iPhone probably doesn't have a hardware video encoder either. VGA video is less than a third of a megapixel, so the sensor resolution isn't the problem there.
I don't think Apple should be denying app store access to those apps, as long as the description is honest about the limitations.
The sensor issue comes up when people want lots of megapixels in a still camera, but not only is it a small sensor, it's still limited by the lens and the overall package size of the camera module.
There are lens technologies that are out there that could offer better IQ from that end, but so far, reliability is an issue with some.
For example, a couple of years ago Phillips invented a lens that used liquid inside a thin membrane. The liquid is magnetically active. By changing the amount of current in the magnet surrounding the lens, you could vary the focus. They were also claiming an aspheric surface.
Sounder great, as this lens is tiny, and intended for cells and whatnot.
But it proved to be unreliable. After a while the liquid stopped responding the the magnetic field, and the two phone cameras, the names of which I forget, were withdrawn.
There have been several "saviors" of small cameras in the lens category like that. Interesting new technologies, but practical failures.
At some point, something will come out. It has to, the market is too large for that not to happen. But guessing when it will is a hopeless task.
Right now, a fair quality lens for a .25" camera, with at most, a 1 MP video imager, costs about $30 retail. That's without focussing or diaphragm. These lenses are pretty small, but much bigger than what is in a phone cam.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
...
OK that explains why we're on the same wavelength. In the 80s I was an industrial chemist who moonlighted as a pro nature photographer (made a lot of pocket-money selling framed Cibachrome prints to companies in the Sydney CBD, to put in their foyers.). I gave up photography when I realized I had to do weddings to make my fortune from it (my workmate and partner in photo-crime did just that and is now much richer than me :-( . Can't complain: had a great time later doing a PhD project, three post docs, research (Aunty Oxidant v free radical smackdown &c) and lecturing .. if only there were more money in it! Hard scientists mostly use Macs because they can figure out that PCs are shit.
Forward facing camera's are for video calls but a lot of people don't use them for that.
Despite having a 3, 5 , 8 or above camera's on the rear, people often use the VGA camera on the front for quick snapshots because they can see themselves on the screen!
By doing this Apple would be taking the lead with something new which other manufacturers have missed.
OK that explains why we're on the same wavelength. In the 80s I was an industrial chemist who moonlighted as a pro nature photographer (made a lot of pocket-money selling framed Cibachrome prints to companies in the Sydney CBD, to put in their foyers.). I gave up photography when I realized I had to do weddings to make my fortune from it (my workmate and partner in photo-crime did just that and is now much richer than me :-( . Can't complain: had a great time later doing a PhD project, three post docs, research (Aunty Oxidant v free radical smackdown &c) and lecturing .. if only there were more money in it! Hard scientists mostly use Macs because they can figure out that PCs are shit.
Enough already
Enz
Ah, Cibachrome! I set up Ilford's original Cibachrome lab in their headquarters here in the US, in New Jersey.
Forward facing camera's are for video calls but a lot of people don't use them for that.
Despite having a 3, 5 , 8 or above camera's on the rear, people often use the VGA camera on the front for quick snapshots because they can see themselves on the screen!
By doing this Apple would be taking the lead with something new which other manufacturers have missed.
Then a 2 on the front would be more than enough, and a 3.2 on the back.
Heck, for video conferencing, even 2 MP would be too high. A 1 MP camera would be more than enough. That's still 720p. No one would video conference with a full screen image of someone off a cellphone. Probably even 480p would be too much to get a good over the air connection.
Comments
The way you Apple Fan Boys carry on almost makes me gag. You're getting excited about a 3.2mp camera? That is still so far behind the times it's not funny.
We're NOT getting excited about a 3.2mp camera. That's the whole point. By saying 3.2mp is behind the times it just goes to show how uneducated you are regarding CCD technology.
I think apple will update the photo only camera of the cheaper version to a 3.2
while updating the one with video recording capabilities to a 5.0
Apple doesnt let this kinda information get out and makes it this obvious, so if the reports of two distinct versions of the new iPhone are true I think thats exactly the road they are gonna go.
My personal favorite: watching a guy use his flash during a lunar eclipse. He (honest to God) couldn't figure out why the flash wasn't working when he saw the pictures.
Now Tha'ts Funny
I have to agree- they keep blaming the camera and it's sensors and not the software (Apple). We all know that even the lowest level camera less than one MP can capture video and have been for years.
You're confusing two different discussions. If anything is "stopping" video, it is the encoding end, and of course, Apple. People do complain about the low frame rate, depending on the program, it seems to be 10-20 fps, not 24 or 30 that would be good for decent frame rate. The current iPhone probably doesn't have a hardware video encoder either. VGA video is less than a third of a megapixel, so the sensor resolution isn't the problem there.
I don't think Apple should be denying app store access to those apps, as long as the description is honest about the limitations.
The sensor issue comes up when people want lots of megapixels in a still camera, but not only is it a small sensor, it's still limited by the lens and the overall package size of the camera module.
For example, a couple of years ago Phillips invented a lens that used liquid inside a thin membrane. The liquid is magnetically active. By changing the amount of current in the magnet surrounding the lens, you could vary the focus. They were also claiming an aspheric surface.
Sounder great, as this lens is tiny, and intended for cells and whatnot.
But it proved to be unreliable. After a while the liquid stopped responding the the magnetic field, and the two phone cameras, the names of which I forget, were withdrawn.
There have been several "saviors" of small cameras in the lens category like that. Interesting new technologies, but practical failures.
At some point, something will come out. It has to, the market is too large for that not to happen. But guessing when it will is a hopeless task.
Right now, a fair quality lens for a .25" camera, with at most, a 1 MP video imager, costs about $30 retail. That's without focussing or diaphragm. These lenses are pretty small, but much bigger than what is in a phone cam.
You didn't "get" my reply.
You should read my bio. I began commercial and fashion photography in 1969 when I was 19. In the mid '70's I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing company where I designed speakers and electronics. Then in the early '80's, I joined a commercial photo lab here in NYC, in which I became a partner a few years later. After over 29 years, we sold the lab.
...
OK that explains why we're on the same wavelength. In the 80s I was an industrial chemist who moonlighted as a pro nature photographer (made a lot of pocket-money selling framed Cibachrome prints to companies in the Sydney CBD, to put in their foyers.). I gave up photography when I realized I had to do weddings to make my fortune from it (my workmate and partner in photo-crime did just that and is now much richer than me :-( . Can't complain: had a great time later doing a PhD project, three post docs, research (Aunty Oxidant v free radical smackdown &c) and lecturing .. if only there were more money in it! Hard scientists mostly use Macs because they can figure out that PCs are shit.
Enough already
Enz
3.2 on the front 5 on the back.
Forward facing camera's are for video calls but a lot of people don't use them for that.
Despite having a 3, 5 , 8 or above camera's on the rear, people often use the VGA camera on the front for quick snapshots because they can see themselves on the screen!
By doing this Apple would be taking the lead with something new which other manufacturers have missed.
OK that explains why we're on the same wavelength. In the 80s I was an industrial chemist who moonlighted as a pro nature photographer (made a lot of pocket-money selling framed Cibachrome prints to companies in the Sydney CBD, to put in their foyers.). I gave up photography when I realized I had to do weddings to make my fortune from it (my workmate and partner in photo-crime did just that and is now much richer than me :-( . Can't complain: had a great time later doing a PhD project, three post docs, research (Aunty Oxidant v free radical smackdown &c) and lecturing .. if only there were more money in it! Hard scientists mostly use Macs because they can figure out that PCs are shit.
Enough already
Enz
Ah, Cibachrome! I set up Ilford's original Cibachrome lab in their headquarters here in the US, in New Jersey.
How's this for a wild idea.
3.2 on the front 5 on the back.
Forward facing camera's are for video calls but a lot of people don't use them for that.
Despite having a 3, 5 , 8 or above camera's on the rear, people often use the VGA camera on the front for quick snapshots because they can see themselves on the screen!
By doing this Apple would be taking the lead with something new which other manufacturers have missed.
Then a 2 on the front would be more than enough, and a 3.2 on the back.
Heck, for video conferencing, even 2 MP would be too high. A 1 MP camera would be more than enough. That's still 720p. No one would video conference with a full screen image of someone off a cellphone. Probably even 480p would be too much to get a good over the air connection.