You don't even need to appeal to the lack of a flash to make the point that adding more megapixels won't prevent blurry images.
Flash and lens quality address two different issues.
Quote:
With those tiny optics that are in cell phones, CCDs of even modest density already outperform the optical resolution.
The tiny optics aren't a problem in and of themselves. The problem is the quality of the lens systems often used on these small cameras. The reality that it is easier to make a small high quality lens than it is a larger one. That is part of the reason that you see the prices of lenses jump as their physical size increases.
As to current hardware yeah they will be blurry as a result of a fixed focus.
Quote:
In other words, putting sensors with more megapixels into most cell phones is only going to result in getting more "blurry" pixels.
Often yes given the same optical elements. However this isn't completely an issue with the optical path as the sensors have issues receiving the rays at extreme angles. This is where more focal length would be nice but of course that adds to camera hieght.
Quote:
This is true in plain daylight, flash or no flash, and perfectly still camera and subject.
If you want quality photos, you need a good sized lens and a respectable focal distance, preferably with nothing in between. In other words... get a camera, not a camera phone.
It is certainly true that todays camera phone are bottom end optical performance wise. R&D wise there is still room for growth. If the rumors are true we should see a much better sensor in the coming iPhone's. I'm not saying point and shoot quality but a vast improvement. Yeah there are tight constraints on cell cameras but there is also vast amounts of room for improvement.
Quote:
Number of pixels does not necessarily equate to quality. It's amazing how many people don't get this.
Thompson
Yep there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor and it's megapixels. That doesn't mean though that improved sensors won't help or feature like autofocus. The trick is finding the right balance for the platform.
Did no one see the improved camera images with the iPhone 3.0 software using the current 2.0 megapixel camera?
Throw in a 3.2 megapixel CCD (all you need in a phone, as far as I'm concerned) and hopefully an LED flash, and you've got a large part of the consumer market covered.
And many of us, even if we do have a half decent camera, don't tote it around in our pocket everywhere we go with our iPod touches. A 3.2 mp/LED flash/iPhone OS 3.0 software touch would be great.
So would the same be on the iPhone. Decent pictures for what a lot of us use the pics for, which is displaying them on the device, or on a page like Facebook.
I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.
Yeah but so many applications on the iPod touch would be enhanced by a camera. TheGPS would be good but at present isn't as much use without either 1. a data connection to provide Google Maps, or, 2. a downloaded set of maps (which should come shortly after 3.0). Actually I think both features are inevitable. Hopefully an LED flash will double as a decent torch (flashlight).
It's historically evident that the new touch will be in the September timeframe.
Yep there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor and it's megapixels. That doesn't mean though that improved sensors won't help or feature like autofocus. The trick is finding the right balance for the platform.
Sensors can be improved without adding to the number of pixels. But I would assume that Apple is improving the camera next time around, though some of the improvement might be in processing.
Given how Apple is obsessive over thinness, I suspect that they won't be adding auto focus. Seems like they could add LED lights though, that shouldn't add to the device thickness.
I believe that the new iPod Nano will have camera and perhaps a few multimedia features. It would provide Apple with an opportunity to attract and keep young users, while the 'richer' teenagers and adults can go mobile - with an iPhone. When appealing to younger audiences, to promote iLife compatibility and features can prove to be a great marketing tool. But young people are less style- and brand conscious towards Apple. They want to take pictures and if don't get a camera, they choose something else. Apple with its "BluRay is a bag of hurt" and "no FireWire for the MacBook" attitude could rule out a lot of young customers. Good for Apple, let's have some connection with genuine demand, not just what Apple would want to supply.
Even Apple Inc. can recognize the slowing demand for iPods, while there is a need for cheaper, smaller and more colourful iPhones. But before iPods get 'phoned', why not to exploit the market? Having said that, when I sold my previous music player, I wanted the brand new Nano, that my girlfriend has. She loves it. However, I soon realized that I already have a Shuffle and a few smaller, flash music players. Even my phone has a few GB Micro SD card in it with plenty of music. It would have taken a great deal of style-factor to spend the extra money for a new player. What I want is something that is small but practical, handles music and video files and basic applications. I would personally feel purchasing an iPod in the near future somewhat not future-proof. As the iPod Classic is just a low-selling specialist item now, the Nano will be too. I don't doubt that they survive for some time in the near future, but not for long. I am curious, whether Apple will be able to really break in the gaming market with the Touch. That, and its browsing capability would be useful, but again, why not to spend a little bit more and stay with a rich mobile network's offerings by having a phone in that iPod?
Are Fujifilm and Apple teaming up to enhance the iPhone camera functionality? In Tokyo there is a rumor going around even juicier than a fuji grade Yubari melon. Some eyewitnesses have claimed they have seen Steve Jobs and Fujifilm CEO Shigetaka Komori tooling around the back byways on a pair of Segways, deep in discussions to seed the iPhone with increased photographic abilities. What could be in store with this new combination? Fuji Apple? Breaking Wynd and Unbelievably Great Music have sniffed around and have these juicy details.
Comments
I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.
What's wrong with both?
GPS first priority, camera second.
and hopefully announced in June.
You don't even need to appeal to the lack of a flash to make the point that adding more megapixels won't prevent blurry images.
Flash and lens quality address two different issues.
With those tiny optics that are in cell phones, CCDs of even modest density already outperform the optical resolution.
The tiny optics aren't a problem in and of themselves. The problem is the quality of the lens systems often used on these small cameras. The reality that it is easier to make a small high quality lens than it is a larger one. That is part of the reason that you see the prices of lenses jump as their physical size increases.
As to current hardware yeah they will be blurry as a result of a fixed focus.
In other words, putting sensors with more megapixels into most cell phones is only going to result in getting more "blurry" pixels.
Often yes given the same optical elements. However this isn't completely an issue with the optical path as the sensors have issues receiving the rays at extreme angles. This is where more focal length would be nice but of course that adds to camera hieght.
This is true in plain daylight, flash or no flash, and perfectly still camera and subject.
If you want quality photos, you need a good sized lens and a respectable focal distance, preferably with nothing in between. In other words... get a camera, not a camera phone.
It is certainly true that todays camera phone are bottom end optical performance wise. R&D wise there is still room for growth. If the rumors are true we should see a much better sensor in the coming iPhone's. I'm not saying point and shoot quality but a vast improvement. Yeah there are tight constraints on cell cameras but there is also vast amounts of room for improvement.
Number of pixels does not necessarily equate to quality. It's amazing how many people don't get this.
Thompson
Yep there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor and it's megapixels. That doesn't mean though that improved sensors won't help or feature like autofocus. The trick is finding the right balance for the platform.
Dave
Throw in a 3.2 megapixel CCD (all you need in a phone, as far as I'm concerned) and hopefully an LED flash, and you've got a large part of the consumer market covered.
And many of us, even if we do have a half decent camera, don't tote it around in our pocket everywhere we go with our iPod touches. A 3.2 mp/LED flash/iPhone OS 3.0 software touch would be great.
So would the same be on the iPhone. Decent pictures for what a lot of us use the pics for, which is displaying them on the device, or on a page like Facebook.
My thoughts, anyway.
Greg
I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.
Yeah but so many applications on the iPod touch would be enhanced by a camera. TheGPS would be good but at present isn't as much use without either 1. a data connection to provide Google Maps, or, 2. a downloaded set of maps (which should come shortly after 3.0). Actually I think both features are inevitable. Hopefully an LED flash will double as a decent torch (flashlight).
It's historically evident that the new touch will be in the September timeframe.
Yep there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor and it's megapixels. That doesn't mean though that improved sensors won't help or feature like autofocus. The trick is finding the right balance for the platform.
Sensors can be improved without adding to the number of pixels. But I would assume that Apple is improving the camera next time around, though some of the improvement might be in processing.
Given how Apple is obsessive over thinness, I suspect that they won't be adding auto focus. Seems like they could add LED lights though, that shouldn't add to the device thickness.
Even Apple Inc. can recognize the slowing demand for iPods, while there is a need for cheaper, smaller and more colourful iPhones. But before iPods get 'phoned', why not to exploit the market? Having said that, when I sold my previous music player, I wanted the brand new Nano, that my girlfriend has. She loves it. However, I soon realized that I already have a Shuffle and a few smaller, flash music players. Even my phone has a few GB Micro SD card in it with plenty of music. It would have taken a great deal of style-factor to spend the extra money for a new player. What I want is something that is small but practical, handles music and video files and basic applications. I would personally feel purchasing an iPod in the near future somewhat not future-proof. As the iPod Classic is just a low-selling specialist item now, the Nano will be too. I don't doubt that they survive for some time in the near future, but not for long. I am curious, whether Apple will be able to really break in the gaming market with the Touch. That, and its browsing capability would be useful, but again, why not to spend a little bit more and stay with a rich mobile network's offerings by having a phone in that iPod?