And so what? I had a suspicion that it had an internal function but I did not feel the need to inflate my ego (like certain posters) and advertise my thoughts to the world and say "I told you so". You need that kind of lift with your posts, go right ahead.
I think a lot of people thought it served a functional purpose. It was for me a quiet validation that Apple keeps to a design spec.
But if Apple knows it's a problem and continues to do exclusive business with them, then who is the one that needs to get a clue?
It's equally clueless to think that Apple has a choice. A contract is a contract. Clearly the people who know what it will cost Apple to break that contract have determined that it is not worth what it will cost to break. The contract was agreed-to before Apple had ANY leverage in the market.
Many people seem to have trouble understanding this concept. I'm not sure why. It's very simple. Perhaps an analogy for a football fan out there?
Wide receiver who missed his senior year with a knee injury signs rookie contract with the Cowboys. Pays 800K his first year, 1 million his second, 1.2 his third, 1.4 his fourth. Wins rookie of the year his first year. Second year makes pro bowl. Sits out of training camp demanding a new contract before third year. Management says you'll play or you won't be paid a cent. WR plays third year and gets huge long term contract after that year. You signed the contract, you have to abide by it. Just because you signed it when you have little leverage does not give you the power to unsign it when you "outplay" it.
Why is the only possible explanation for Apple sticking with ATT that they don't know that there is dissatisfaction? Isn't it much more logical, likely and consistent with all known information to believe that they have a contract? Also, you must not be reading if you think that ATT is never lambasted around here. Most people, though, feel that ATT+iPhone is better than Verizon+Anything Else.
You must go on LOOONG vacations to need that much storage. How much of a sacrifice is it to only have 5000 songs? Listen to the sounds of your destination instead of "Humpty Dance" for god's sake!
Heh. Well, the beauty of the iPod concept, to me, is that I don't have to plan in advance what I want to listen to. I used to select a dozen CDs to take with me. Now I just take the iPod, and everything is there. If I see a sign beside the road that reminds me of a song I used to like, I dial it up and listen. Even if I'm just working in the back yard, and a Beatles song pops into my head and I want to hear the album it came from, I don't want to go inside, fiddle with my playlists, and re-sync before I can listen. It might sound trivial to some people, but to me that's the whole point of the device.
As for accessing my music library or any other data from a cloud service -- no thanks! I like storing my own files on my own computers.
At this point I'm leaning toward getting the smaller iPhone -- that will replace my current phone, camera and GPS -- but keeping the iPod for music. Hopefully it won't be too annoying to keep two devices updated, synced and charged, because I'll essentially be locked into that setup for two years due to the subsidized iPhone pricing.
Okay. It's rude to interrupt anyone, especially a CEO of legendary status.
However...
In this particular case I don't have a problem with the outburst because he was delivering a message that needs to be heard. I'm grateful to this audience member as well as the guy at D8 who complained about his service in Texas. Maybe Mr. Jobs will get the message that there are some real issues with the network that one is forced to use if they want to enjoy the experience of having an iPhone.
There was a time right here on this forum when anyone claiming that AT&T's network was horrible and useless was called a troll and an outright liar. "I've had AT&T for years and I've never dropped a call. So if I have no problems, no one has any problems." That attitude has changed lately to "Ahh, I don't ever use my iPhone for phone calls anyway" So maybe some here finally got the message.
It's possible that this "were selling tons of iPhones so everything is alright" attitude existed in the corridors of Apple Inc as well. Maybe Steve Jobs doesn't travel in areas where there is no coverage. If he did, I bet he would do something about it.
So yes, it may be rude to have an outcry during a Keynote. But after three, going on four years of AT&T exclusivity, maybe it was time for someone to speak out.
I disagree. During a keynote address, it is never appropriate as a member of the audience to shout anything out. Generally, people attending these types of events are asked to hold all applause until the end.
In addition, it didn't need to be said because the cellular network wasn't even in question - the demo phone was connected via WiFi, and some 500 WiFi devices were being used in the presentation room, causing connection issues; thus, the comment by the attendee as well as your comment are both off-base.
It might be your sentiment as well as the thoughts of others that an iPhone on Verizon is what is "needed" but that doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at a professional event.
It's equally clueless to think that Apple has a choice. A contract is a contract. Clearly the people who know what it will cost Apple to break that contract have determined that it is not worth what it will cost to break. The contract was agreed-to before Apple had ANY leverage in the market.
Many people seem to have trouble understanding this concept. I'm not sure why. It's very simple.
everything is simple and full of clues with you sir. Do you mean to say Apple signed a four year deal with Cingular back in 2007 and have been helplessly stuck with them ever since?
>> I think they REALLY need a portable storage system that connects to the dock port or something. Here's the real kicker -- how many MINUTES of HD video are you really going to edit with a max of 32G? Maybe 15?
Storage space is as important to video editing as a good antenna and battery life are to a phone. So I'd even go with a thicker phone myself, if it went up to 128G. Everything else about these seems to be a great balance of performance vs. usability - but yes, the storage size is really a problem when you consider the new HD features and video editing.
I think you nailed it! The key phrase is "a portable storage system". A BSC (Battery, Storage, Connecter(s) box for videophiles (and Audiophiles)
How about a dedicated BSC box that:
-- has powerful rechargeable battery
-- BSC battery could be used to recharge or power-boost an iPhone or an iPad videoCam, etc
-- BSC storage would be used to capture video & pictures by connecting to iPhone cameras, SD cards, etc.
-- BSC connectors- 30 pin (FireWire and USB), all popular variants of USB, SD Card reader - these could all be optional adapters to the 30-pin connector
So, you're out and about at your second soccer game of the day. You have camera bag containing the normal stuff plus your BSC. Your VideoCam ( for heavy lifting) captures onto an 8GB SD card (a soccer period). Your 4G iPhone can be used as an impromptu Still or VideoCam. You have your sightless iPad along (we'll see why, in a moment).
During the break you plug in whatever has new video to the BSC. It's like a Pit Stop* at NASCAR. The BSC quickly sucks in your media, tops off your battery, clears your storage ** and you're good to go.
* Pit Stop... not too bad a name (yeah, I know, I know)
** I Just checked, the SD reader can also delete data from the SD card-- so I assume it can write/record, too?
So, the next period starts and you re-use your freshly topped off cameras (whatever)r.
Now, your assistant (significant other) pulls out the sightless iPad and connects it to the BSC. Now, we have accessible (readable/writable) content, lots of free storage, a powerful Video Editing app with a very usable Touch UI on a Big [enough] screen. Hmm... I wonder what your assistant could do with that?
But why would you want to do this while out and about.... Maybe: telestrator; review/diagram plays (for coaches and players), highlights immediately (instead of waiting for the 5 o'clock news)...
After the game, the team retires to the local Pizza Palace, Plug the iPad into the HDTV... you all sit forward and enjoy!. Maybe the Coach does some start/stop play review and a little telestrating of his own.
I disagree. During a keynote address, it is never appropriate as a member of the audience to shout anything out. Generally, people attending these types of events are asked to hold all applause until the end.
In addition, it didn't need to be said because the cellular network wasn't even in question - the demo phone was connected via WiFi, and some 500 WiFi devices were being used in the presentation room, causing connection issues; thus, the comment by the attendee as well as your comment are both off-base.
It might be your sentiment as well as the thoughts of others that an iPhone on Verizon is what is "needed" but that doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at a professional event.
I agree he shouldn't have said it. But it sure was funny.
It doesn't take much of a fortune teller to tell that your hostile remark is simply a result of major built-up frustration. Moving out of your parent's basement might help.
I have not yet got a clear picture of how this is planned to work.
1) Will the ad banners appear on the iPhone screen only when you use an app, or also when you use the phone without using an app?
2) And further: How often will an ad banner be presented on the screen, and
3) for how long time (if you not cut it off by clicking on it once and then again to make it disappear)?
4) And will its location on the screen disturb your own activity on and with the screeen?
5) And at last: How big and in what format will the ad appear?
Even though I can understand the need for such ads, I must say there are possible serious downsides with them, too. And perhaps this will not turn out as a good idea for the users, at the end of the day. I am afraid many users will take a negative attitude towards such an (for many users: unwelcome and not asked for) intrusion on the screen.
I think that you can assume that iAds will be done well, with class, and with the needs of the consumer in mind.
As I understand, it is app centric... the developer can choose to offer iAds, or not. The consumer can download a lite (free) version of the app (with iAds) or a full (pay) version of the app (without iAds).
Further, the iAd presents a subtle, but noticeable banner (no Flash/Trash or animated GIFs.) If the user clicks the banner, the ad is displayed and the user continues to whatever depth he desires). At any point, the user can decide he has seen enough and return to the app... where he left off.
First, your overall response to the question is very good. What many fail to realize is that for a revolution to mean anything (historically) it [mostly] requires for the revolution to be successful, No?
I have intermingled some comments and questions where appropriate.
Can you elaborate on this? I have a Panny hdc-sd1 that has 12x Optical Zoom and beaucoups Digital Zoom.
Mostly, I use the cam to capture the grandkids soccer games and I usually sit at midfield -- so the action is up to 50 yds away. The 2-5x Optical is fine for most cases, so I seldom use the digital... there are times tho, where I want to zoom on the face or legs of a player-- goalkeep, free kick, corner kick, etc.
Are you saying that this new iPhone camera system has the possibility of equalling a 5x optical zoom? If so, that's big... really big!
Generally, cameras and camcorders have a certain amount of resolution that customers expect to be their quality level at all times. When using optical zoom, assuming that zoom to be of good quality, that expectation is realized.
But when moving to digital zoom, which I call digital cropping, that's no longer true. If you have a camera with a resolution sensor that you bought because of that resolution, AND you use that resolution correctly, then you will notice a big drop in quality when using digital zoom. Of course, because it removes the outer pixels when zooming. The more you zoom, the fewer pixels are left for the picture.
If you're going to use the still images from a phone for let's say, Facebook, then the digital zoom will be great. Those pictures are of low quality and resolution, so you won't see the difference. But if you want to make an 8 x 10 print, that's different. There will be problems when you zoom out too much.
Camcorders are different. The amount of resolution you get is what the sensor offers, usually. Some camcorders do have higher rez sensors, but you can't use them that way for reasons I won't get into now. But what normally happens is that as soon as you activate the digital zoom, you're going below the resolution of the format. So if you have, say, a 720p camcorder, you will have a 1280 x 720 sensor (likely, you won't. The 720 will be there, but you may have 1024 x 720 at the sensor.).
Now, because your resolution is what the format needs, when you digitally zoom in, you're removing those needed pixels. So you move down in quality from the very beginning. You may end up with 480 x 270 or so, possibly even lower. This results in a pixelated image. Very unpleasant.
But a camera with a higher resolution sensor should have pixels to spare. So when you use that digital zoom, you're still within the proper resolution for the format, unless the digital zoom moves past the point where you're at the minimum.
If the sensor is pretty small, and has poor noise and dynamic range, as phone sensors do, IF, and I say if, because it isn't always true, the manufacturer properly binns the pixels at the low end of the zoom, at 1x, then you could get great noise and dynamic range. If they don't do it properly, then you won't. Pixel binning is a technique where the extra pixels are averaged together and the noise can be removed to a certain extent, and dynamic range increased. It's sort of a reverse interpolation. In other words, you're interpolating the image to a lower res output. Some manufacturers just add the pixels together without doing any work to work the noise out, so there's little benefit.
When you begin to zoom out, there are fewer pixels to binn together, so noise increases. This isn't too much of a problem with video as opposed to stills, because we don't notice noise as much with moving images as we do with static ones.
Because of that, this video camera COULD have a very good image because of the backlit sensor, which has better sensitivity and less noise from the start. That is, if Apple is doing it all right, including the software in the phone.
Quote:
Ahh... the VHS- BetaMax wars. My Dad was an audiophile. Hie built his own Hi-Fis, Speakers (Stuff like base-crossover circuitry, folded horns- small night-stand-size devices where the sound emerged at the back and bottom from an internal folded-horn then used the walls and ceiling of the corners of the room to complete the effect. He could make a candy dish jump off a marble coffee table on the other side of the room. Anyway, we would argue, and he would prove to me (audibly, and visually on an oscilloscope) that BetaMax was vastly superior..
Audio was my business for a number of years when I was a partner in a pro audio manufacturing firm, so I understand that bit pretty well.
Quote:
But, AIR, the thing that won the war was the early formats were limited to 1 hr BetaMax vs 2 hr VHS... You could program your VCR to tape a 1-2 hr movie on TV with VHS. You had to be there [to switch tapes] with Beta! Convenience trumped quality!
.
Well, Beta did well for several years. Sony fixed the early problems vs. VHS. But the smaller cassette size limited the amount of tape that would fit inside. So they lost the consumer war, but came out with Betacam, which dominated the pro video area until digital replaced it.
Probably in the same place as those "Who cares about a flash with a camera phone?" naysayers. And the "Who cares about multitasking?" naysayers. And the "Who cares about copy and paste?" naysayers. But those naysayers will try to backtrack and claim that they never dismissed those features, and that they have always liked Apple to add them.
I think what a lot of us had said was that those features weren't that important to most users, but that some people would want them. I said in the beginning, as did many others, that Flash should be on the phone IF it were normally off, but a tap would turn it on when wanted (IF wanted).
As far as flash with a camera phone, well, it's marginally useful. I would have preferred if Apple used two diodes. One, even if it is the Phillips one, isn't terribly strong. I would really have loved to see a ring flash using several.
Multitasking, which we're not getting, would be a problem still.
I've now used copy/paste about three times since it came out. Useful, but marginal for most people.
You have to multiply that number by three, or four, if they're using a doubling of the green sites. Displaying red will give a much smaller "dot" than displaying white, or grey, or yellow, or magenta, or cyan.
There's no such thing as the "RGB" gamut. RGB can have a small gamut, or a very large gamut. Seeing detail has nothing to do with the gamut per se.
Not looking for an argument but this make absolutely no sense.
What application is someone thinking of that the iPhone could NOT be used for with 3 gyros and everything else? You definitely could pilot the space shuttle.
heck i have a 3g from rogers and i just notice rogers has an ad up to register for notification about the iphone.
iM sold and im sure rogers gonna give us 3g Face time they might not be in the first to have the phone and have god dam expensive plans but we will see
brothers up north cant wait
oh yeah i held off for i would never buy a android Phone
So, with the doubled resolution, are all the apps that were written for the 320 x 480 screen going to be half size like iPhone apps on an iPad?
Of course not. iPhone apps on the iPad aren't half size. In fact, they're slightly bigger than they are on the phone and Touch, because the iPad's resolution in pixels per inch is slightly lower than that of the smaller devices.
With the new phone, and supposedly with the new Touch coming out in September, we will have the same size screen. All apps will automatically be pixel doubled to fit that same size screen. Text will be sharper right away, as long as it isn't actually a graphic.
Comments
And so what? I had a suspicion that it had an internal function but I did not feel the need to inflate my ego (like certain posters) and advertise my thoughts to the world and say "I told you so". You need that kind of lift with your posts, go right ahead.
I think a lot of people thought it served a functional purpose. It was for me a quiet validation that Apple keeps to a design spec.
Sheesh... get over it.
Awwww, how cute!
********
But if Apple knows it's a problem and continues to do exclusive business with them, then who is the one that needs to get a clue?
It's equally clueless to think that Apple has a choice. A contract is a contract. Clearly the people who know what it will cost Apple to break that contract have determined that it is not worth what it will cost to break. The contract was agreed-to before Apple had ANY leverage in the market.
Many people seem to have trouble understanding this concept. I'm not sure why. It's very simple. Perhaps an analogy for a football fan out there?
Wide receiver who missed his senior year with a knee injury signs rookie contract with the Cowboys. Pays 800K his first year, 1 million his second, 1.2 his third, 1.4 his fourth. Wins rookie of the year his first year. Second year makes pro bowl. Sits out of training camp demanding a new contract before third year. Management says you'll play or you won't be paid a cent. WR plays third year and gets huge long term contract after that year. You signed the contract, you have to abide by it. Just because you signed it when you have little leverage does not give you the power to unsign it when you "outplay" it.
Why is the only possible explanation for Apple sticking with ATT that they don't know that there is dissatisfaction? Isn't it much more logical, likely and consistent with all known information to believe that they have a contract? Also, you must not be reading if you think that ATT is never lambasted around here. Most people, though, feel that ATT+iPhone is better than Verizon+Anything Else.
..... and the iPad looking outmoded already.
Have you used one?
You must go on LOOONG vacations to need that much storage. How much of a sacrifice is it to only have 5000 songs?
Heh. Well, the beauty of the iPod concept, to me, is that I don't have to plan in advance what I want to listen to. I used to select a dozen CDs to take with me. Now I just take the iPod, and everything is there. If I see a sign beside the road that reminds me of a song I used to like, I dial it up and listen. Even if I'm just working in the back yard, and a Beatles song pops into my head and I want to hear the album it came from, I don't want to go inside, fiddle with my playlists, and re-sync before I can listen. It might sound trivial to some people, but to me that's the whole point of the device.
As for accessing my music library or any other data from a cloud service -- no thanks! I like storing my own files on my own computers.
At this point I'm leaning toward getting the smaller iPhone -- that will replace my current phone, camera and GPS -- but keeping the iPod for music. Hopefully it won't be too annoying to keep two devices updated, synced and charged, because I'll essentially be locked into that setup for two years due to the subsidized iPhone pricing.
Okay. It's rude to interrupt anyone, especially a CEO of legendary status.
However...
In this particular case I don't have a problem with the outburst because he was delivering a message that needs to be heard. I'm grateful to this audience member as well as the guy at D8 who complained about his service in Texas. Maybe Mr. Jobs will get the message that there are some real issues with the network that one is forced to use if they want to enjoy the experience of having an iPhone.
There was a time right here on this forum when anyone claiming that AT&T's network was horrible and useless was called a troll and an outright liar. "I've had AT&T for years and I've never dropped a call. So if I have no problems, no one has any problems." That attitude has changed lately to "Ahh, I don't ever use my iPhone for phone calls anyway" So maybe some here finally got the message.
It's possible that this "were selling tons of iPhones so everything is alright" attitude existed in the corridors of Apple Inc as well. Maybe Steve Jobs doesn't travel in areas where there is no coverage. If he did, I bet he would do something about it.
So yes, it may be rude to have an outcry during a Keynote. But after three, going on four years of AT&T exclusivity, maybe it was time for someone to speak out.
I disagree. During a keynote address, it is never appropriate as a member of the audience to shout anything out. Generally, people attending these types of events are asked to hold all applause until the end.
In addition, it didn't need to be said because the cellular network wasn't even in question - the demo phone was connected via WiFi, and some 500 WiFi devices were being used in the presentation room, causing connection issues; thus, the comment by the attendee as well as your comment are both off-base.
It might be your sentiment as well as the thoughts of others that an iPhone on Verizon is what is "needed" but that doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at a professional event.
It's equally clueless to think that Apple has a choice. A contract is a contract. Clearly the people who know what it will cost Apple to break that contract have determined that it is not worth what it will cost to break. The contract was agreed-to before Apple had ANY leverage in the market.
Many people seem to have trouble understanding this concept. I'm not sure why. It's very simple.
everything is simple and full of clues with you sir. Do you mean to say Apple signed a four year deal with Cingular back in 2007 and have been helplessly stuck with them ever since?
>> I think they REALLY need a portable storage system that connects to the dock port or something. Here's the real kicker -- how many MINUTES of HD video are you really going to edit with a max of 32G? Maybe 15?
Storage space is as important to video editing as a good antenna and battery life are to a phone. So I'd even go with a thicker phone myself, if it went up to 128G. Everything else about these seems to be a great balance of performance vs. usability - but yes, the storage size is really a problem when you consider the new HD features and video editing.
I think you nailed it! The key phrase is "a portable storage system". A BSC (Battery, Storage, Connecter(s) box for videophiles (and Audiophiles)
How about a dedicated BSC box that:
-- has powerful rechargeable battery
-- BSC battery could be used to recharge or power-boost an iPhone or an iPad videoCam, etc
-- BSC storage would be used to capture video & pictures by connecting to iPhone cameras, SD cards, etc.
-- BSC connectors- 30 pin (FireWire and USB), all popular variants of USB, SD Card reader - these could all be optional adapters to the 30-pin connector
So, you're out and about at your second soccer game of the day. You have camera bag containing the normal stuff plus your BSC. Your VideoCam ( for heavy lifting) captures onto an 8GB SD card (a soccer period). Your 4G iPhone can be used as an impromptu Still or VideoCam. You have your sightless iPad along (we'll see why, in a moment).
During the break you plug in whatever has new video to the BSC. It's like a Pit Stop* at NASCAR. The BSC quickly sucks in your media, tops off your battery, clears your storage ** and you're good to go.
* Pit Stop... not too bad a name (yeah, I know, I know)
** I Just checked, the SD reader can also delete data from the SD card-- so I assume it can write/record, too?
So, the next period starts and you re-use your freshly topped off cameras (whatever)r.
Now, your assistant (significant other) pulls out the sightless iPad and connects it to the BSC. Now, we have accessible (readable/writable) content, lots of free storage, a powerful Video Editing app with a very usable Touch UI on a Big [enough] screen. Hmm... I wonder what your assistant could do with that?
But why would you want to do this while out and about.... Maybe: telestrator; review/diagram plays (for coaches and players), highlights immediately (instead of waiting for the 5 o'clock news)...
After the game, the team retires to the local Pizza Palace, Plug the iPad into the HDTV... you all sit forward and enjoy!. Maybe the Coach does some start/stop play review and a little telestrating of his own.
.
I disagree. During a keynote address, it is never appropriate as a member of the audience to shout anything out. Generally, people attending these types of events are asked to hold all applause until the end.
In addition, it didn't need to be said because the cellular network wasn't even in question - the demo phone was connected via WiFi, and some 500 WiFi devices were being used in the presentation room, causing connection issues; thus, the comment by the attendee as well as your comment are both off-base.
It might be your sentiment as well as the thoughts of others that an iPhone on Verizon is what is "needed" but that doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at a professional event.
I agree he shouldn't have said it. But it sure was funny.
Awwww, how cute!
******
It doesn't take much of a fortune teller to tell that your hostile remark is simply a result of major built-up frustration. Moving out of your parent's basement might help.
I have not yet got a clear picture of how this is planned to work.
1) Will the ad banners appear on the iPhone screen only when you use an app, or also when you use the phone without using an app?
2) And further: How often will an ad banner be presented on the screen, and
3) for how long time (if you not cut it off by clicking on it once and then again to make it disappear)?
4) And will its location on the screen disturb your own activity on and with the screeen?
5) And at last: How big and in what format will the ad appear?
Even though I can understand the need for such ads, I must say there are possible serious downsides with them, too. And perhaps this will not turn out as a good idea for the users, at the end of the day. I am afraid many users will take a negative attitude towards such an (for many users: unwelcome and not asked for) intrusion on the screen.
I think that you can assume that iAds will be done well, with class, and with the needs of the consumer in mind.
As I understand, it is app centric... the developer can choose to offer iAds, or not. The consumer can download a lite (free) version of the app (with iAds) or a full (pay) version of the app (without iAds).
Further, the iAd presents a subtle, but noticeable banner (no Flash/Trash or animated GIFs.) If the user clicks the banner, the ad is displayed and the user continues to whatever depth he desires). At any point, the user can decide he has seen enough and return to the app... where he left off.
.
First, your overall response to the question is very good. What many fail to realize is that for a revolution to mean anything (historically) it [mostly] requires for the revolution to be successful, No?
I have intermingled some comments and questions where appropriate.
Can you elaborate on this? I have a Panny hdc-sd1 that has 12x Optical Zoom and beaucoups Digital Zoom.
Mostly, I use the cam to capture the grandkids soccer games and I usually sit at midfield -- so the action is up to 50 yds away. The 2-5x Optical is fine for most cases, so I seldom use the digital... there are times tho, where I want to zoom on the face or legs of a player-- goalkeep, free kick, corner kick, etc.
Are you saying that this new iPhone camera system has the possibility of equalling a 5x optical zoom? If so, that's big... really big!
Generally, cameras and camcorders have a certain amount of resolution that customers expect to be their quality level at all times. When using optical zoom, assuming that zoom to be of good quality, that expectation is realized.
But when moving to digital zoom, which I call digital cropping, that's no longer true. If you have a camera with a resolution sensor that you bought because of that resolution, AND you use that resolution correctly, then you will notice a big drop in quality when using digital zoom. Of course, because it removes the outer pixels when zooming. The more you zoom, the fewer pixels are left for the picture.
If you're going to use the still images from a phone for let's say, Facebook, then the digital zoom will be great. Those pictures are of low quality and resolution, so you won't see the difference. But if you want to make an 8 x 10 print, that's different. There will be problems when you zoom out too much.
Camcorders are different. The amount of resolution you get is what the sensor offers, usually. Some camcorders do have higher rez sensors, but you can't use them that way for reasons I won't get into now. But what normally happens is that as soon as you activate the digital zoom, you're going below the resolution of the format. So if you have, say, a 720p camcorder, you will have a 1280 x 720 sensor (likely, you won't. The 720 will be there, but you may have 1024 x 720 at the sensor.).
Now, because your resolution is what the format needs, when you digitally zoom in, you're removing those needed pixels. So you move down in quality from the very beginning. You may end up with 480 x 270 or so, possibly even lower. This results in a pixelated image. Very unpleasant.
But a camera with a higher resolution sensor should have pixels to spare. So when you use that digital zoom, you're still within the proper resolution for the format, unless the digital zoom moves past the point where you're at the minimum.
If the sensor is pretty small, and has poor noise and dynamic range, as phone sensors do, IF, and I say if, because it isn't always true, the manufacturer properly binns the pixels at the low end of the zoom, at 1x, then you could get great noise and dynamic range. If they don't do it properly, then you won't. Pixel binning is a technique where the extra pixels are averaged together and the noise can be removed to a certain extent, and dynamic range increased. It's sort of a reverse interpolation. In other words, you're interpolating the image to a lower res output. Some manufacturers just add the pixels together without doing any work to work the noise out, so there's little benefit.
When you begin to zoom out, there are fewer pixels to binn together, so noise increases. This isn't too much of a problem with video as opposed to stills, because we don't notice noise as much with moving images as we do with static ones.
Because of that, this video camera COULD have a very good image because of the backlit sensor, which has better sensitivity and less noise from the start. That is, if Apple is doing it all right, including the software in the phone.
Ahh... the VHS- BetaMax wars. My Dad was an audiophile. Hie built his own Hi-Fis, Speakers (Stuff like base-crossover circuitry, folded horns- small night-stand-size devices where the sound emerged at the back and bottom from an internal folded-horn then used the walls and ceiling of the corners of the room to complete the effect. He could make a candy dish jump off a marble coffee table on the other side of the room. Anyway, we would argue, and he would prove to me (audibly, and visually on an oscilloscope) that BetaMax was vastly superior..
Audio was my business for a number of years when I was a partner in a pro audio manufacturing firm, so I understand that bit pretty well.
But, AIR, the thing that won the war was the early formats were limited to 1 hr BetaMax vs 2 hr VHS... You could program your VCR to tape a 1-2 hr movie on TV with VHS. You had to be there [to switch tapes] with Beta! Convenience trumped quality!
.
Well, Beta did well for several years. Sony fixed the early problems vs. VHS. But the smaller cassette size limited the amount of tape that would fit inside. So they lost the consumer war, but came out with Betacam, which dominated the pro video area until digital replaced it.
Well, actually they do have a patent for tracking the eyes and showing you a composite in 3d of you with your background.
He might also be referring to how they enhance and reflect light,...
... but yes, likely he pulled this out of his rear because it sounds good.
...Are you saying it is Rectal-Retinal... we used to call that ass-eyes!
.
Probably in the same place as those "Who cares about a flash with a camera phone?" naysayers. And the "Who cares about multitasking?" naysayers. And the "Who cares about copy and paste?" naysayers. But those naysayers will try to backtrack and claim that they never dismissed those features, and that they have always liked Apple to add them.
I think what a lot of us had said was that those features weren't that important to most users, but that some people would want them. I said in the beginning, as did many others, that Flash should be on the phone IF it were normally off, but a tap would turn it on when wanted (IF wanted).
As far as flash with a camera phone, well, it's marginally useful. I would have preferred if Apple used two diodes. One, even if it is the Phillips one, isn't terribly strong. I would really have loved to see a ring flash using several.
Multitasking, which we're not getting, would be a problem still.
I've now used copy/paste about three times since it came out. Useful, but marginal for most people.
I've been positively weeping though most of this thread. Oh, the anguish! The despair!
LOL!
Oh, alas, and alac! What shall we do?
.
You have to multiply that number by three, or four, if they're using a doubling of the green sites. Displaying red will give a much smaller "dot" than displaying white, or grey, or yellow, or magenta, or cyan.
There's no such thing as the "RGB" gamut. RGB can have a small gamut, or a very large gamut. Seeing detail has nothing to do with the gamut per se.
Not looking for an argument but this make absolutely no sense.
What application is someone thinking of that the iPhone could NOT be used for with 3 gyros and everything else? You definitely could pilot the space shuttle.
A really good 3D Pachinko game!
.
iM sold and im sure rogers gonna give us 3g Face time they might not be in the first to have the phone and have god dam expensive plans but we will see
brothers up north cant wait
oh yeah i held off for i would never buy a android Phone
So, with the doubled resolution, are all the apps that were written for the 320 x 480 screen going to be half size like iPhone apps on an iPad?
Of course not. iPhone apps on the iPad aren't half size. In fact, they're slightly bigger than they are on the phone and Touch, because the iPad's resolution in pixels per inch is slightly lower than that of the smaller devices.
With the new phone, and supposedly with the new Touch coming out in September, we will have the same size screen. All apps will automatically be pixel doubled to fit that same size screen. Text will be sharper right away, as long as it isn't actually a graphic.
On the software side, I find video editing to be huge. This might well take photo/video editing mainstream.
That's the killer app... for the iPad/iPhone combo!
.