"Broadly, deep trench isolation refers to a process by which tiny voids are created between pixels during sensor fabrication. Those voids are then filled with insulating material, preventing photons from moving between pixels after passing through the photoreceptors — and making for crisper shots at higher resolutions"
From what I understand when the photons hit the photoreceptors they are converted to electrons, the deep trench isolation is then designed to reduce the electrical crosstalk between those photoreceptors/pixels, which can cause increased image noise and other artefacts, not the photons.
Did you read the discussion on exactly this topic, above?
Yeah, I read about that too. But this is nothing new. We had that same problem with every major video standard before. There's no reason why a company such as Apple can't put it into their gear and keep it turned off until the disputes are settled. No fees need to be paid if it isn't exposed to use. Besides, Apple is one of those on the executive board. You'd think they would want to get this out there as soon as possible.
Can someone tell me why they didn't change their aspect ratio for their photos? When we snap photos we get this lousy half a screen photo so they give us more pixels and a better front facing camera but keep the same aspect ratio so when we take beautiful pictures they only fill up 3/4 of our screens. Great job Apple!
16:9 photos are...weird. It fits no standard. It's considered to be a panama mic photo as it is, even though we don't think of it that way. Anyway, it's close to 3:2, which is a standard film format. But most people seem to like 4:3.
Hey, metric should have become standard here a Looong time ago.
Do you know that in '66, Congress passed a resolution that stated that manufacturers should go to the metric standard as soon as is feasibly possible? Not 2015, but '66.
Other companies have done what Olympus has done. It's not all that useful, despite what you think, even if it is the iphone. It's also not a lens mount. It's a whole camera. We need something that uses only the iPhone itself as the camera. It's really dumb doing what first Sony, and now DXO has done. Olympus seems to be following the same basic path.
What I'm suggesting would result in lenses that are anywhere from a half inch long to maybe a few inches long, depending on what the focal length is, and whether it's a zoom.. The lenses would also be narrower, and much lighter. Closer to a microscope objective than to a typical camera lens.
Yeah, I read about that too. But this is nothing new. We had that same problem with every major video standard before. There's no reason why a company such as Apple can't put it into their gear and keep it turned off until the disputes are settled. No fees need to be paid if it isn't exposed to use. Besides, Apple is one of those on the executive board. You'd think they would want to get this out there as soon as possible.
Apple isn't part of HEVC Advance, however. The licensing for streaming h265 media that HEVC Advance are pushing for seems significantly more expensive than MPEG-LA's proposal, so perhaps Apple is waiting to see how it runs rather than having to stump up a large sum later?
Apple isn't part of HEVC Advance, however. The licensing for streaming h265 media that HEVC Advance are pushing for seems significantly more expensive than MPEG-LA's proposal, so perhaps Apple is waiting to see how it runs rather than having to stump up a large sum later?
I don't know. Apple is on the board of the organization that licenses h.264. They have licensed HEVEC, so I don't know exactly what all this means. Possibly it is in there, and they're waiting for the OK to expose it for use at some point.
Comments
Did you read the discussion on exactly this topic, above?
Yeah, I read about that too. But this is nothing new. We had that same problem with every major video standard before. There's no reason why a company such as Apple can't put it into their gear and keep it turned off until the disputes are settled. No fees need to be paid if it isn't exposed to use. Besides, Apple is one of those on the executive board. You'd think they would want to get this out there as soon as possible.
16:9 photos are...weird. It fits no standard. It's considered to be a panama mic photo as it is, even though we don't think of it that way. Anyway, it's close to 3:2, which is a standard film format. But most people seem to like 4:3.
Hey, metric should have become standard here a Looong time ago.
Do you know that in '66, Congress passed a resolution that stated that manufacturers should go to the metric standard as soon as is feasibly possible? Not 2015, but '66.
That's not 1966, that's 1866.
No excuse, really, not to have done it long ago.
Other companies have done what Olympus has done. It's not all that useful, despite what you think, even if it is the iphone. It's also not a lens mount. It's a whole camera. We need something that uses only the iPhone itself as the camera. It's really dumb doing what first Sony, and now DXO has done. Olympus seems to be following the same basic path.
What I'm suggesting would result in lenses that are anywhere from a half inch long to maybe a few inches long, depending on what the focal length is, and whether it's a zoom.. The lenses would also be narrower, and much lighter. Closer to a microscope objective than to a typical camera lens.
Yeah, I read about that too. But this is nothing new. We had that same problem with every major video standard before. There's no reason why a company such as Apple can't put it into their gear and keep it turned off until the disputes are settled. No fees need to be paid if it isn't exposed to use. Besides, Apple is one of those on the executive board. You'd think they would want to get this out there as soon as possible.
Apple isn't part of HEVC Advance, however. The licensing for streaming h265 media that HEVC Advance are pushing for seems significantly more expensive than MPEG-LA's proposal, so perhaps Apple is waiting to see how it runs rather than having to stump up a large sum later?
I don't know. Apple is on the board of the organization that licenses h.264. They have licensed HEVEC, so I don't know exactly what all this means. Possibly it is in there, and they're waiting for the OK to expose it for use at some point.
I think this is why:
http://www.cnet.com/news/new-fees-cast-shadow-on-next-gen-high-quality-streaming-video/
Thank you - this looks like a bag of hurt as Steve would say.
Welcome to the real world - the one outside your little American bubble.