Since you've added this, look at #2, then look at the trees in the first photo in the article. The bright areas in the trees are bokeh, not blur.
I think the image you refer to resembles Wikipedia's number 3 more than anything else. I and many other people have described bokeh as the background having circles of convolution of which I see none in the iPhone images. So we disagree, no big deal.
Look at the trees in the first image (the others don't have the type of background that amplifies the effect of bokeh). Above the child's head. Those bright spots are circles of confusion visibly spreading into the tree, which the trees aren't visibly doing into the bright areas.
Follow up to my previous comment, look at the sky showing through the leaves in the first photo. The light pattern is not merely a blur, but is bokeh-like in how the bright area expands into the darker area.
I think I would agree with you that we can call this bokeh. But I would also say that I don't find it as pleasing as the affect you get with a larger lens which is able to achieve a narrow depth-of-field. However, most of the time it's going to be better than nothing (although in a few photos I've seen I actually find it quite distracting, as if my own eyes aren't focusing properly and they are trying to adjust to get the background back into focus).
That's all that I'm saying. It is bokeh, in spite of what snobs are saying. They don't have to like the bokeh, but it's there (and it's not just a Gaussian blur).
I'm just cracking-up at the back-and-forth ranting about the "bokeh" discussion. Apple's implementation is not anywhere near what true bokeh is. They're passing off a simple background blur - whatever "gaussian" or other name you want to call it - and the posters here claiming it to be bokeh. It is not. It's nice, but it has nothing to do with it. The aperture blades found in cameras also contribute to what real bokeh does, in addition to how the DOF is rendered in a way only analog lenses can do.
No, it's not just a simple blur. You are confusing "something I like" with "bokeh". It's the True Scotsman fallacy. "That's not a pizza, it has chicken on it". "That's not bokeh, it doesn't look as nice as my dSLR!"
Bokeh is simply the noticeably out of focus area of a photo. That's it. All iPhones have had bokeh. But due to the wide depth of field, it's very limited. This is a software process that simulates bokeh NOT SIMPLY WITH JUST A BLUR, but it takes into account distance and shows bright areas expanding into darker areas, not just blurring the two into each other.
Are SLRs better? Almost universally yes, you don't even have to look at any test photos to tentatively assume this. No one is saying it's exactly just as good as a nice Nikon or Canon with a fast lens. But it's nice, impressive, not just a Gaussian blur, and is a good simulation of bokeh.
No, boke is the visual artifact caused by the lens itself. The boke effect could be geometric or circular, but it's always visually distinct from a merely blurry background or foreground.
...to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.
I wish people would stop calling Portrait mode "bokeh" because it is not. It is just a blurred background. Bokeh is different. It has individual convolution areas and swirls not just a Gaussian blur. I have to admit the masking capability is impressive. If I could get the masking feature alone without the blur, it would be helpful in compositing work.
That picture of the bride and groom together looks
If it is possible to create a decent depth mask automatically without hr. long rotoscoping, then they can start coding a good boken conv. function. But if that masking fails due to bad implementation, then your awesome bokeh function will not help... the image would be ruined due to artifacts, anyway, regardless of what convolution function is used.
Could you create the depth mask using the second camera's dual-pixel focusing capabilities to map the distance to each area of the photo. Not sure how quickly it could sweep through the focus range and collect/analyze the data, but that could create the depth info needed to blur the background of the main image.
Edit: Never mind. This article says they are using the angular difference caused by the separation of the two cameras to create the depth mask. Given how close they are and that they are different focal lengths I wouldn't think that would be very precise, but apparently enough so to apply the affect.
xpad said: That's all that I'm saying. It is bokeh, in spite of what snobs are saying. They don't have to like the bokeh, but it's there (and it's not just a Gaussian blur).
Well there is certainly "good" bokeh and I guess there is also bad bokeh. The main criteria for me is that it is pleasing to the eye, so I guess I fit the snob reference. You can create bad bokeh even with a DLSR and expensive lens if it is the wrong type of lens. It is really all about the quality of the glass, like prime, and the type of the lens you are using like a portrait lens, also how low of an aperture you can get for a shallow depth of field and how close you can get to the subject while staying in sharp focus. With good bokeh, like that which I have been describing, you should get soft circular effects everywhere not just a couple spots coming through the trees, which in the photo you are referring to, was simply an accident because the rest of the background has a very unpleasant blur. Bad bokeh!
Just picking a couple of definitions for bokeh off the Internet:
the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image - Google
the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image produced by a lens - Wikipedia
Ignore for a second the "produced by a lens" part of the wiki definition. These definitions suggest bokeh is simply a statement of the quality and aesthetics of the blur. You can have good quality food and bad quality food...but you still have food and it has [a] quality. So has long as you have a blurred part of your image, you have bokeh. It's then up to your objective and/or subjective evaluation how good or bad the bokeh is. Even shooting with a full-frame DSLR with a fast lens, saying your image has bokeh only means part of your image is out of focus without saying anything about the quality of the out of focus area.
Now, purists will point to the wiki definition and say "see, it has to be produced by a lens, not by software!". But if you read the whole article it later states:
bokeh can be simulated
More advanced systems of bokeh use a hardware system of 2 sensors, one sensor to take photo as usual while other ones record depth information. Bokeh effect and refocusing can then be applied to an image after the photo is taken.
So it is still referring to these effects as bokeh.
It's Wikipedia, so you can disagree; but unless someone can point to the authoritative definition of bokeh, I'll go with that.
Oh boy. Did nobody think to just look up some examples of other photos taken with the new portrait mode? You can quite clearly see bokeh circles in numerous photos from the phone popping up all over the web. Would have been a lot more interesting than two pages of arguing semantics.
I've owned high-zoom small-sensor cameras that render real depth of field pretty much exactly like the iPhone 7's simulated version. My main camera throws out much more gorgeous bokeh but this is fairly consistent with what a lot of lower-end cameras can do.
It's worth noting that as a software-based approach in beta, Apple can render depth of field more or less however it likes. If they want to simulate different lens/bokeh types then they can. Perhaps we'll see options of this nature in a future version of iOS once the machine learning has mastered handling different subject types, lighting, etc.
Oh boy. Did nobody think to just look up some examples of other photos taken with the new portrait mode? You can quite clearly see bokeh circles in numerous photos from the phone popping up all over the web. Would have been a lot more interesting than two pages of arguing semantics.
Yep, you're right. Some people may not like it, but Apple's bokeh is the real (albeit simulated) deal, and it is most certainly not a gaussian blur (I am not a professional photographer, but I did study photography at my Faculty and, being a designer, I have to do a lot of photo editing in Photoshop, so I know a gaussian blur when I see it)…
But don't take my graphic designer's word for it; this photographer did some really extensive testing and some bokeh renders with his iMac (and quite heavy ones at that), and it appears the A10 Fusion is almost as good at doing it (with some predictable loss in quality, but much less than you might think) as a 4GHz Core i7… Go figure!
I don't think Apple even calls it bokeh. It's amazing how many wannabe-photography experts there are around in the wake of this release. Comparing the results of Portrait Mode to what you get out of a DSLR isn't really the point.
Stu Naschwitz's article on Prolost ('iPhone 7 Plus Depth Effect is Legit') is the best examination of Portrait Mode I've read. I like the juxtaposition of the photos of 'a man punching himself in the face at a bar' vs the 'a mother of a kid who loves oysters' in particular.
"Portrait Mode photos aren't just photos with a blur applied. They have the potential to be photos that are more about what they are photos of." http://prolost.com/blog/deptheffect
Edit: mainyehc linked to the same article directly above!
Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[6] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[7]
By this definition, it is certainly Bokeh, but not necessary a "good" one. It is, at the very least, a WIP. Hope it will get improved when out of Beta.
xpad said: Apple's implementation doesn't use a Gaussian blur...
Whatever you want to call it, it is indistinguishable from Gaussian blur in my opinion and entirely unlike any bokeh examples I have created or seen on the net.
This is how Wikipedia describes it. 1) none, 2) bokeh, 3) Gaussian blur
To unprofessional trained eyes, the "Gaussian Blur" and "Bokeh" look different. But one need to look beyond that, because what produce both are totally different technique. iPhone 7+ does not create "Gaussian Blur" because that can be done by software alone. The use of array or multiple lens produce Bokeh effect instead of Gaussian Blur, because that is necessary. That's why 7+ has 2 lenses and use its binocular vision to introduce bokeh to the backgrounds of images.
Bad artifact on the outline of the horizon treeline of the girl sitting by the water. Also the same bad outline artifact on the left shoulder of the groom.
Comments
Edit: Never mind. This article says they are using the angular difference caused by the separation of the two cameras to create the depth mask. Given how close they are and that they are different focal lengths I wouldn't think that would be very precise, but apparently enough so to apply the affect.
http://www.imore.com/portrait-mode-tests-iphone-7-plus-vs-honor-8
Ignore for a second the "produced by a lens" part of the wiki definition. These definitions suggest bokeh is simply a statement of the quality and aesthetics of the blur. You can have good quality food and bad quality food...but you still have food and it has [a] quality. So has long as you have a blurred part of your image, you have bokeh. It's then up to your objective and/or subjective evaluation how good or bad the bokeh is. Even shooting with a full-frame DSLR with a fast lens, saying your image has bokeh only means part of your image is out of focus without saying anything about the quality of the out of focus area.
Now, purists will point to the wiki definition and say "see, it has to be produced by a lens, not by software!". But if you read the whole article it later states:
So it is still referring to these effects as bokeh.
It's Wikipedia, so you can disagree; but unless someone can point to the authoritative definition of bokeh, I'll go with that.
I've owned high-zoom small-sensor cameras that render real depth of field pretty much exactly like the iPhone 7's simulated version. My main camera throws out much more gorgeous bokeh but this is fairly consistent with what a lot of lower-end cameras can do.
It's worth noting that as a software-based approach in beta, Apple can render depth of field more or less however it likes. If they want to simulate different lens/bokeh types then they can. Perhaps we'll see options of this nature in a future version of iOS once the machine learning has mastered handling different subject types, lighting, etc.
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/28/iphone-7-plus-depth-of-field-photos/
But don't take my graphic designer's word for it; this photographer did some really extensive testing and some bokeh renders with his iMac (and quite heavy ones at that), and it appears the A10 Fusion is almost as good at doing it (with some predictable loss in quality, but much less than you might think) as a 4GHz Core i7… Go figure!
http://prolost.com/blog/deptheffect
Stu Naschwitz's article on Prolost ('iPhone 7 Plus Depth Effect is Legit') is the best examination of Portrait Mode I've read. I like the juxtaposition of the photos of 'a man punching himself in the face at a bar' vs the 'a mother of a kid who loves oysters' in particular.
"Portrait Mode photos aren't just photos with a blur applied. They have the potential to be photos that are more about what they are photos of."
http://prolost.com/blog/deptheffect
Edit: mainyehc linked to the same article directly above!
By this definition, it is certainly Bokeh, but not necessary a "good" one. It is, at the very least, a WIP. Hope it will get improved when out of Beta.