The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
You feel this is far from accurate then? What's your opinion of it if it does closely represent the finished shell? Certainly looks like a break from Apple's past decade minimalist design philosophy.
I'm certain you have some opinion beyond the obvious "there are lots of 3D printers".
The 3D model renders certainly appear a continued evolution of the iPhone, from single, to dual, to triple lens, and it also appears a minimalist design, given the layout of the various lenses, flash, and secondary sensor.
Certainly both can be true, so I'm not seeing the variance from Apple's design philosophy, if that is the point you are attempting to make.
That's the opinion I'm offering, not some point I'm trying to make. It looks like less "minimalist' to me. In your opinion it does not.
Now with that settled what is your opinion of the shell design: Like it? Love it? Meh? A necessary evil? Is it just as you would have expected from Apple?
It's both a "necessary evil" and minimalist, ie, form follows function, but the truth will be that buyers will readily adopt the design language, just like they have the notch, and own it.
Of course, there will be copycats of the same configuration to ride iPhone's coattails.
I imagine that you will be as forthright in your design critique of the Google 4's at release, when it too adopts multiple cameras.
I just wanted to add that I will be in line to buy the triple lens model this fall.
Ah, the obligatory "whatabout Google" paradigm. A bit early in the thread for that IMO. Of course you're quite familiar with my opinion of Google's hardware aesthetics which have rarely been very imaginative so far.
FWIW there's more than one way to include multiple lenses. Is this the way you would have expected Apple to do so? Chinese handset makers had already decided on this as the best way of incorporating multiple cameras and I thought you mentioned you were not fan of it.
You are incorrect about my opinion.
It was that the existing multiple camera arrays, some linear and some in an "L" configuration, were not as efficient as a what Apple appears to be using for this fall's triple lens model, a camera array in an equilateral triangle.
Hence why I expect that Apple's configuration will become a standard; it will just work better for 3D and AR. Next year, when Apple is likely to add a time of flight sensor, it will likely be right in the center of the array.
Oh, ok.
Is the lens configuration not working efficiently on other square bump camera modules, but Apple's layout is? I hadn't seen articles on that yet so you're a bit ahead of me.
Then too it would seem the flash being mounted equidistant from all three lenses, ala iPhoneX where it was placed in the center, would be more aesthetically pleasing than in the corner if not more efficient as well.
"Aesthetically pleasing" perhaps, but there is the problem of the physical volume of the camera module to deal with...
There's general agreement that a square module will be used. That's a given. As far as specific placement of the elements within that array I'd personally be surprised if Apple arranges it as shown here. To me it appears cluttered, disorganized, not quite "Apple-y". I believe there's been other renderings floated that show it as being more balanced.
I agree... I have been quietly hoping this isn't the final design. I just do not like the way this 3 camera set up looks at all. I have tried and tried to let it grow on me,but it just seems off in my opinion.
For the foreseeable future the design of the iPhone will be set in minimalist stone. Changes will be slight, new colors, more focus on camera enhancements since let's face it the camera will soon be the most used feature. Phone calls won't really improve, batteries will squeeze in several minutes more with each update, but the iOS will continue to be Apple's advantage for the near future. I can't wait to see the iPhone model which will have a back resembling a set of spider eyes, cool.
Well, yeh, if nothing changes then nothing changes.
But we also have 5G and folding phones on the horizon that could imbalance that equation.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
Your statement is that there isn't a difference due to orientation of the cameras, humans having binaural stereoscopic vision, yet it is pretty obvious that the intersection of the three fields of view is maximized at a minimal spacing in an triangular arrangement, especially at macro distances where minimizing parallax is a requirement. It wasn't my statement that any other arrangement wouldn't work, just that it was "more efficient" to have an equilateral triangular array, at the minimum distances possible. I don't have proof that it is better, but the logic appears reasonable, and any proof of efficacy will arrive with the first tests of this fall's iPhone.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
My expectation is that Apple, et al, would like to be able to achieve a real time merging of three different, overlapping, fields of view, using computational photography, and at video frame rates, all with HDR. That will give, in theory, very good bokeh effects for still images, and a very good 3D environment for AR. Whether it is inherently an advantage over other configurations will again, have to await reviews.
You feel this is far from accurate then? What's your opinion of it if it does closely represent the finished shell? Certainly looks like a break from Apple's past decade minimalist design philosophy.
I'm certain you have some opinion beyond the obvious "there are lots of 3D printers".
The 3D model renders certainly appear a continued evolution of the iPhone, from single, to dual, to triple lens, and it also appears a minimalist design, given the layout of the various lenses, flash, and secondary sensor.
Certainly both can be true, so I'm not seeing the variance from Apple's design philosophy, if that is the point you are attempting to make.
Agreed, it appears the same minimal design language. The presence of three lenses is function and itself makes no determination whether it is in a minimalism style. No idea what he’s on about, other than the usual dropping of FUD pellets.
Three lenses plus a sensor and flash can be presented in several ways.
To me this camera array appears cluttered and disorganized, unlike the clean minimalist design elements I've seen on other Apple products, tho the 2 lens version is much better from a pure design standpoint IMO. Personally I'm more than a bit surprised you don't see other possibilities for the arrangement, maybe even like me expecting Apple to ship a more aesthetically pleasing and balanced one rather than this render. It looks like someone saw an empty space and needed to put something in it so an area wasn't orphaned. Haven't you seen other renders you like more?
I never weighed in on what I believe, so no idea what you're on about, again. I only agreed with Tmay that you're quite wrong by suggesting it's no longer minimal. From what I can see in this render it looks almost identical to the current phones, expect a new lens component and arrangement, which is functional.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
No you did not. The array itself has function. So does the arrangement. To be more blunt what is your opinion about how it looks, the aesthetics?
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
You feel this is far from accurate then? What's your opinion of it if it does closely represent the finished shell? Certainly looks like a break from Apple's past decade minimalist design philosophy.
I'm certain you have some opinion beyond the obvious "there are lots of 3D printers".
The 3D model renders certainly appear a continued evolution of the iPhone, from single, to dual, to triple lens, and it also appears a minimalist design, given the layout of the various lenses, flash, and secondary sensor.
Certainly both can be true, so I'm not seeing the variance from Apple's design philosophy, if that is the point you are attempting to make.
That's the opinion I'm offering, not some point I'm trying to make. It looks like less "minimalist' to me. In your opinion it does not.
Now with that settled what is your opinion of the shell design: Like it? Love it? Meh? A necessary evil? Is it just as you would have expected from Apple?
It's both a "necessary evil" and minimalist, ie, form follows function, but the truth will be that buyers will readily adopt the design language, just like they have the notch, and own it.
Of course, there will be copycats of the same configuration to ride iPhone's coattails.
I imagine that you will be as forthright in your design critique of the Google 4's at release, when it too adopts multiple cameras.
I just wanted to add that I will be in line to buy the triple lens model this fall.
Ah, the obligatory "whatabout Google" paradigm. A bit early in the thread for that IMO. Of course you're quite familiar with my opinion of Google's hardware aesthetics which have rarely been very imaginative so far.
FWIW there's more than one way to include multiple lenses. Is this the way you would have expected Apple to do so? Chinese handset makers had already decided on this as the best way of incorporating multiple cameras and I thought you mentioned you were not fan of it.
You are incorrect about my opinion.
It was that the existing multiple camera arrays, some linear and some in an "L" configuration, were not as efficient as a what Apple appears to be using for this fall's triple lens model, a camera array in an equilateral triangle.
Hence why I expect that Apple's configuration will become a standard; it will just work better for 3D and AR. Next year, when Apple is likely to add a time of flight sensor, it will likely be right in the center of the array.
Oh, ok.
Is the lens configuration not working efficiently on other square bump camera modules, but Apple's layout is? I hadn't seen articles on that yet so you're a bit ahead of me.
Then too it would seem the flash being mounted equidistant from all three lenses, ala iPhoneX where it was placed in the center, would be more aesthetically pleasing than in the corner if not more efficient as well.
"Aesthetically pleasing" perhaps, but there is the problem of the physical volume of the camera module to deal with...
There's general agreement that a square module will be used. That's a given. As far as specific placement of the elements within that array I'd personally be surprised if Apple arranges it as shown here. To me it appears cluttered, disorganized, not quite "Apple-y". I believe there's been other renderings floated that show it as being more balanced.
I agree... I have been quietly hoping this isn't the final design. I just do not like the way this 3 camera set up looks at all. I have tried and tried to let it grow on me,but it just seems off in my opinion.
I see this the same way. Although different renders may shift perception to a degree, I think it looks lopsided, overloaded and the array looks untidy in a square camera bump. A mess basically.
I'll reserve final judgement for the eventual final release but to me they look frankly ugly.
I'm not swallowing the 'efficiency' line because competitors have had tri camera setups for well over a year (with rumours of quad setups coming in a few months) AND have entire imaging divisions to handle things like 'efficiency'. If it had any true relevance in terms of the layout, it would have been discussed long ago. Clearly, there has been no valid reason, for overriding technical needs, to change things to one specific layout, to this point in time.
Like you, I have given this design plenty of time to sink in but, for me at least, it has come over as worse with each new render.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
Your statement is that there isn't a difference due to orientation of the cameras, humans having binaural stereoscopic vision, yet it is pretty obvious that the intersection of the three fields of view is maximized at a minimal spacing in an triangular arrangement, especially at macro distances where minimizing parallax is a requirement. It wasn't my statement that any other arrangement wouldn't work, just that it was "more efficient" to have an equilateral triangular array, at the minimum distances possible. I don't have proof that it is better, but the logic appears reasonable, and any proof of efficacy will arrive with the first tests of this fall's iPhone.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
My expectation is that Apple, et al, would like to be able to achieve a real time merging of three different, overlapping, fields of view, using computational photography, and at video frame rates, all with HDR. That will give, in theory, very good bokeh effects for still images, and a very good 3D environment for AR. Whether it is inherently an advantage over other configurations will again, have to await reviews.
Your convo with Gatorguy seems to be bleeding into your other interactions. I mentioned nothing about aesthetics in any quote. I also made no claim that you said other implementations wouldn't work. Not really sure where you got that. I said you can't claim "more efficient" because you have no baseline to judge efficiency... and you don't. "Efficient" as you're using it is just some nebulous term with no actual meaning. You have no idea how Apple will use the 3 lenses or what the 3 focal lengths will be or any idea about the apertures or any number of other photography words that might apply here. So the speculation you're engaging in is pretty wild. The logic used in your opinion does not seem reasonable at all imo, but hey, you feel what you feel. As I said before, Apple could choose that rumored config for any number of reasons.
I'm no longer going to address your 3D/AR guesses because that's just too much "I'm guessing" for me to even argue for or against.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
No you did not. The array itself has function. So does the arrangement. To be more blunt what is your opinion about how it looks, the aesthetics?
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
Since I noted that I would be purchasing said iPhone at release, how it looks just doesn't matter to me. It's "look" is just a reflection of the underlying function of housing three different focal length camera modules, which is what I am purchasing.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
No you did not. The array itself has function. So does the arrangement. To be more blunt what is your opinion about how it looks, the aesthetics?
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
Since I noted that I would be purchasing said iPhone at release, how it looks just doesn't matter to me. It's "look" is just a reflection of the underlying function of housing three different focal length camera modules, which is what I am purchasing
So a non-answer is the best you have. Gosh you go out of your way not to answer a simple question. Your reluctance to offer an opinion infers you don't particularly like the way it looks in this render, but accepting it as a necessary evil if it comes to that. Close?
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
No you did not. The array itself has function. So does the arrangement. To be more blunt what is your opinion about how it looks, the aesthetics?
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
Since I noted that I would be purchasing said iPhone at release, how it looks just doesn't matter to me. It's "look" is just a reflection of the underlying function of housing three different focal length camera modules, which is what I am purchasing
So a non-answer is the best you have. Gosh you go out of your way not to answer a simple question. Your reluctance to offer an opinion infers you don't particularly like the way it looks in this render, but accepting it as a necessary evil if it comes to that. Close?
Faulty inference, not close, but thanks for playing.
The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode.
None of what you wrote is true. I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense. We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane. Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math. The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source. But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory.
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
Rather than "a distraction" it seems to me the entire point of the article and render is to elicit opinions on the aesthetics.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
Did I imagine your comment about "minimalist design philosophy" and my response that I believed the configuration was determined by function?
No you did not. The array itself has function. So does the arrangement. To be more blunt what is your opinion about how it looks, the aesthetics?
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
Since I noted that I would be purchasing said iPhone at release, how it looks just doesn't matter to me. It's "look" is just a reflection of the underlying function of housing three different focal length camera modules, which is what I am purchasing
So a non-answer is the best you have. Gosh you go out of your way not to answer a simple question. Your reluctance to offer an opinion infers you don't particularly like the way it looks in this render, but accepting it as a necessary evil if it comes to that. Close?
Faulty inference, not close, but thanks for playing.
Gotcha. So just one of those very unusual for you "I don't really have an opinion on that" days. Thanks for not playing, fair enough.
I am surprised and disappointed that Apple isn't offering a 'consumer grade' smaller/normal sized phone. The Xr is too big and the Xs too expensive. It leaves a hole. For myself, I want a smaller phone (particularly when out running or exercising, but I don't want to pay Xs type prices. (There is the 8 -- but that feels too dated).
If they can pull enough volume out of the current internals to make that 3 camera module work. They could certianly keep a smaller camera module and use the space savings on the overall case size.
Battery size might reduces as well but that's Ok given screen will be smaller.
For the foreseeable future the design of the iPhone will be set in minimalist stone. Changes will be slight, new colors, more focus on camera enhancements since let's face it the camera will soon be the most used feature. Phone calls won't really improve, batteries will squeeze in several minutes more with each update, but the iOS will continue to be Apple's advantage for the near future. I can't wait to see the iPhone model which will have a back resembling a set of spider eyes, cool.
The back of the new iPhone will be like the back of the new Apple Monitor. No one will be able to guess how many cameras are hidden in the holes.
Comments
More to the point, arguing "aesthetics" of a particular configuration is a distraction.
My expectation is that Apple, et al, would like to be able to achieve a real time merging of three different, overlapping, fields of view, using computational photography, and at video frame rates, all with HDR. That will give, in theory, very good bokeh effects for still images, and a very good 3D environment for AR. Whether it is inherently an advantage over other configurations will again, have to await reviews.
Every reader here was already aware Apple was planning a three lens array ensconced in a square module on at least some iPhone model. This is showing how that module will be arranged. You surely don't think the primary point of the article was reinforcement for the report of three lenses.
If rumors prove to be true, I’ll wait until the 2020 model.
Yes it is understood that lenses will be in some module whether whether square, oblong, oval, no bump at all, or whatever. Do you like this one and hope it accurately represents the shipping product, or visually would prefer something at least somewhat different?
I'll reserve final judgement for the eventual final release but to me they look frankly ugly.
I'm not swallowing the 'efficiency' line because competitors have had tri camera setups for well over a year (with rumours of quad setups coming in a few months) AND have entire imaging divisions to handle things like 'efficiency'. If it had any true relevance in terms of the layout, it would have been discussed long ago. Clearly, there has been no valid reason, for overriding technical needs, to change things to one specific layout, to this point in time.
Like you, I have given this design plenty of time to sink in but, for me at least, it has come over as worse with each new render.
We'll see how things look in September.
I'm no longer going to address your 3D/AR guesses because that's just too much "I'm guessing" for me to even argue for or against.
Your reluctance to offer an opinion infers you don't particularly like the way it looks in this render, but accepting it as a necessary evil if it comes to that. Close?
1. Apple is trying to somehow shrink the tech into 2 cameras or shrink the square further.
or
2. Apple makes the camera flush with the back, seamless and hidden.
Posted without comment, as a continuum of "I don't really have an opinion on that".
The back of the new iPhone will be like the back of the new Apple Monitor. No one will be able to guess how many cameras are hidden in the holes.