anton zuykov

ksec said:

1. MicroLED aren't likely coming to Apple Watch or iPhone. At any rate they may come to TV first, before the tech move into smaller devices if at all.

Probably the opposite is true. It is much harder to manufacture a huge defect free panel with 10M pixels, vs a much smaller panel with 120k pixels, don't you think?
If you have a certain probability that a certain pixel ends up dead due to production, you surely will get a MUCH higher probability of having at least 1 defect, with a 10Mpx panel, comparing to 120kpx panel. That is why it took so long for Apple to get 4k and 5k panels into their products.

nht said:

EngDev said:

nht said:

EngDev said:

macseeker said:

Seems like the iPhone 7+ picture is sharper.

Source: Macworld

In this case the iPhone is applying blur and Note 8 isn't.  The iPhone is attempting to do a very thin DOF with focus only on the face.  It's as the more aggressive of the two in terms of attempting bokeh.  Also, it appears that the iPhone missed focus in this capture.  I wonder if she was moving during the shot.

Whether her chest would be in focus or not in a real DSLR depends on how busty she is.  Not very so likely in focus.  

The Note 8 is obviously less aggressive as seen in this comparison where the iPhone gets it more right but the Note doesn't

Both seem to have problems with blur depending on the scenario. I think Macworld did a decent job outlining these cases. They're right about the iPhone focusing too much on the face.

Not when it's called "Portrait Mode".  Typically the face is the thing you want to get in focus for portraits.  In particular, the eyes.  With a thin DOF even ears are out of focus.  Here's an example.  Eyes in focus, ears not.



Often pros do additional post processing to make the eyes pop even more.



Eyes in focus, ears and shirt not.


TL;DR;  Its called Portrait Mode.  Focusing on the face is entirely the point.

Yeah, but seeing how it would perform in extreme cases gives an idea of how well that algorithm performs in the majority of cases.
You can clearly see that spotty DoF effect application from Note phone, which clearly tells you that Sammy did not nail reliable depth mask generation, and hence, the effect sucks so much that it is unusable. In other words, it is what Sammy normally excels at - creating a software feature/tool that no one is going to use, because results are rarely good. THAT is a difference between Apple and Sammy. The difference "nominally" is small. But in reality, if that is how Note generates depth masks, the result is going to suck big time, while for Apple DoF effect is going to be usable 90-95% of time.

ericthehalfbee said:

Looks like two iPhones in picture.

And the one on the right is a ceramic one.

Mike Wuerthele said:

MacPro said:

"Hey can you maneuver your 747 a bit closer to mine, your just out of range, I've got some great pictures to share."

The other plane is a 777. The target device is probably the 777's iPad flight book, given the name.

They usually call it - EFB, electronic flight bag. 

slprescott said:

Four reactions:
  1. Cool
  2. Isn't 1000 feet separation too close for safety?
  3. Shouldn't he "keep his eyes on the road"?
  4. What about the "cell phones can interrupt flight operations" claim?

2. no. It is RVSM and min separation that is allowed vertically is 1000 ft, which is what they had, because the author of the video was at FL350, and the other plane was sitting at FL360.
3. He keeps his eyes on the instrumentation and occasionally - looks outside.
4. Not when you are at FL3xx. Cell phone signal might interfere with signals from approach nav systems when you land. However, when airplane is flying in cruise, it relies on IRS and GPS. And neither is affected by radiosignals in wifi / gsm part of the spectrum.