imergingenious

I don’t really care if it cheated. To me, what’s more important is how well can it cheat? If the Samsung can accurately recreate PORTIONS of the moon occluded by a tree or other object, then the cheating is good enough that it’s actually useful because people can make custom images of the moon that you can’t just download from the internet. Has anyone tried this?

The $500 model is coming. In fact, it could even be a $300 model. All apple has to do is take the AppleTV, put a newer chip in it like the A11 or A12X, then add more flash storage. Smaller, faster, cheaper (but only runs App Store/marzipan apps).

While I don't disagree that raw performance in most real world use is now probably close to a wash between these two flagships, I find it interesting that an Apple centric site would come to this conclusion given the raw data (iPhone winning nearly every test, and still dominating in several). The thing that I believe this study misses when comparing graphics is the efficiency/throttling performance under sustained load. Apple's devices have been able to sustain close to peak performance without thermal throttling while competitors have not. This difference doesn't show itself in standard gfx benchmarks that usually don't run long enough to overheat the system. Also, the graphics tests are off-screen measurements of raw computing power, which means when you try to run a game on-screen, the higher resolution on the Galaxy screen will result in even lower frame rate despite not providing much of a perceivable sharpness benefit.

There is no way the TFT LCD will not have a chin (as represented in the mock-up). It can be cut for the notch, but it can't be bent around itself to hide the display controller at the bottom.

unphocus said:

sector7g said:

Just like digital stabilization is worse than optical. The artificial blur will never be as good as real optical focus.

Optical and digital stabilization has their own advantages over the other. I wouldn’t say that one is better than the other. 

Here are are some advantages of digital stabilization:
1. I can use decades old manual lenses
2. In DSLR cases, I only have to pay for stabilization once—in the camera—not in every lens I buy
3. Makes my overall gear lighter
4. Six axis stabilization while optical has three

I don’t need to point out the advantages of optical since you already know that. Cheers! 😊

I think you’re mistaking digital with in-body sensor stabilization.  On some digital cameras, the sensor is gimballed to provide stabilization with any old lens. This is different than digital stabilization, which takes a fixed sensor and lens and just crops and stretches the resulting image in such a way to stabilize the subject. The cropping and stretching causes a drop in resolution and sometimes odd distortions in the background.