PDA

View Full Version : HD video but only VGA photos...?




lotones
Sep 1, 2010, 02:43 PM
Will someone please explain to me why this would be?

If it's a hardware issue I may still wait to buy another iPod. I want the few pictures I take to be decent quality.

If it's not a hardware issue can Apple upgrade the still camera resolution with a later software update?



gta50419
Sep 1, 2010, 02:48 PM
i think it would take hd vid and hd pics (the "vga pics" is probably a mistake because they did said it shoots in 720p so it has to take excellent quality pics)....if not apple a hoe lol

scroll way down at the bottom where it says "point & shoot" the pic they're taking a pic with the bike, it looks excellent..so yeah it'll probably be better than most regular cam's

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

nicholas00020
Sep 1, 2010, 02:50 PM
I agree the ONLY thing that disappoints me a little is the VGA photos, but since it can record HD video i think people were saying you probably will be able to extract still photos from the video, which would be of decent quality. I dont think apple will release anything to upgrade the camera pixels tho.............everything else is sweet tho....and im too hype

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 02:52 PM
The sensor is too small. Its a physical limitation. They would have been slaughtered by the media if they thickened it to iP4 status just to fit in the same camera.

ingraman
Sep 1, 2010, 02:53 PM
Roughly anything over 704 480 pixels (which is like .3 megapixels) is considered "HD", so it's not really a good rule of thumb for photo quality. Purely hardware limited, no way they can increase it later on by software.

gta50419
Sep 1, 2010, 02:56 PM
Roughly anything over 704 480 pixels (which is like .3 megapixels) is considered "HD", so it's not really a good rule of thumb for photo quality. Purely hardware limited, no way they can increase it later on by software.

but on apple site it says it takes 960 x 720 still pics w back cam....so it does take hd /5mp pics right?

i think the facetime cam is the one that takes vga pics...

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 03:00 PM
but on apple site it says it takes 960 x 720 still pics w back cam....so it does take hd /5mp pics right?

i think the facetime cam is the one that takes vga pics...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

notjustjay
Sep 1, 2010, 03:00 PM
"HD" means VERY different things if you are talking about photos or video.

For example, 1080p is the highest resolution consumer HD format. 1080p HD still frames measure 1920x1080 pixels.

Well, multiply 1920 by 1080 and you get 2,073,600 pixels. About 2 million pixels. 2 megapixels.

So the iPod touch camera can record 720p HD video? Well, that's great! But that's at most 1280x720 pixels which is 921,600 pixels, which is 0.9 megapixels.

ingraman
Sep 1, 2010, 03:01 PM
but on apple site it says it takes 960 x 720 still pics w back cam....so it does take hd /5mp pics right?

i think the facetime cam is the one that takes vga pics...

No, the rear camera takes 960 X 720 shots, which is about .7 megapixels.

titans1127
Sep 1, 2010, 03:01 PM
Right from the tech specs on apple's website

Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still photos (960 x 720) with back camera
VGA-quality photos and video up to 30 frames per second with the front camera

It looks like the only thing missing compared to the iPhone is the iPhone has he flash on the back camera and the touch won't.

lilcosco08
Sep 1, 2010, 03:01 PM
but on apple site it says it takes 960 x 720 still pics w back cam....so it does take hd /5mp pics right?

i think the facetime cam is the one that takes vga pics...

960 x 720 =/= 5mp

lotones
Sep 1, 2010, 03:12 PM
"HD" means VERY different things if you are talking about photos or video.

For example, 1080p is the highest resolution consumer HD format. 1080p HD still frames measure 1920x1080 pixels.

Well, multiply 1920 by 1080 and you get 2,073,600 pixels. About 2 million pixels. 2 megapixels.

So the iPod touch camera can record 720p HD video? Well, that's great! But that's at most 1280x720 pixels which is 921,600 pixels, which is 0.9 megapixels.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

The sensor is too small. Its a physical limitation. They would have been slaughtered by the media if they thickened it to iP4 status just to fit in the same camera.

You may be right, but I don't see why? Would it have been that big a deal to include a decent camera at the expense of adding a few millimeters?

I was hoping to upgrade from an old 2 megapixel camera through the new ipod. Seriously, I'm not asking for a lot. 2 megapixels or better, thats all... lol!

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 03:15 PM
You may be right, but I don't see why? Would it have been that big a deal to include a decent camera at the expense of adding a few millimeters?

I was hoping to upgrade from an old 2 megapixel camera through the new ipod. Seriously, I'm not asking for a lot. 2 megapixels or better, thats all... lol!

Because Apple being Apple, they are in a unique "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If people weren't bitching about the camera, they'd be furious that apple dare make something thicker.

gta50419
Sep 1, 2010, 03:17 PM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

OHHHH ok i see, wow that's pathetic
shoot hd video but have less then 1mp in stills pic lol, someone needs to get fired asap

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 03:18 PM
OHHHH ok, wow that's pathetic
shoot hd video but cant put even 1mp in stills lol, someone needs to get fired asap

Its the physical size limitation of the sensor. One that small simply can't muster a high resolution for stills.

Its the same story of the last gen nano only doing video and no pics.

notjustjay
Sep 1, 2010, 03:31 PM
Hey, it's the first camera on the iPod. They need to have something to entice you to upgrade to next year's model. :rolleyes:

Before we all poo-poo the low resolution, I'd be interested to know if it can take good-looking photos with whatever sensor and software is on board. There are plenty of uses for nice photos at a low resolution -- taking pictures to upload to Twitter or Facebook, for example.

ingraman
Sep 1, 2010, 03:35 PM
I'm sure the camera will be fine if you want to upload to facebook or twitter. Just nicer to carry around a better camera though, in case you ever come across that pulitzer winning shot. I do agree that a higher resolution camera will be on the 5th gen. Gonna hold out for that.

bdavis89
Sep 1, 2010, 03:55 PM
The apple site clearly states that the VGA quality photos are with the front camera. The back camera is better, although still not great. But for the average consumer this is really sweet. Unless you're a pro or have a photography hobby, it's gonna be great for taking snapshots. Better than carrying around Ashton kutchers camera lol.

Drucifer
Sep 1, 2010, 04:02 PM
The cameras are there for FaceTime and convenience, you can easily capture a shot and upload it or add it to one of your contacts.

The point is not to take high quality pictures to transfer them to your PC and get them developed. If you want to take pictures to get developed then use a digital camera.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 1, 2010, 05:50 PM
A .7 mp still camera? You have got to be kidding me. If the reason is to make the iPod thinner... why? Is shaving a few mm off the case thickness really going sell more more iPods? Seriously? Folks have been waiting years for a camera on an iPod and this is the payoff? My old dead flip phone had better camera resolution. I was ready to order a new iPod right after the big show today, but not now. Thanks but no thanks Steve, I'll stick with my 2nd gen model until Apple stops crippling the iPod to keep the iPhone oh so special...

Martyimac
Sep 1, 2010, 06:11 PM
A .7 mp still camera? You have got to be kidding me. If the reason is to make the iPod thinner... why? Is shaving a few mm off the case thickness really going sell more more iPods? Seriously? Folks have been waiting years for a camera on an iPod and this is the payoff? My old dead flip phone had better camera resolution. I was ready to order a new iPod right after the big show today, but not now. Thanks but no thanks Steve, I'll stick with my 2nd gen model until Apple stops crippling the iPod to keep the iPhone oh so special...
I agree but I am staying with my 1G model, because the camera is so poor.

gta50419
Sep 1, 2010, 06:13 PM
yeah i really want it too but i might wait until the 5g after that horrible cam
moto razr had a better cam than that lol

titans1127
Sep 1, 2010, 06:26 PM
I'm sure if a jailbreak is released someone will come up with a way for us to taker higher quality pictures. If the lens can take 720p video, surely stills can be high quality too. I'm not too tech savvy with things like that so I may be wrong.

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 07:03 PM
Theres no reason Apple couldn't have made the iPod thicker and stuck in the iPhone 4 camera.

But with that said, megapixels aren't everything. Even if the iPod touch only takes 960x720, as long as they are GOOD pixels, the pictures will be fine for emailing and posting on Facebook or whatever.

Again, pixel count isn't everything. Look at the iPhone 4 camera versus the Evo. iPhone 4 has a 5MP sensor while the Evo has an 8MP sensor. The actual image quality of pictures taken with the iPhone 4 blows away the Evo and all other Android phones currently available. My iPhone 4 takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP camera.

Pixel count means absolutely nothing.

hcho3
Sep 1, 2010, 07:07 PM
Will someone please explain to me why this would be?

If it's a hardware issue I may still wait to buy another iPod. I want the few pictures I take to be decent quality.

If it's not a hardware issue can Apple upgrade the still camera resolution with a later software update?

Name me an Mp3 player that costs only 230 dollars and takes both HD video with high resolution pictures. Don't forget about retina display and 1GHZ A4 chip.

It's obvious that apple undercut the ipod touch model for these reasons.

1. Cost
2. So, it doesn't hurt iPhone 4 sales
3. Leave room for next iPod touch

I was surprised to see that even basic model has received retina display. Retina display costs apple a lot of money in the first place. Putting two cameras? I am impressed with what apple brought it out with even basic model.

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 07:08 PM
yeah i really want it too but i might wait until the 5g after that horrible cam
moto razr had a better cam than that lol

Sure it did.....

skiltrip
Sep 1, 2010, 07:12 PM
The camera resolution is perfect for what most people use it for, lets be honest... uploading to Facebook and other stuff like that. Not many people are shooting to frame anything. They make real cameras for that.

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 1, 2010, 07:55 PM
Just to be perfectly clear here....

The market today is saturated with cheap 1.3 megapixel or less cameras.

There's this one:

http://www.alphamom.com/legacy/hotspots/little%20tikes%20camera.png

This one....

http://www.kids-digitalcameras.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/Fisher-Price-Kid-Tough.jpg

Oh and this one....

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl0/10/107379/06_2008/digital-camera.jpg

And the newest digital camera for COOL kids now comes from Apple!

http://images.apple.com/ipodtouch/images/specs_dimensions20100901.jpg

Seriously gang....Apple just totally spec'd the new iPod Touch with a camera of lesser quality than Fisher Price. Its insulting.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 1, 2010, 08:39 PM
Theres no reason Apple couldn't have made the iPod thicker and stuck in the iPhone 4 camera.

But with that said, megapixels aren't everything. Even if the iPod touch only takes 960x720, as long as they are GOOD pixels, the pictures will be fine for emailing and posting on Facebook or whatever.

Again, pixel count isn't everything. Look at the iPhone 4 camera versus the Evo. iPhone 4 has a 5MP sensor while the Evo has an 8MP sensor. The actual image quality of pictures taken with the iPhone 4 blows away the Evo and all other Android phones currently available. My iPhone 4 takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP camera.

Pixel count means absolutely nothing.

I understand what you are trying to say, but to say pixel count means absolutely nothing is absurd. Pixels are the basic building blocks of every digital image. Nothing? Seriously? The images may look ok on an iPod, iPhone, or iPad, but as the display gets bigger and higher resolution, the picture will fill a smaller and smaller part of the screen. Want to make a print? Ok the math is pretty simple, take each dimension in pixels and divide it by 240 and you'll have the dimensions in inches for a good quality print.

Pixels do matter.

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 09:06 PM
I understand what you are trying to say, but to say pixel count means absolutely nothing is absurd. Pixels are the basic building blocks of every digital image. Nothing? Seriously? The images may look ok on an iPod, iPhone, or iPad, but as the display gets bigger and higher resolution, the picture will fill a smaller and smaller part of the screen. Want to make a print? Ok the math is pretty simple, take each dimension in pixels and divide it by 240 and you'll have the dimensions in inches for a good quality print.

Pixels do matter.

Pixel COUNT means nothing when discussing quality. As I said in another thread, you could have a 20MP camera that doesnt take pictures as good as a 5MP camera.

If you're concerned with prints, cellphones or mobile devices should be the last thing you'd be using for such important pictures. The iPod touch, iPhone, etc. are meant for quick shots that you'd upload to social networking. Not archival quality.

And, again, my point is that pixel quality is more important than pixel count. A "0.7MP" camera isn't going to necessarily take BAD pictures. It will just take SMALL pictures.

I do agree that Apple should have included a higher resolution camera. But theres no reason to say that the iPod touch will take BAD pictures because of its low pixel count.

Ds92
Sep 1, 2010, 09:10 PM
The iPod touch is marketed as a portable gaming device and is primarily a music player, it doesn't deserve a 5mp camera.

The regular Joe isn't going to be taking photos with it and printing it out to put in his album! No he'd just want to upload something to twitter and facebook.

I think you guys need stop complaining and get a real digital camera/handphone which takes better shots because the iPod is never going to compete with those and it doesn't need to

tubemonkey
Sep 1, 2010, 09:13 PM
They would have been slaughtered by the media if they thickened it to iP4 status just to fit in the same camera.

Really? Then why didn't the media slaughter them for making it taller?

What's with Steve and his fetish for thinness?

pizz
Sep 1, 2010, 09:16 PM
What's with Steve and his fetish for thinness?


Thats why....

gta50419
Sep 1, 2010, 09:21 PM
The iPod touch is marketed as a portable gaming device and is primarily a music player, it doesn't deserve a 5mp camera.

the same thing can be said for a cellphone...but they have 3.5-5+mp cams,gps,games,maps,tv shows.music players and internet browsers now
no new device deserves a .7mp in 2010 lol

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 09:22 PM
Really? Then why didn't the media slaughter them for making it taller?


Taller doesn't change how it is held in your hand.

I'm also glad to see the swarms of moronic people who all completely believe the megapixel myth.

Note that I am in no way saying that this is a great camera, but to say that it will be as bad as a Razer's camera just based on the megapixel count alone? Come on guys. Get educated.

Old Blue
Sep 1, 2010, 09:24 PM
Taller doesn't change how it is held in your hand.

That's definitely NOT what she said...

pizz
Sep 1, 2010, 09:25 PM
That's definitely NOT what she said...
;)

classie787
Sep 1, 2010, 09:59 PM
Here's a shot resized to 960x640 (a bit smaller on the one end than the new iPod Touch's 960x720 resolution) of a snake I found last fall.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq131/swamp_ratter/Gapinghorizontaljpegresized300dpi.jpg

At this size it is very good quality IMO, but the thing is I've never seen a sub-megapixel camera deliver good image quality. I don't mind a small image file; I rarely use photos larger than this one I attached here. But if anyone thinks the iPod Touch's camera will even come close to this shot I think you're sorely mistaken!

That aside, a 0.7MP camera is better than none at all...and we can't really judge the IQ (image quality) until we start seeing some samples! I'm sure in a week or so there will be a mega-thread devoted to the rear camera stills. Can't wait!

tubemonkey
Sep 1, 2010, 10:07 PM
Thats why....

LMAO :D

tubemonkey
Sep 1, 2010, 10:14 PM
Taller doesn't change how it is held in your hand.


But it affects how it fits in your pocket. That aside, it was already super thin at 0.33". What's to gain by making it even thinner? It doesn't improve how it's held.

pizz
Sep 2, 2010, 01:26 AM
Here's a shot resized to 960x640 (a bit smaller on the one end than the new iPod Touch's 960x720 resolution) of a snake I found last fall.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq131/swamp_ratter/Gapinghorizontaljpegresized300dpi.jpg

At this size it is very good quality IMO, but the thing is I've never seen a sub-megapixel camera deliver good image quality. I don't mind a small image file; I rarely use photos larger than this one I attached here. But if anyone thinks the iPod Touch's camera will even come close to this shot I think you're sorely mistaken!

That aside, a 0.7MP camera is better than none at all...and we can't really judge the IQ (image quality) until we start seeing some samples! I'm sure in a week or so there will be a mega-thread devoted to the rear camera stills. Can't wait!

No way you'll get this quality image from the ipod's camera. at .7 megapixel you wont have the sharpness in the distance or clarity in the foreground. i could be wrong though. Maybe Steve pulled a magic lens out of his ass and somehow made this camera work. We'll just have to wait and see..

Code.Red
Sep 2, 2010, 01:38 AM
No way you'll get this quality image from the ipod's camera. at .7 megapixel you wont have the sharpness in the distance or clarity in the foreground. i could be wrong though. Maybe Steve pulled a magic lens out of his ass and somehow made this camera work. We'll just have to wait and see..

The picture isn't loading for me, but he said the resolution of the picture provided is 960x640. That's smaller than the resolution that the iPod touch will give you. 960x640 is 0.61 megapixels.

br0adband
Sep 2, 2010, 09:33 AM
Nobody actually knows what the hell camera is in the iPt 4G yet, except people at Apple and the people that made the camera I'd say. Geez, folks... it's a convenience feature, it's not something that'll turn you into the world's greatest photographer, good lord.

And there is absolutely nothing that stops Apple from actually doing some form of cropping the input when the camera is in still mode - it could be a proper 1280x720 .9MP camera in there, we simply do not know.

Nobody has one, nobody has torn it apart yet, Apple isn't saying what the exact megapixel rating or the camera resolution actually is, so... give it a week and somebody will know for sure.

It works, it's useful, get over it. :p

skiltrip
Sep 2, 2010, 09:45 AM
Nobody has one, nobody has torn it apart yet, Apple isn't saying what the exact megapixel rating or the camera resolution actually is, so... give it a week and somebody will know for sure.

It works, it's useful, get over it. :p

+1.

I'm really excited to have a utility camera on this new touch. I have a real camera for any real photography I want to do.

Code.Red
Sep 2, 2010, 10:11 AM
The iPod touch specs page (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html) tells us that it can take 720p video, and can take 720p stills using the back camera at 960x720. I'm not sure it gets more official than that.

MaCamZa
Sep 2, 2010, 10:14 AM
The iPod touch specs page (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html) tells us that it can take 720p video, and can take 720p stills using the back camera at 960x720. I'm not sure it gets more official than that.

How can u tell that it takes *720p* stills? 960x720 ain't 720p when i last checked. :confused:

PLUS, according to his image (below) by Apple, the preview picture on the iPod Touch on the right looks pretty good! It's gotta be the camera still setting, because it isn't set on the video setting as you see at the bottom of the screen where you can switch between video and still camera.

So if it is that quality, then SUCCESS, looks like a pretty nice SOLID upgrade from Apple and definatly worth the WONGA :)

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=249742&stc=1&d=1283440896

notjustjay
Sep 2, 2010, 01:57 PM
The camera on the iPod (and most cell phone cameras) are clearly meant for casual use. I have a 6 MP Nikon DSLR at home, and I have a *12* megapixel Canon point-and-shoot (that's 4000x3000 pixels).

And what do I do with most of the photos I take? Sure, I keep the full-size original for my own storage, but the ones I share end up getting resized to about 640x400 to share on Facebook, or at best 800x600 for sharing by email, Twitter, or on a personal gallery site.

There actually comes a point where you can have TOO MANY megapixels, especially when the sensors are so small.

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 2, 2010, 02:23 PM
The camera on the iPod (and most cell phone cameras) are clearly meant for casual use. I have a 6 MP Nikon DSLR at home, and I have a *12* megapixel Canon point-and-shoot (that's 4000x3000 pixels).

And what do I do with most of the photos I take? Sure, I keep the full-size original for my own storage, but the ones I share end up getting resized to about 640x400 to share on Facebook, or at best 800x600 for sharing by email, Twitter, or on a personal gallery site.

There actually comes a point where you can have TOO MANY megapixels, especially when the sensors are so small.

The point you quite obviously are missing, however, is that a resized 4Kx3K photo down to 640x480 will typically look remarkably better and more vibrant than a 640x480 picture taken at native resolution.

Take the snake photo above as the example. That photo clearly wasn't taken at that resolution, as is evidenced by its EXIF tags. The native resolution of that photo was over 4000x4000.

I don't disagree with you that for use on Facebook or any other small-format media sharing site, the toy-like optics of the iPod Touch are likely more than sufficient. But don't kid yourself....they are for producing something far less than casual pictures.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 2, 2010, 03:56 PM
Nice photo of the snake! As has been mentioned above, taking a DSLR image and lowering its resolution will not produce a comparable result to a .7mp sensor image. For starters the much smaller size of the sensor and its photosites will dramatically reduce the quality of the pixels and image produced.

Its true pixels aren't everything - but you do need enough of them to capture acceptable detail - anyone for a 4 pixel camera? We do have to throw lens quality, sensor design, and processor algorithms into the mix. Soon, we'll start to see some stills and everyone can decide for themselves, but the fact that Apple has not released any sample images, and that they pretty much buried the details back on the spec sheet is not encouraging.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 2, 2010, 04:16 PM
How can u tell that it takes *720p* stills? 960x720 ain't 720p when i last checked. :confused:

PLUS, according to his image (below) by Apple, the preview picture on the iPod Touch on the right looks pretty good! It's gotta be the camera still setting, because it isn't set on the video setting as you see at the bottom of the screen where you can switch between video and still camera.

So if it is that quality, then SUCCESS, looks like a pretty nice SOLID upgrade from Apple and definatly worth the WONGA :)

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=249742&stc=1&d=1283440896

You do realize these images are composited in Photoshop right? The image on the iPod screen area is not really on the screen, its comped in there so it looks better in print.

tablo13
Sep 2, 2010, 05:18 PM
.