PDA

View Full Version : Is Apple going to upgrade the built-in iSight?



justin042
May 28, 2009, 10:07 PM
I know the current built-in iSight is 1.3MP, so is Apple ever going to upgrade the iSight to possibly 2MP, 3.2MP, or maybe even 5MP?


NT1440
May 28, 2009, 10:08 PM
I know the current built-in iSight is 1.3MP, so is Apple ever going to upgrade the iSight to possibly 2MP, 3.2MP, or maybe even 5MP?

No.

Live streaming doesn't use anywhere close to the full resolution anyway.
alphaod
May 28, 2009, 10:08 PM
I know the current built-in iSight is 1.3MP, so is Apple ever going to upgrade the iSight to possibly 2MP, 3.2MP, or maybe even 5MP?

I trust you know how big the iSight is? Good, then you should know the sensor is even smaller, so even if it's 10 MP, it's all BS.
Finlandboy
May 28, 2009, 10:09 PM
i have no clue....but sounds like a good idea to me, lol, bc most of my friends' macbooks take fuzzy pics with the isight camera...
ziggyonice
May 28, 2009, 10:11 PM
I know the current built-in iSight is 1.3MP, so is Apple ever going to upgrade the iSight to possibly 2MP, 3.2MP, or maybe even 5MP?

I don't think they'd update the iSight because most people would use it for video chatting at the most. Higher quality cameras are needed in things like the iPhone, since more people are likely to have that with them to snap a photo. I can't imagine going to the beach, only to whip out my MBP, aim at my friends and I, and say "Cheese!" I can, on the other hand, see that happening with an iPhone.
NewMacbookPlz
May 28, 2009, 11:38 PM
I trust you know how big the iSight is? Good, then you should know the sensor is even smaller, so even if it's 10 MP, it's all BS.

True that. Most people don't realize how big a part sensor size plays in picture quality. This is precisely why many digital cameras that are out now, spec'd at 12MP produce noisy images even at ISO 400. The sensors are just too small to take that many pixels without high noise issues.
southerndoc
May 31, 2009, 03:59 AM
People use iSights for various things. Some people use them for video blogs, so better resolution would be useful.
Richard1028
May 31, 2009, 11:07 AM
This is precisely why many digital cameras that are out now, spec'd at 12MP produce noisy images even at ISO 400. The sensors are just too small to take that many pixels without high noise issues.Total bunk. You just need good glass. People expect magic out of these sensors when using a $100 lens - it can't be done.
NewMacbookPlz
May 31, 2009, 12:34 PM
Total bunk. You just need good glass. People expect magic out of these sensors when using a $100 lens - it can't be done.

The glass is massive part of it, but sensor size is a big deal as well. That's why an aps-c/full-frame sensor type camera (DSLR) with cheap glass looks light-years better than a point-and-shoot.
miles01110
May 31, 2009, 02:03 PM
The glass is massive part of it, but sensor size is a big deal as well. That's why an aps-c/full-frame sensor type camera (DSLR) with cheap glass looks light-years better than a point-and-shoot.

Light-years are a measure of comparison for image quality? :confused::confused::confused:
NewMacbookPlz
May 31, 2009, 06:16 PM
Light-years are a measure of comparison for image quality? :confused::confused::confused:

If you really want to nit-pick about units, no. :p
Tallest Skil
May 31, 2009, 06:19 PM
If you really want to nit-pick about units, no. :p

They were used erroneously as a unit of time in A New Hope (parsecs, but they're 3.26 light-years each, so it's close), though the Kessel Run may have been through treacherous space that normally required a longer route to traverse the distance.

...

Sorry. :D
Zazoh
May 31, 2009, 07:36 PM
The glass is massive part of it, but sensor size is a big deal as well. That's why an aps-c/full-frame sensor type camera (DSLR) with cheap glass looks light-years better than a point-and-shoot.

+1 in fact, as a test, which I have done on different sensor sizes, the larger sensor wins, glass being equal.
NewMacbookPlz
May 31, 2009, 08:45 PM
They were used erroneously as a unit of time in A New Hope (parsecs, but they're 3.26 light-years each, so it's close), though the Kessel Run may have been through treacherous space that normally required a longer route to traverse the distance.

...

Sorry. :D

Hahahahaha...awesome

I attempted to write a concise paragraph showing why you could mathematically do that, but it came out too convoluted :mad: I guess that's why I do biochemistry and not physics as a career :p