iPhone 6 Camera May Feature Electronic Image Stabilization, Bigger Pixel Size

[Northgrove]

Increasing the pixel size is exactly the right thing to do! While all the marketing gurus are counting their megapixels, which lead to increasingly worse images with more noise, scaling up the pixels adds a lot to the image quality. More light, less noise.
Also read this website, which suggests that 6 megapixels are enough for most photographers and more megapixels only worsens the image: http://6mpixel.org/en/

Yes, going above 6 MP is really only good for cropping photos for a "fake zoom" for most users.

For people thinking 6 MP seems low, it's beyond what can be shown by a Retina display (6 MP = 3000x2000; 15" Retina display = 2880x1800)! No one ever complained that a Retina display was fuzzy, and few need larger prints than 15". It's beyond Retina resolution beyond photo album size.

Here's the trend for most popular screen resolutions on the web: (Source: StatCounter)

2011: 1024x768. 0.8 MP.
2012: 1366x768. 1.0 MP
2013: 1366x768. 1.0 MP
2014: 1366x768. 1.0 MP

We're moving very slowly forward if it's photos aimed for the web and not print. I wonder how many smartphone users even print their photos, much less at poster size? Even if you want some leeway and good quality for a typical 24" display, you'd still only be getting at 2-3 MP.

DSLR's tend to have 12-18 MP (full frame ones even more) but that's in order to let the photographer print just that: Posters. If you use an iPhone to print a poster, you're simply using the wrong tool for the job since optics will at that point play a MUCH greater role than the resolution of the camera. The lens element is still miniscule, as well as the gathered light. I mean... This is why larger cameras exist. It's a consequence of a larger sensor, which in turn will demand larger lens elements.

 

[iPad Air]

That makes sense. As it seems like it would be very difficult to fit the optical stabilization tech into such a small lense...thus you have to make electronic. That will be an impressive camera no doubt.

 

[HiRez]

IS will help a lot, I get a lot of motion-blurred shots in low light especially. Of course IS will not help when whatever you're shooting is moving (instead of the phone).

 

[drewu]

I know this is the wrong place to say this, but the quality of the camera on the iPhone is pretty bad. Especially when compared to Samsung (my cousin has one, so only know about that brand. But I hear others are much better too).

It is the one thing that let's my iPhone down for me.

 

[AstronomyiPhone]

At times like this, you appreciate MacRumors: the 9to5Mac article on this same story uses a bunch of loaded language to enrage the readers. It poses thinness against OIS and has Apple choosing thinness, which brings all the hate comments (and pageviews).

 

[cdmoore74]

I've never had good results with EIS especially in dim lit situations. Below is from http://voices.yahoo.com/the-difference-between-optical-image-stabilization-2662013.html

Optical Image Stabilization

Originally developed by Canon and used in both camcorders and digital cameras, optical image stabilization (OIS) is a feature that is built into the lens of the camcorder, and it effectively minimizes vibrations and shakiness while filming. The OIS feature is built into the lens of the camcorder rather than the camcorder itself, and it effectively reduces camcorder-shake without sacrificing video quality. It's effective in low-light or brightly-lit conditions, and it's an especially useful feature if you plan to shoot lots of long-range video.

Advantages:

Reduces shaky, jittery video without sacrificing video quality

Works well in low-light

Great for long-range shooting

Disadvantages:

Camcorders with OIS are typically bigger and heavier in size

OIS is a more expensive technology than EIS

Battery power drains quicker with this feature

Electronic Image Stabilization

Electronic image stabilization (EIS) differs from OIS in how it works to steady the camcorder video, but it basically serves the same purpose - reducing camcorder-shake. Camcorders with the EIS feature use a complicated algorithm to compare one frame's contrast and pixel location to the next frame. If there is a major discrepancy between the two frames, the camcorder will automatically compensate for the difference and ultimately reduce the amount of camcorder-shake in the video. EIS works well in most cases, but it varies in effectiveness depending upon the camcorder model and manufacturer.

Advantages:

EIS camcorders are usually more affordable than OIS models

Camcorder with built-in EIS are often times smaller and lighter than OIS models

If you film in brightly-lit areas, EIS works almost as effectively as OIS

Disadvantages:

EIS isn't always 100% accurate, so it may affect the video quality

Works poorly in dimly-lit areas (i.e., concerts, night shooting, indoors)

Doesn't work as well as OIS when at full-zoom (especially when using digital zoom)

 

[Premium1]

Good to see the improvements, still not sure why it has to be thinner. Put a big battery in so I don't have to charge it multiple times a day when you actually use it.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

Bigger pixels are very welcome, raw files would be great (but never happen). Not sure if I like the idea of software-IS. Nothing beats the physical/optical path of light. Software makes it only worst. Like JPG artefacts during compression. Or digital zoom (something I avoid).

Big pixel and (optional) raw files, that would make my day. Until then I stay with my Canon

 

[Rogifan]

At times like this, you appreciate MacRumors: the 9to5Mac article on this same story uses a bunch of loaded language to enrage the readers. It poses thinness against OIS and has Apple choosing thinness, which brings all the hate comments (and pageviews).

Kind of surprised they didn't do that here too. At this point all we have are sketchy rumors or guesses from 'analysts' based on sketchy rumors. Are we really supposed to believe that Apple wanted OIS in the next phone but the design team said no because it wouldn't allow for a thinner phone? That's ridiculous. The phone will be as thin as is allowed based on the feature requirements.

----------

I know this is the wrong place to say this, but the quality of the camera on the iPhone is pretty bad. Especially when compared to Samsung (my cousin has one, so only know about that brand. But I hear others are much better too).

It is the one thing that let's my iPhone down for me.

Which iPhone? I think the 5S camera is quite good. Much better than the 5.

 

[D-Dave]

if they keep 8-9MP and move to 1.75um pixels this means (if my quick math is right) that they move to a 1/2.3" sensor. If they can pull this off (the last rumors said something about a 6.5mm thin iPhone) it would be extremely impressive and probably near the limits of physics

Well, the limits of physics (or in this case more specificaly optics) dictate that when you enlarge the sensor and keep the focal length the field of view increases. So IF the new sensor is bigger and they do not increase the focal length (and thus the thickness, at least where the lens is) the field of view will get wider...not sure if this will still be beneficial.

The equivalent focal length already dropped from 31mm (iPhone 5) to 29.7mm (iPhone 5S) so full frame portraits are already prone to distorted proportions...it will be interesting to see what apple will deliver, untill I see the final result I dare not make any judgement.

 

[Wuiffi]

So I did a bit of math (hope it's right). The rest are speculations from different rumors (note, I am no optical engineer or something like that, just into photography and maths - so it's possible that there are some mistakes in my calculation):

The iPhone 5 featured an IMX145 derivate with the dimensions: 8.0 mm x 8.7 mm x 5.2 mm

So the camera module was 5.2mm thick, the focal length was 4.1mm - meaning 31mm (35mm equivalent), while the phone was 7.6mm thick

According to chipworks the iPhone 5s camera is also an IMX145 derivate. This time the camera module was 5.6mm thick, focal length was 4.12mm - 29.7mm (35mm eq.), phone thickness stayed at 7.6mm (Up until now Apple stayed around a 30mm focal lengh [35mm eq.])

When they move to 1.75µm pixels up from 1.5µm now, while staying with 8-9MP this would mean a 1/2.3" sensor, increased from 1/3" in the iPhone 5s (and 1/3.2" in the iPhone 5). Going with an EIS, I guess that a 9MP sensor would be necessary to get a 8MP image due to how the stabilization works.

Going with a 1/2.3" sensor and staying with ~30mm (eq.) focal length this would mean, that the focal length of the new iPhone would have to be around 5.2mm.
I have no idea how big the camera module exactly would have to be, but I guess (looking at the iPhone 5 and 5s numbers) that it would have to be around 6-6.5mm.

This would not work with the speculated 6.5mm thin iPhone (Link

There are some possibilities here:
1. the focal length is much below 30mm probably around 20-23mm eq. (that would be 3.5-4mm focal length with a 1/2.3" sensor)
2. the pixel-size is increased but not the sensor size. This would mean that the Megapixel count is decreased. I find this extremely unlikely, because it seems Apple, with its 8MP cameras, has found a good "middle path" between low-light performance and resolution.
3. Either the camera or the phone thickness rumor are wrong
4. My math, optical or photographical knowledge is wrong

----------

...

I think we just had the same thought ^^

 

[malexandria]

Torn

I can finally upgrade my irritating 4S next month and I really don't want the 5S. I want the iPhone 6, but at this rate it probably won't be out until the fall and it'll probably be next Jan or February before I can get one without jumping through a million hoops. As much as I say I want to go with Android next time - I love the hardware, I actually have several unactivated Android Phones and a Nexus 7 and I just don't like the eco-system. Everything is just "harder." But then again iOS7 made everything "harder" and I find iOS7 buggy as hell.

 

[thekeyring]

Protruding cameras look pants, if you need a certain thickness for the camera then make the whole phone that thick

Exactly and use the rest of the space to fit in a bigger battery.

 

[Sasparilla]

How about better low-light performance?

That's this thing here in the article:

"Xu suggests that the iPhone 6's camera will also boast a larger pixel size of 1.75 um compared to the 1.5 um pixel size of the iPhone 5s' camera, which would result in a higher picture quality as more light can be taken in."

Bigger sensor used to increase pixel size increases light hitting the sensor and gives better low light performance (this is why DSLR's always had such great low light performance because of their huge sensors with huge pixel sizes), although the 5s made a significant leap in low light performance, more is always better.

I'll be bummed if they go for electronic image stabilization - at least on camera's, it never measures up to physical image sensor stabilization in real world performance. (i.e. it'd be better to have electronic image stabilization than not having anything, but physical image sensor stabilization would be much better to have - give me a little more physical thickness and physical image sensor stabilization any day...). Nokia are the only people I know of in phone land using physical image stabilization so far. We'll have to wait and see what Apple delivers.

 

[iAshley]

I would love to see a better camera, but also controls that match the better performance, i.e., ISO, shutter speed, WB, f-stop. I doubt it, because Apple's ethos is not about giving controls to the user but making it easier (but less flexible)

I agree, I think its great apple whats things to be simple so anyone can pick up and use it, it how about an advanced setting in the settings app that gives us the option if we want it.

 

[Wuiffi]

give me a little more physical thickness and physical image sensor stabilization any day...). Nokia are the only people I know of in phone land using physical image stabilization so far. We'll have to wait and see what Apple delivers.

bigger sensor size, OIS - resulting in a thicker (or as thick as the current iPhone 5S) device. Then "fill the rest up" with battery, would be my ideal iPhone.

 

[Snookerman]

Can someone explain this "bigger pixels" thing? I understand it's better, but I just can't visualise why. Thanks!

 

[chimpboy74]

The photographer that took the pictures at my wedding had a cannon with either 5 or 6 MP. I was surprised and asked him about it, and he said that the quality was fantastic because the CMOS chip was large enough to pull in the light and provide great depth. Adding more pixels without increasing the chip size would actually make it worse. The pictures turned out fantastic.

I understand that Apple also uses a CMOS chip and their focus (no pun intended) is on increasing quality through increasing pixel size. Unfortunately, quality can only be significantly improved if they increase the size. So although they will continue to tweak, I think they are reaching the limits of what they can do given the obsession with thinness. They can't grow the chip because then they woud need to move the lens out which woud require a thicker phone. So beyond this pixel size increase, it looks like they are hoping to use the software to clean the picture up and provide additional quality improvements.

Looking Forward to seeing what they come up with, but I am skeptical that they can do anything amazing at this point given the physical constraints. I am thinking mostly minor tweaks and improvements, nothing major.

I have a 6MP DSLR that's way better than. Some friends higher mp cameras. I don't know much about photography but I have learned that higher MP doesn't mean squat after a certain point.

 

[jakeOSX]

How about more APIs for manual control of the camera such as f-stop?

the f-stop on the iphone is fixed as the lens has no moving parts. you would be able to control shutter and ISO only.

you can sorta get that with apps like Camera+. It will display those items, and you can lock exposure.

there is an app called 'slow shutter' which gives more control over shutter speed, but still doesn't really let you set it (or at least didn't when i used it a while ago)

 

[pmz]

Apple is expected to launch the iPhone 6 this fall in two different sizes of 4.7-inches and 5.5-inches. The smaller 4.7-inch version of the iPhone 6 will likely ship first, while the larger 5.5-inch version is estimated to ship later due to challenges with the device....

So far, aside from claims, there have been no legitimate rumors or leaks to indicate a 5.5" device has ever been in the running.

Furthermore, how can anyone with any degree of sincerity actually believe the bold statement above?

We've heard this nonsense before, and thats what it is...nonsense. I can dig up 50 Macrumors articles from late 2010/early2011 alleging that, while the iPad 2 is expected without a Retina display, no need to worry, because the Retina model is going ship 6 months later...its delayed slightly due to manufacturing......

And this is in relation to one of Apple's most significant marketing devices....the iPhone.

Can you just imagine? Had Apple taken the stage last year and unveiled the 5s as they did....went on sale in Sept....then a few months later (what, in the middle of Decemeber? LMAO)...unveiled the 5sx!!! Same device but .7" larger!

Sorry but no. Its not happening, and if you had any clue whatsoever...you would forget it.

 

[Wuiffi]

Can someone explain this "bigger pixels" thing? I understand it's better, but I just can't visualise why. Thanks!

bigger pixels are hit by more light (more photons). So this is important, when in low light scenarios.

In general there are 3 options:
1. a bigger pixel gets more light
2. longer exposure gives you more light, but if you move, the image is gone
3. increase the signal from the sensor (ISO). This gives you noise.

EDIT: To make it easier to visualize think of like this:

The light (photons) need to get in one box (you throw stuff at the board). Now if each box is bigger, it is much easier to get it in.

 

[dvoros]

new iPhone 6

Apple should introduce both size phones at the WWDC this summer and stop fooling around.

 

[JHankwitz]

Xu suggests that the iPhone 6's camera will also boast a larger pixel size of 1.75 um compared to the 1.5 um pixel size of the iPhone 5s' camera, which would result in a higher picture quality as more light can be taken in.

iPhone 6 images, including renders posted by Japanese magazine MacFan last month, have depicted the iPhone 6 with a protruding camera.

In addition to a larger display and an improved camera, both models of the iPhone 6 are expected to include a thinner, bezel-free design, faster A8 processor, and Touch ID fingerprint sensor.

Due to the basic laws of physics, larger pixel size and thinner body would mandate a decrease in the number of pixels unless the camera lens significantly protruded or the lens was ultra wide angle. There's no way I would buy an iPhone with a protruding lens. It would get caught up in and make unsightly bulges in my pockets.

 

[keterboy]

I wish we'll have night-shot one day, the black-n-white infra red that picks up every light, i used to have a cam corder like that once. Imagine this inside your iphone

 

[nwcs]

I have a 6MP DSLR that's way better than. Some friends higher mp cameras. I don't know much about photography but I have learned that higher MP doesn't mean squat after a certain point.

To some extent that is true. What higher megapixels get is more resolution. And, all other things equal, a higher megapixel count will result in a better sampling of the image in front of you. And when you downsize to a comparable image from, say, a 6 MP camera the quality difference will certainly be there. But this also depends upon the quality of said pixels. A Nikon D800 at 36mp will outclass any 6MP camera out there, especially if you downsample the files to the same resolution (or upsample the 6 to a 36mp image).

And when you consider that most sensors use a Bayer array each pixel is not RGB but rather R, G, or B in a pattern and the algorithms require some interpolation to fill in the missing pieces. So more sampling of data (higher mp) can lead to better color when downsampled. Not to mention that downsampling also allows for more noise reduction.

What I'd love to see in an iPhone 6 is a small zoom capability. Something with a range of like 35mm-50mm (in 35mm film terms). 1/2.3" would be very good, too, but both are very unlikely.

----------

I wish we'll have night-shot one day, the black-n-white infra red that picks up every light, i used to have a cam corder like that once. Imagine this inside your iphone

The problem is that sensors use a hot mirror to keep infrared energy from hitting the sensor. IR energy causes some bleed in the sensor and creates false color, especially in red areas. Now, if they removed the hot mirror and put a sliding 720nm filter and "normal range" filter over the lens that would be awesome. The other thing that would be required is the ability to set the white balance. The K value is usually very low in infrared, like 2200K.