A Look at iPhone 4's Camera Quality

[locust76]

I think 5MP-7MP is the sweet spot for a phone with limited storage. I have a Nikon D70 (6MP) dSLR which takes MUCH better photos than a good 12MP Canon IXUS and my Cybershot 7.2MP ultra-compact. I have no interest in upgrading the camera body either, despite the newer models taking much higher resolution pics.

Extra resolution is only worthwhile if you have a use for it all - if you're going to be doing lots of cropping, etc. Otherwise it really is nothing more than a waste of space and a way of adding more noise to the photo. Anyone actually leaving a 12MP phonecam at it's highest resolution setting - that seems pretty silly to me without a particular need for hyper-highres pics.

Extra resolution is only worthwhile if you have a big enough sensor for it all. Cramming 12 megapixels onto a sensor smaller than your thumbnail will get you horrible quality pictures with lots of grain and noise. (But the file sizes will be nice and big!) Take those same megapixels and spread them out across a sensor nearly the size of a single frame of 35mm film and the quality of the photo increases exponentially. That's not even taking into consideration the size/quality of the lens. (yeah, yeah, "objective")

Hell, with the size of these image sensors in phones (they are extremely tiny), even 3 megapixels is pushing the quality barrier. The backlit sensor in the iPhone 4 probably helps out significantly in this regard.

 

[kalsta]

Dude I have a Nikon d40 with a sensor probably around 10x larger then the iphone 4g so I am aware when pictures are doctored.

LOL! Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Like others have said, the camera itself could have processed the colours automatically. Not only that, but I could show you that exact same photo with a different color profile (a different way of visually interpreting the RGB numbers) and it would look completely different. That is not the same as 'doctoring' an image.

The only way any of us can realistically review the photographic capabilities of this phone is to get our hands on one.

 

[kalsta]

Hmm I agree that megapixels arent everything...

But everyone trying to console themselves "5mp is all you need"... I mean come on we ALL know you will be bouncing off the walls in couple years, when phones are at 12mp... and jobs upgrades to 8mp.

Gosh you're right, and just think how happy we'll be when they make it to 100 megapixels and uncompressed file sizes are about 300 MB per image.

The point people are trying to make is that the overall image quality is the real issue, not some number that looks good on a spec sheet. If in the future, better miniature optics and other technologies make the pixel count the weakest link (and we'll assume storage will be greatly increased in the future to accommodate larger file sizes), then and only then should Apple consider increasing it.

The people who don't understand this are the same people who don't understand Apple's design philosophy generally — it's not about having the biggest numbers on a spec sheet, or the longest list of features. It's about the overall experience.

Of course Apple have to pander to the market a bit if the market demands certain 'features' (for the sake of shareholders and their own jobs), but generally I believe Jobs and Co believe in creating products they want to use. There's a genuine passion that drives the creation of these devices, and IMO it translates into products that deliver a better overall experience.

 

[Freecity88]

Go Apple, Go Jobs
Beat Leica, Beat Nikon, Beat Canon

 

[steveLONDON]

What bitrate is the video you get using the camera though?

720P may be a HD-sized resolution bit it doesn't mean you get genuine HD bitrates and therefore video quality.

 

[LagunaSol]

What bitrate is the video you get using the camera though?

720P may be a HD-sized resolution bit it doesn't mean you get genuine HD bitrates and therefore video quality.

This will be interesting to see when reviewers get their hands on the iPhone 4. Though the much-vaunted (at least on this forum) HTC EVO has set the bar low, according to Gizmodo's review of the EVO:

The 720p video is disappointing in any light - it totally sucks. It's grainy, blotchy and just plain crap.

 

[DougB541]

This will be interesting to see when reviewers get their hands on the iPhone 4. Though the much-vaunted (at least on this forum) HTC EVO has set the bar low, according to Gizmodo's review of the EVO:

Evo HD recording is grainy as all hell. Like i don't know what they did wrong cause the normal pic quality is great.

Like i think my current Palm Pre does better video than the Evo in terms of clearness. May not be HD resolution but it looks better.

I do wonder if sub HD setting gets rid of the grainy quality.

Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T3yFiGUQsk

Palm Pre exmaple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHTYbYvsE3k

Like its fine for a cell camera, but it certainly doesn't get any rave reviews. But i would have rather sub HD video with better quality.

 

[ftaok]

Regarding video ...

Until someone gets a hold of an iPhone4 and posts info, this is all speculation. But I'll play the game and add my guesses.

1. I'm guessing that the bit-rate for 720/30p video is going to be around 5 Mbps. This would match the highend capabilities of a non-hacked AppleTV for h264. Incidentally, the aTV has bitrate maximums for MPEG-4 and M-JPEG. The specs say nothing about a max bitrate for h264, however. 5 Mbps is half the max bitrate of a FlipHD, so perhaps there will be a "fine" and "superfine" setting. The A4 chips should certainly handle 9 Mbps (speculation).

2. I'm guessing that there is no zoom capabilities when shooting video ... neither optical or digital. Anyone know if this is true with the 3GS?

3. There is no point 3.

 

[JAT]

For me the real innovation will come when somebody puts an OPTICAL zoom, on a camera phone... and that will be real quality.

How? Everyone wants phones thinner, not thick to have multiple pieces of glass for a zoom lens. And motors to move them. Get a real camera, save the phone for snapshots, as discussed above.

Also, what lenses are being used? I mean Apple only puts in the best stuff right...that gives users optimal quality?

But Isnt Carl Zeiss like the best? Why didnt they talk about their lense? I suppose its not about lense quality then 😕

A Zeiss lens may be better than no-name lenses, but a phone-level lens is still crap compared to a real one. I'm trying to save some cash for a nice $1000 lens for my camera.

The Nokia N93 has everything you want. Doesn't look like it would even fit in my shirt pocket. Go for it.

 

[bsamcash]

Hmm I agree that megapixels arent everything...

But everyone trying to console themselves "5mp is all you need"... I mean come on we ALL know you will be bouncing off the walls in couple years, when phones are at 12mp... and jobs upgrades to 8mp.

Then it will be 'oh wow so much clearer!'.

Also when they upgrade from LED to Xenon for better night shots it will be the same.

If MP dont matter why isnt the iphone stuck at 3mp? I mean thats 'fine for a phone' right?? Why did it just get a bump?

The reason it is 5mp, and not up to 8mp, is becuase thats where Apple draw the line... FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT ie. max profits. Its not because its 'Camera's done right'.

That is all.

For me the real innovation will come when somebody puts an OPTICAL zoom, on a camera phone... and that will be real quality.

Also, what lenses are being used? I mean Apple only puts in the best stuff right...that gives users optimal quality?

But Isnt Carl Zeiss like the best? Why didnt they talk about their lense? I suppose its not about lense quality then 😕

I have to disagree.

First, megapixels only matter if they are appropriate for the sensor size. If Apple does add an 8 MP camera in the next generation or so, I would hope it would be with a larger sensor. My DSLR has an APS-C size CMOS, and that perfectly matches its 12 MP max. So I don't think in the next few years we'll be seeing Apple stoop to those marketing tricks - they've already had to put up with enough crap about the cameras in the 2G and 3G. Moreover, after looking at the sample pictures at full size on Apples site, I think they matched the sensor with its 5 MP fairly well. There's very little noise, and it's comparable to low-end point and shoots in optimal conditions.

Second, Carl Zeiss lenses are far from best. Don't get me wrong, they're decent, but if Apple - for some odd reason - wanted to throw the best glass into a tiny phone, they'd be talking to the likes of Leica or Pentax.

 

[Jimmy James]

But everyone trying to console themselves "5mp is all you need"... I mean come on we ALL know you will be bouncing off the walls in couple years, when phones are at 12mp... and jobs upgrades to 8mp.

No.

I just bought a new camera with fewer pixels than its predecessor that had the same size sensor. I consider it an upgrade.

14 MP pocket cams with 1/2.3 sensors are ridiculous. 12 MP phone cameras are even more ridiculous. At least with current sensor technology.

 

[stingerman]

I think any reasonable person would agree that Apple is taking the right approach. There are a few exciting things about the integration of all these technologies. For example, the kind of video applications that can be created when you integrate the 6 axis core-motion API. I can already think of a few.

I'll be interested in knowing how deep the developers can access the video hardware as well.

 

[steveLONDON]

Anybody know the size of a high def (720p) video file (mb's per min)?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/heres-what-fake-hd-video-looks-like/962

Here's a chart of various HD bitrates. As you can tell, HD resolution is only half the story. Video can be at HD resolution and yet still be visually lower quality than standard def DVDs (5-8 MB/sec)

More: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/dont-believe-the-low-bit-rate-hd-lie/959

I'm guessing the iPhone will do 4MB/sec or less, the iTunes HD standard.

This compares to something high end like the Canon EOS 5D which has a HD video bitrate of 38MB/sec (ouch!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II

 

[John Dillinger]

Gosh you're right, and just think how happy we'll be when they make it to 100 megapixels and uncompressed file sizes are about 300 MB per image.

The point people are trying to make is that the overall image quality is the real issue, not some number that looks good on a spec sheet. If in the future, better miniature optics and other technologies make the pixel count the weakest link (and we'll assume storage will be greatly increased in the future to accommodate larger file sizes), then and only then should Apple consider increasing it.

The people who don't understand this are the same people who don't understand Apple's design philosophy generally — it's not about having the biggest numbers on a spec sheet, or the longest list of features. It's about the overall experience.

Of course Apple have to pander to the market a bit if the market demands certain 'features' (for the sake of shareholders and their own jobs), but generally I believe Jobs and Co believe in creating products they want to use. There's a genuine passion that drives the creation of these devices, and IMO it translates into products that deliver a better overall experience.

I said I get that megapixels arent everything right at the top of my post.

100 megapixels is such a ridiculous exaggeration. (Then again, if by the time we reach that capability, and we 10TB flash storage and it looks better than 5MP, and Apple's lagging, the point does stand).

There are however high quality cameras out there with more than 5 megapixels. But megapixels as with e.g. cpu's in pc's are only part of the overall picture, lens quality, processor quality and image stabilization technologies will be factors too.


Again, the Main point was, that these decisions are mainly driven by apple's bottom line. NOT what is 'best' for the consumer. Or driven by Apple's desire to wait until the tech can fit in their ever slimmer form factors.

The fact they make the software means they know they can compensate for the lesser specs with overall polish, but dont tell me its because they're doing what is 'best'for the experience. That is their succesfull marketing.

Im sure.. no im POSITIVE there were many people excusing the lack of 3G, flash etc. for similar reasons... "oh flashes suck on a phone.. they make no difference... you cant take good pics with a camera phone etc."

What is the excuse for LED vs. Xenon? Is that únncessary too? Does that tech not make a difference? How about recognised high quality lenses? No Apple will make you wait until they can get it for cheaper, and it will be 'revolutionary'.

When HTC puts out a phone with multiple face recognition tech- which is recognised to improve focus and exposure levels- that too will be deemed unneccesary until Apple puts it in. Free Google maps navigation? Same thing. etc. etc.

The line of reasoning is just a little too obvious these days.

 

[John Dillinger]

I have to disagree.

First, megapixels only matter if they are appropriate for the sensor size. If Apple does add an 8 MP camera in the next generation or so, I would hope it would be with a larger sensor. My DSLR has an APS-C size CMOS, and that perfectly matches its 12 MP max. So I don't think in the next few years we'll be seeing Apple stoop to those marketing tricks - they've already had to put up with enough crap about the cameras in the 2G and 3G. Moreover, after looking at the sample pictures at full size on Apples site, I think they matched the sensor with its 5 MP fairly well. There's very little noise, and it's comparable to low-end point and shoots in optimal conditions.

Second, Carl Zeiss lenses are far from best. Don't get me wrong, they're decent, but if Apple - for some odd reason - wanted to throw the best glass into a tiny phone, they'd be talking to the likes of Leica or Pentax.

Carl Zeiss appear to be the best for camera phones, better than no-name lenses I'm guessing? Maybe theyre the only quality makers in this space. Havent heard of Pentax on phone..

I do get that megapixels arent everything, honestly I do! Regardless, Apple will be bumping the megapixel spec, its guaranteed and people will be not be slating Apple for it for going beyond what they need. Is a display that's finer/packing more PPI than the eye can see necessary ie. 'retina' display?

If all things scale accordingly ie. improve the light sensors, post processing etc., the megapixels will help to a point.

 

[stingerman]

Again, the Main point was, that these decisions are mainly driven by apple's bottom line. NOT what is 'best' for the consumer. Or driven by Apple's desire to wait until the tech can fit in their ever slimmer form factors.

'Driven by bottom line' is too general. Over time and in the end everything comes down to a sustainable business model. Apple chose to educate their consumers instead of simply marketing more and more megapixels. As it is, 5mp is good for a 9"X12" high resolution color print that you are going to be viewing up close and personal. I think that takes care of the use case formost consumers who will never do anything more than view the pictures on their iphone, SMS, flikr, facebook or email. Even if they printed it at a professional shop, the most popular print size is 5X7. So there is plenty of room for cropping etc.

The real problem in the industry is that many cameras are interpolating pixels. Producing two image pixels for each sensor pixel, etc. So a similar sensor in a point and shoot will advertise as 10.2 MP camera. Now, the sensor is still the same, its not the 10.2 mp that give you the better picture, but rather the bigger and better lenses, optical zooming etc.

If Apple is using the Sony sensor, than they are advertising the effective resolution of the sensor. Whereas even Sony has advertised the same sensor as 10.2 MP in their point and shoots.

 

[John Dillinger]

How? Everyone wants phones thinner, not thick to have multiple pieces of glass for a zoom lens. And motors to move them. Get a real camera, save the phone for snapshots, as discussed above.


A Zeiss lens may be better than no-name lenses, but a phone-level lens is still crap compared to a real one. I'm trying to save some cash for a nice $1000 lens for my camera.

The Nokia N93 has everything you want. Doesn't look like it would even fit in my shirt pocket. Go for it.

Ha.

No I mean the ones smart enough to design an optical zoom to fit a phone as slim as nexus one/iphone 4.. that wouldnt require the phone to be as thick as an N93... that that would be some game changing innovation to me.

And so I mention carl zeiss, and xenon flash as premium phone tech= everything I want in a phone= I should get N93 😱

I dont actually care that much about cameras on my phone... xenon flash yes as theyre fantastic in clubs, loved my old k800 for that.

But no the as yet unnannounced Nexus 2 with Dualcore snapdragon and froyo/gingerbread with OTA music streaming sounds pretty close to everything I want for the mo, but they may cheap out with LED flash too, so maybe not quite everything.

 

[John Dillinger]

'Driven by bottom line' is too general. Over time and in the end everything comes down to a sustainable business model. Apple chose to educate their consumers instead of simply marketing more and more megapixels. As it is, 5mp is good for a 9"X12" high resolution color print that you are going to be viewing up close and personal. I think that takes care of the use case formost consumers who will never do anything more than view the pictures on their iphone, SMS, flikr, facebook or email. Even if they printed it at a professional shop, the most popular print size is 5X7. So there is plenty of room for cropping etc.

The real problem in the industry is that many cameras are interpolating pixels. Producing two image pixels for each sensor pixel, etc. So a similar sensor in a point and shoot will advertise as 10.2 MP camera. Now, the sensor is still the same, its not the 10.2 mp that give you the better picture, but rather the bigger and better lenses, optical zooming etc.

If Apple is using the Sony sensor, than they are advertising the effective resolution of the sensor. Whereas even Sony has advertised the same sensor as 10.2 MP in their point and shoots.

Lol yes 'educate' their consumers to enable Apple to have the highest profit margins in the PC industry and do it with a smile. It's obvious Apple are great at business. My point this whole discussion.

Be good little puppets and hand that cash over for marketing like "facetime", which does sound sexier than video call. But its just a video call.

 

[bsamcash]

Ha.

No I mean the ones smart enough to design an optical zoom to fit a phone as slim as nexus one/iphone 4.. that wouldnt require the phone to be as thick as an N93... that that would be some game changing innovation to me.

And so I mention carl zeiss, and xenon flash as premium phone tech= everything I want in a phone= I should get N93 😱

I dont actually care that much about cameras on my phone... xenon flash yes as theyre fantastic in clubs, loved my old k800 for that.

But no the as yet unnannounced Nexus 2 with Dualcore snapdragon and froyo/gingerbread with OTA music streaming sounds pretty close to everything I want for the mo, but they may cheap out with LED flash too, so maybe not quite everything.

Fitting an optical zoom in a body that small and keeping it at an affordable price would be quite a feat. However, physics still forces barrel and pincushion distortion which I don't think the general public would understand. So Apple would then have to try to explain the tech, and program a compensation in either the jpeg compression in the phone, or in iPhoto as post. This removes both the quality, and the ease of use Apple is going for.

As for a Xenon flash, I agree. It would be pretty cool to have that in a phone for clubs and stuff. But the advantages a bright LED has is (1) much less power to charge, saving battery life, (2) lag-less charge for bursting so consumers to end up confused why it's taking so long for the next shot, and (3) extremely compact so they can make it as thin as possible. So LED might be the smarter move for Apple's market.

And now I has a question. What the heck is the point of a dual core processor in a phone? Most desktop applications and system calls still don't take advantage of multiple cores.

 

[stingerman]

Lol yes 'educate' their consumers to enable Apple to have the highest profit margins in the PC industry and do it with a smile. It's obvious Apple are great at business. My point this whole discussion.

Be good little puppets and hand that cash over for marketing like "facetime", which does sound sexier than video call. But its just a video call.

Apple having the highest margins in the industry is a sign of their success not a negative thing as you infer. To get those level of margins requires a lot of discipline throughout the organization and successful products.

Marketing like "facetime" is by definition what marketing is. Would you rather they not market their products? There is nothing new under the sun, but it's the implementation that will win the day. Apple's implementation of video calling is what makes facetime so unique. When millions of people have an iPhone 4 in a couple of months, facetime will be a huge hit not only here in the US but also internationally.

Good for Apple, good for their innovative team and good for their excellent marketing. Can't wait to get one.

 

[stingerman]

And now I has a question. What the heck is the point of a dual core processor in a phone? Most desktop applications and system calls still don't take advantage of multiple cores.

Apple's underlying OS and the frameworks that are exposed to the developers leverage multiple cores already. Many functions involving the processing of video/images, audio, positioning, etc can be executed faster in direct relation to the number of cores and processing units available. Including each shaders on the gpu.

 

[bsamcash]

Apple's underlying OS and the frameworks that are exposed to the developers leverage multiple cores already. Many functions involving the processing of video/images, audio, positioning, etc can be executed faster in direct relation to the number of cores and processing units available. Including each shaders on the gpu.

I didn't say there was no point in a desktop. But a phone? Really? I think it's a little early, and probably mostly a marketing thing. I really don't expect any serious developers to take the extra effort to write their processes to take advantage of multiple cores in a phone. Unless maybe the entire industry decides to use multiple cores in the next two years.

 

[stingerman]

I didn't say there was no point in a desktop. But a phone? Really? I think it's a little early, and probably mostly a marketing thing. I really don't expect any serious developers to take the extra effort to write their processes to take advantage of multiple cores in a phone. Unless maybe the entire industry decides to use multiple cores in the next two years.

I was referring to the phone. iOS can handle it very well and the gpu in the iphone 4 already gives developers multiple processors to use.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I was upset the new iPhone camera did not have a 35mm full frame sensor that was nitrogen cooled. Please Mr. Jobs, stop selling us junk.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I didn't say there was no point in a desktop. But a phone? Really? I think it's a little early, and probably mostly a marketing thing. I really don't expect any serious developers to take the extra effort to write their processes to take advantage of multiple cores in a phone. Unless maybe the entire industry decides to use multiple cores in the next two years.

If you are multitasking, each app could run on a different core. This would be good for non multi-threaded apps. As it is, many if not most apps are multi-threaded.