Anybody has the same problem? (Photo clarity)

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by airfang, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. airfang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #1
    The same jpg file is shown differently in Safari and Photo, to be more precise:

    when I zoom in the image in Safari, after a while it becomes clear and explicit

    but when the same image is zoomed in in Photo, it just stays blurry

    anyone has experience the same thing?
     
  2. airfang thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
  3. Silverbird0000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #3
    I have noticed that too. I just figure the version of your pictures that iTunes uploads to the phone are so compressed that they get blurry up close.
     
  4. airfang thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #4
    man.. that's annoying! why the heck would iTunes compress photos before uploading them...
     
  5. tonywob, Dec 6, 2007
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  6. MarkW19 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    #6
    Yeah, most of the photos on my iPhone don't actually show more detail when I zoom in. Also, the pics have annoying compression/noise on them, sort of tiny little squiggles, noticeable mainly in dark colours. Has everyone else noticed that too?
     
  7. airfang thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #7
    are you SURE there IS one? :eek:
     
  8. alFR macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #8
    The photos you sync to the iPhone (according to iLounge) are all resized to 640 x 480. As far as I know there is no option to send the full-size photos over.
     
  9. tonywob, Dec 7, 2007
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  10. stevearm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #10
    What a stupid joke that is. Can't believe Apple could be so stupid as to do that.
     
  11. alFR macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #11
    Why? That is enough res to let you zoom in up to 200% on the phone screen and to display at 100% on a non-HD TV set. There's no disk mode on there (yet) and you're not exactly going to be editing photos on the phone, so why would you want higher res than that?
     
  12. stevearm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #12
    Because what's the point of zooming if there's no extra pixel information to zoom into? Apple make a big fuss about multitouch and 'pinching' in and out to zoom in, yet it serves no purpose because the images just get blurred when you zoom in with no added detail.

    I don't want to be able to edit photos on the iPhone (although most other phones these days have that ability), what I want is to be able to view and zoom into some higher res photos. Simple as that.

    No idea what Apple were thinking when they designed the photo application with that lack of basic functionality.
     
  13. memesmith macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #13
    There IS extra info: you can zoom it up to twice the size. Apple has designed this firbthe average consumer. The average consumer will have taken his photos composing the best s/he can with a camera. Then they will have cropped a few in iPhoto to make better compositions. Then selected the best if his/ her collection to put on the iPhone to take to friends and family. Apple have decided the average consumer vales capacity over detail. They have decided (quite rightly) that the average consumer is NOT Rik Dekkard, and seldome hasbtge need to zoom in an a reflection in a mirror in the background of a snap taken by a rengade replicant to see the snake scale clue.

    That said I would value a little less compression.
     
  14. airfang thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #14
    exactly!
     
  15. stevearm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #15
    Nice speech, but unfortunately, you're missing the point completely. Yes you can zoom in to 200% but can you not understand that the image uploaded to the iPhone is 320x480. Which means zooming in will give you ZERO extra detail, it just makes things blurry which is of no use. Especially as a means of showing of pinching zoom capabilities.
     
  16. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #16
    Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.1: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

    There has to be a way to change the amount of compression iTunes forces when transferring images. I hate how grainy images look on my iTouch!
     
  17. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.1: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

    Just to clarify, I don't even particularly care about the resolution (although as has already been pointed out, zooming is just a gimmick that accomplishes nothing at all, since the pics are limited to 480x320 anyway) ... I digress, increased resolution would be nice, but in the meantime I'd LOVE to see less compression in images transferred to the iPhone/iPod Touch. Gradients look like utter crap now because of the ridiculous amount of dithering applied by iTunes' compression algorithm.
     
  18. airfang thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #18
    The same image will look surprisingly good when zoomed in couple of times on Safari... how hilarious!
     
  19. memesmith macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #19
    don't insult me

    I'm not pissing the point completely. You'll note conclude by saying I could do with less compression. All I was doing was suggesting why.
     
  20. stevearm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #20
    ...what?
     
  21. TurboSC macrumors 65816

    TurboSC

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #21
    lol, yea all the gradient wallpapers I've tested had a few problems. Overall it's not too bad if you're not looking for it.
     
  22. alFR macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #22
    .

    Actually, it's 640 x 480 as stated here.
     
  23. Dave B macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Location:
    Santa Monica
    #23
    There is defo a option some where, as I remember it coming up when I synced to my iPod. It asked if I wanted the full size images as well.

    Dave
     
  24. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #24
    Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.1: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

    I think you guys are thinking about the old iPods (and the Classic/Nano, etc) ... That 'include full-size pictures' option was so that you could keep the original pictures on the iPod to access in disk mode. Since the iTouch doesn't have a disk mode (yet) that option isn't available (and doesn't actually affect how the iPod displays images anyway) ...
     
  25. Silverbird0000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #25
    Along the lines of this topic... Has anyone wondered why the wallpapers the iPhone came with look so fantastic, but when you upload wallpapers from say, Sciphone, they look good, but not near the quality of the wallpapers that came with the phone? How did Apple upload such good quality photos but we can not? And remember the demo of the iPhone when it was introduced when Steve Jobs zoomed the pic of the little boy? That photo looked great when zoomed... why won't ours look like that. I've not seen one persons iPhone that had great quality pics besides the ones that came with it. If Apple was able to upload those great wallpapers, there has to be a way for us to do it too.
     

Share This Page