John Papandriopoulos is an Australian.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...snappycam-photography-app-20140106-30cc3.html
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...snappycam-photography-app-20140106-30cc3.html
Those who use iOS 7 have known for ~6 months that Apple has ALREADY implemented the code into their camera app. My iPhone 4S magically takes 20 photos per second (trust me, you feel it as soon as you upgrade to iOS 7 and try taking a photo). There's no 'saving' wait time after taking multiple photos. Up until this acquisition was known about, this was just iOS 7 'magic' that nobody said much about. We just knew that iOS 7 significantly spend up the camera app...
This explains how Apple achieved these speed gains. They bought out a guy who made a clever new algorithm and used his algorithm in their own app.
Grab your brand new quad-core Android and compare the speed of taking burst photos to a 3 year old iPhone 4S which has been upgraded to iOS 7 (for free, promptly... rather than when/if the carrier allows the upgrade like some competing distribution platforms). You'll notice that the 4S is now faster at taking full-res burst photos...
Now THAT is customer friendly!! Free seamless upgrade (even for old phones) 6 months before people even knew that Apple had purchased the company.
All in all, what you've written is wrong. Apple did not add any kind of speedup to the 4S - and it most surely won't. They won't make an "old" model considerably better.
But they did... I don't think you understand what the technology does. Read previous posts in this thread.
Nobody is paying you Androids to spit out BS on Mac forums. Why bother?
Sorry, but I'm afraid you're absolutely wrong
lol quit talking to yourself... seriously why make such an arrogant statement then prove nothing?
I made a post about this on Monday here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1689860/
I've since been able to try out the app and actually, while it's impressive the speed it can take photos.
The actual resulting photos are not very good quality , more like very high ISO photos with lots of noise.
When I compared a burst photo from apples camera app with the exact same scene with this app, this app produced far more noise.
You guys both reporting your experience with an iPhone 5S?Does anyone else find that the current burst mode sucks? All my photos come out ghosted or blurry.
lol quit talking to yourself... seriously why make such an arrogant statement then prove nothing?
Actually my money is on Menneisyys2. I just tried on my 5S with built-in camera app and it only manages 10fps.
I very much doubt that my 2-year-old 4s is twice as fast as that. (and I'll have to dig it out of retirement and charge it to check - which I'm not about to do.)
lol quit talking to yourself... seriously why make such an arrogant statement then prove nothing?
Thanks for the test!
Thank you. For once you understand what confirmed (within the Apple news/rumour world) means. Please continue only using the word confirmed (regarding Apple directly) only when Apple speaks. MacRumors has gotten this wrong so so many times in the past, but here MacRumors got it right.UpdateUpdate: Apple has confirmed the acquisition to Kara Swisher at Re/code, the new home of the AllThingsD team.
I looked at the pictures, there were pretty obvious differences. The "totally black image" is of course not really totally black. You pretty much get the same result with any Picture saved in two different compression rates. It's a cheap trick and says nothing about the quality of compression.I disagree that there are visible differences. So would JPEGmini as they've scientifically proved it whilst creating their software. It's not Save For Web they're doing, it's something much more intelligent.
See an image of the differences between to photos here: http://apertureexpert.squarespace.c...-be-used-to-reduce-your-aperture-library.html
Hint: it's the totally black image
lol quit talking to yourself... seriously why make such an arrogant statement then prove nothing?
He proved everything, whereas you make insults with no facts and no guts to test it out.
But no need as I've just tested it on my 4s (numbers going backwards)
2862 2836 2812 2787 2767 2745 2718 2698 2659
Differences 26 24 25 20 etc
That's about 3 frames a second at best
You're going to have to highlight the differences because I don't see them. SorryI looked at the pictures, there were pretty obvious differences. The "totally black image" is of course not really totally black. You pretty much get the same result with any Picture saved in two different compression rates. It's a cheap trick and says nothing about the quality of compression.
And I don't say there is no improvement. I just say they're not impressive at all. Here's an comparison picture of the examples on the website, btw. Don't tell me there is no difference. The JPEGmini version is MUCH blockier.