That was something that was lost on me. OTOH, it was moreso that I was focusing on the people's faces, and didn't really notice the backgrounds, at all, so does that still count?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Continues Promoting iPhone 7 Plus Portrait Mode With Two New Videos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HTC M8 with that feature was way too early, that why it was flop. This again shows one of the best part about Apple, they know when it's right time to offer something, the tech now is good enough to get good results.
This is like thinking matrix, they waited years to make the movie to look as good as it looked when it came. They could have made it years earlier and it could have looked very bad, but they waited to get certain level and that movie still looks pretty damn good.
Last edited:
Which one? For the 2nd one yes,
For the 1st video I could see it both ways
Who said narcissism was dead? This will give it the boost it needs! Oh. Wait hang on. No. Peacock preening, pouting and pointless (Facebook) posts are de rigeur ... this is what they want! Come on! Get snapping! Pass me my Apple Pay Jacket someone - I've heard all I need .....
Why only with a "high-end DSLR"?
Do you mean a "camera" with a sensor bigger than a phone with a telephone lens?
The mirror-box of a DSLR has no impact on the depth of field!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
These videos are starting to tweak the simple life any company can say "its better"
u use a slight blurry background for allot of stuff..... but showing of a a person standing still is not really a "Wow factor" it may be for iPhone, but that's Apple looking at the smaller things.
I don't believe people shoot like that. And if they did, it's only because the iPhone doesn't have adjustable camera type ISO features, Apple is rubbing our noses in it.
It's good photos, but i'm not gonna be picky.
u use a slight blurry background for allot of stuff..... but showing of a a person standing still is not really a "Wow factor" it may be for iPhone, but that's Apple looking at the smaller things.
I don't believe people shoot like that. And if they did, it's only because the iPhone doesn't have adjustable camera type ISO features, Apple is rubbing our noses in it.
It's good photos, but i'm not gonna be picky.
For those of you who don't know, "Wide Color Motion Bikini Videos" became a top searched-for keyword on the iOS App Store, (starting) just yesterday ... the videos released today by Apple, are very-likely a response to that.
The camera I have with the shallowest depth of field even with a "normal" lens(bordering on razor thin at pretty much anything less than infinity, especially wide open) is neither digital nor is it an SLR
. Granted I can also do fun things with DOF on it like alter the plan of sharp focus such that it's not parallel to the film/sensor as in a conventional camera. I'd be interested in know how Apple gets the shallow DOF, especially with the comments about it only being useful "outdoors" and "with a lot of light." When I'm taking portraits outdoors, I'm often popping in slow film or cranking the ISO on my DSLR way down and hunting for shade so that I can use the largest possible aperture. In 35mm, even a film like Portra 160 can cause issues on a bright day, although going to medium format will cut a lot of DOF for the same aperture and framing(with a lens giving the same angle of view, or a focal length ~60% longer). Phone cameras have always fought the laws of optics in this regard due to their small sensors and consequently very short focal lengths.
The camera I have with the shallowest depth of field even with a "normal" lens(bordering on razor thin at pretty much anything less than infinity, especially wide open) is neither digital nor is it an SLR
I'd be interested in know how Apple gets the shallow DOF, especially with the comments about it only being useful "outdoors" and "with a lot of light." When I'm taking portraits outdoors, I'm often popping in slow film or cranking the ISO on my DSLR way down and hunting for shade so that I can use the largest possible aperture. In 35mm, even a film like Portra 160 can cause issues on a bright day, although going to medium format will cut a lot of DOF for the same aperture and framing(with a lens giving the same angle of view, or a focal length ~60% longer). Phone cameras have always fought the laws of optics in this regard due to their small sensors and consequently very short focal lengths.
Neutral density filter might help you with cutting light. You didn't mention shutter speed but cranking that way up with a wide open aperture can be fun.
As an aside to the conversation and not you directly, telephoto lenses sure aren't needed for bokeh (the creamy defocused background from shallow depth of field). I somehow manage fine with a cheap DSLR and a 35mm prime.
I believe the reason to use the long lenses is to avoid distortion from wide angle lenses, not to get bokeh.
I agree. When given the right conditions it will take a great photo. However in mid to low light it can be too slow to be usable. Lots of motion blur too. Hopefully they will work on this in the future which I'm sure they will. I've still gotten some amazing photos though.
I wish they had 2 cameras in the 7, I'm not going back to the huge phone, I had a 6+ for a while.
Aside from the bright light, Portrait mode is very specific with range as well (8 Feet). I do think it's important to remember it's in beta and I believe a lot of changes are coming, which can easily expand to make Portrait mode better.
I have used ND filters before(or polarizers, since I prefer carrying as little crap as possible and a polarizer makes a nice 2-stop ND filter in a pinch). My 35mm SLRs can go to 1/1000 or 1/2000(depending on the camera) but my medium format SLR as well as my Rolleiflex(TLR) and Speed Graphic(4x5) all use leaf shutters. On medium format, they'll go to 1/500, but most LF leaf shutters top out at 1/350 or so. My Speed Graphic does have a focal plane shutter in addition to the leaf shutter and it tops at 1/1000 but I don't really trust it-it's 70 years old, has probably never been serviced, and has to maintain a constant speed over 4". I should load up some expired film and test it, but the leaf shutter does fine for me.
BTW, depth of field is dependent on two variables-the relative aperture and the magnification ratio. Using a longer lens and framing the subject to be the same size won't change the depth of field if the size of the sensor/film is kept the same, although it WILL change the amount of background included.
With that said, moving to larger formats will tend to reduce depth of field at a given subject and aperture as you are operating at a greater magnification ratio. As you probably know, ~50mm is considered a "normal" lens for 35mm, while ~80mm is "normal" in 6x6. My Speed Graphic has a 137mm lens, which is actually a bit of a wide angle(roughly 35-40mm in 35mm terms)-150mm or so is usually considered "normal" in 4x5. Going back to my magnification ratio comment, though, when I think of a typical macro subject I photograph I'm working at a ratio of roughly 6:1 on APS-C and 4:1 on 35mm. The same thing is nearly 1:1 on 6x6 and more like 3:1 on 4x5-that's the sort of thing we're dealing with.
Given Steve Jobs' passion for "taste" I'd say that he's rolling over in his urn screaming "NOOOOO!!!!!!!!"