2GB ram would be enough to get me to upgrade. Its my one gripe with the 6 Plus. The camera is not, really had some fun with the 6 Plus camera so far.
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 May Introduce 'Biggest Camera Jump Ever' in Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I couldn't agree more. As long as it is the Thinnest Camera We've Ever Made, I'll buy it, even if it's not an improvement. Thin Apple gear means eeeeverything to me. No other benchmarks/metrics necessary.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Have you not been here very long? When Apple's specs are strong, they are touted to no end. When the other guys specs are better, the rule is to marginalize them by talking about the "overall user experience" and the "whole system". Get with the program.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Apple fights the profit war, and I think they realized that to the average consumer holding out on 8MP seems like they haven't improved in years
I doubt it. My take is they will balk tradition and jump right into an iPhone 7 lines with this new camera and an industrial design to cover a size from the iPhone 5 series up to the iPhone 6 plus.
Thus we can see a classic "small, medium and large" product offering. Sure the marketing types are having a fun with the a Thesaurus naming these anything but "iPhone 7; small, medium, large."
In fairness, manufacturing cost of Beats isn't all that high, they're just being sold at high margins. That isn't the primary reason why Apple might be reluctant to bundle 'free' Beats headphones with iPhones, though. Apart from slimming their overall margins, that would devalue the Beats brand in the eyes of consumer. Bundling high end brands is never a good idea.
Of course beats don't cost anywhere near retail prices but they're also nowhere near Apple headphones prices.
Maybe they manufacture a new headphone for the new phones with some sort of Beats influence but who knows.
With a small sensor like in the iPhone you will never end up with DSLR like picture quality. Simply matter of physics.
Apple knows when to pick their fights. The main issue at hand here is that the other guys keep throwing megapixels around without actually increasing the image quality. Apple only does it when they know they can do it without degrading image quality such as introducing more noise, etc. They first work on the most important partsgetting the optics right, image stabilization, accurate color tonal ranges, and dynamic range. For most users, these are more important in a world of Tweeting, FaceBooking and posting Photostream updates.
I found that the quality and sharpness of the 6 over the 5s was significant enough to surprise me when I traded up. The three main things that I would still love to see improvements in are noise reduction, low light, and zoom -- in that order. Anything they do (whether or not this technology is part of that) that addresses these three items and in that priority order will have my vote. The other stuff like panoramic and slo-mo are cool, but don't replace the other three IMHO.
A phone filming in 4K with only 16 GB of storage
That is more than enough time for a lot of guys making videos of them and their girlfriends!
Something this revolutionary (for Apple that is..) is going into the iPhone 7. The S line is usually for incremental upgrades. But by the time the 7 came out, 4K tvs would be pretty affordable....so they really need to make sure 4K shooting makes its way into the iPhone in two years.
If I happen to capture an awesome wardrobe malfunction of some sort, ill wish I had 100 megapixels.
Dream on, they'd probably prefer to sell you more cloud storage for a "low monthly fee" instead. Hah.
Glassed Silver:mac
I'm wondering if this new type of imaging sensor that can produce dSLR type images is somehow related to their patent (from I think earlier this year) that talked about making a higher-megapixel image from an image stabilizer. Perhaps they realized that they can do a better job with two lenses?
If I remember right, the way this thing works is that it takes the differences between the two images, and adds the pixels together between them to make a higher resolution image. For instance, if you took two photos with two cameras at the same time, they would have slightly different imaging information due to varying sensor noise, a slightly different perspective, etc. That is all different data that, when combined with a complex algorithm, could potentially create a higher resolution image by matching them together at the right points. Since the camera on the right would have a slightly different vantage point than the camera on the left, you could get additional data points that would take a normally jaggy edge and add an additional point between each pixel to smooth it out properly without having to resort to simple image interpolation (which essentially creates data from nothing and isn't very useful for creating high resolution images). This could potentially interpolate between pixels using additional image data, creating a very high resolution output.
Additionally you could also do some things like have a slightly different focus between the two, then combine them together in software to make background bokeh blur more pronounced behind your subject. Or you could selectively remove image noise by comparing one sensor's output with another, which would have a different noise pattern, match the noise pattern and remove it with software and image data from the other sensor that doesn't have as much noise present at that location.
Lots of really cool stuff you could do with two cameras, besides stupid 3D. That close together won't make for much of a 3D effect anyway unless they're clear on the other side from each other.
If I remember right, the way this thing works is that it takes the differences between the two images, and adds the pixels together between them to make a higher resolution image. For instance, if you took two photos with two cameras at the same time, they would have slightly different imaging information due to varying sensor noise, a slightly different perspective, etc. That is all different data that, when combined with a complex algorithm, could potentially create a higher resolution image by matching them together at the right points. Since the camera on the right would have a slightly different vantage point than the camera on the left, you could get additional data points that would take a normally jaggy edge and add an additional point between each pixel to smooth it out properly without having to resort to simple image interpolation (which essentially creates data from nothing and isn't very useful for creating high resolution images). This could potentially interpolate between pixels using additional image data, creating a very high resolution output.
Additionally you could also do some things like have a slightly different focus between the two, then combine them together in software to make background bokeh blur more pronounced behind your subject. Or you could selectively remove image noise by comparing one sensor's output with another, which would have a different noise pattern, match the noise pattern and remove it with software and image data from the other sensor that doesn't have as much noise present at that location.
Lots of really cool stuff you could do with two cameras, besides stupid 3D. That close together won't make for much of a 3D effect anyway unless they're clear on the other side from each other.
I'll keep my Canon point and shoot that doesn't cost me an extra $100+/month to use, thanks.