I know the iPhone 3GS has been jailbroken, but what about the iPhone 3G? Would Pwnagetool work or is the 3G still unable to be jailbroken?
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 Releases iOS 4.1 for iPhone and iPod Touch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Proximity sensor issue still doesn't appear to be
resolved.
I upgraded last night.
Today at the office talking to my wife for 4 minutes I had 1) call on mute 2) call on hold 3) call on mute 4) call on mute.
Not good from my perspective.
Anyone else? Bueller?
resolved.
I upgraded last night.
Today at the office talking to my wife for 4 minutes I had 1) call on mute 2) call on hold 3) call on mute 4) call on mute.
Not good from my perspective.
Anyone else? Bueller?
This Macworld review says that the phone takes 3 pics when you shoot one, in order to process it's HDR:
http://www.macworld.com/article/153850/2010/09/hdrontheiphone.html?lsrc=nl_mwweek_h_cbstories
The example in the article looks like the iPhone HDR redistributes the tonal balance, probably weighting it towards lights and mid tones like I had mentioned in a prior post.
http://www.macworld.com/article/153850/2010/09/hdrontheiphone.html?lsrc=nl_mwweek_h_cbstories
The example in the article looks like the iPhone HDR redistributes the tonal balance, probably weighting it towards lights and mid tones like I had mentioned in a prior post.
Undelivered voicemail!!!
I just upgraded my 3G from buggy 4.0 to 4.1 and found 32 previously undelivered and unheard voicemail from friends and family. This explains a lot of mixed signals I've had lately.
Did anyone else have this MISSING VMAIL issue?
I just upgraded my 3G from buggy 4.0 to 4.1 and found 32 previously undelivered and unheard voicemail from friends and family. This explains a lot of mixed signals I've had lately.
Did anyone else have this MISSING VMAIL issue?
There is a very good reason for doing that which is explained at the end of the article:
The first HDR pictures that afallingbomb28 posted had one image from Pro HDR which has a very unnatural look to it. The sky is getting darker at the top, the colours seem to have too much contrast. The sky in the Apple's HDR version is a natural sky, it's how a blue sky is supposed to look. The second set of pictures seem to be suffering from the same thing: the Pro HDR picture sky is a bit unnatural due to the very deep blue colour. Sometimes such an effect can improve the look of a picture but mostly it doesn't due to it being unnatural.
This also means that there is no good HDR. It's a taste thing. Bear in mind that things like a phone are mostly used for snapshots. Those pictures are not high quality and there really is not much need for it. Adding HDR to it does not really make a lot of sense. I think it's just something you can play with and in some cases it may even be useful.
I disagree. The photos look "fake" because you're used to the old way. The fact is, we all see in HDR, why would we not want our photos to look the way we actually see? When you look at a landscape do you see a blue sky and green grass or do you see a white sky with green grass? HDR is just putting detail into the photograph that we used to not be able to capture. I don't see what's so wrong or "fake" about that.
I guess you think HD movies look fake too because they're too detailed right? Think about what you say sometimes. HDR does not equal "fake". It's actually more true-to-life than regular photography.
EDIT: I'm not talking about over-tone-mapping though. I think the embossed look looks very lame.
What you say is true, but HDR compresses the huge dynamic range that can be present in a natural scene into the relatively small dynamic range a computer monitor or print can display. While HDR may increase realism by properly exposing the entire tonal range of an image, attempting to squeeze a larger dynamic range into a smaller will inevitably lead to the loss of some amount of realism. Unlike an HD movie, which is a pure gain in realism from an SD movie, at it's best HDR trades a loss of information at one location, the image sensor, for a loss of information at another, the output device. Sometimes HDR looks great, but other times it may even detract from a photo, which is why it's great that the iPhone will save both versions and let you choose later.
True. Lighting plays a huge roll in photography. If everything looks flat, it will look fake. Sometimes, you need the contrast to make a photo look stunning. I'm not saying HDR is perfect, but it sure comes in handy in SOME occasions.
Just about everything you said there is wrong. We don't see in HDR. We can process a higher range of color than an LCD or piece of paper. That, however, is due to how our brains work, not how our eyes see.
When I look at something in real life, I can see detail highlights and shadows. When I take a photograph, I would like it to appear the same way. I realize that LCDs and paper can't display the amount of color we can see, but HDR gets us closer to how our "brains" see the world.
Not all HDR is created equal though. Most of it is over-tonemapped. If it's done as an effect, it's okay, but as for realistic photos go, I think careful tone-mapping in HDR is fine.
All I'm saying is that HDR is NOT the auto-tune of photography. It's just an enhancement. That's like saying the lightbulb is the auto-tune of candlelight. HDR photography is changing the way we photograph and I'll embrace it. Just because some people don't know how to use it, doesn't make it bad.
No, they don't look the same as what my own eyes are seeing. I'm comparing what my eyes are capturing with whatever is on the picture. HDR has some disadvantages regarding saturation and contrast. This causes all sorts of effects which sometimes add more to the picture. Skies however are not dark blue during day time, they are that way at dusk. Skies also do not go from blue to dark blue. Just look outside for once and than compare what you're seeing with what's on the picture. You'll notice the differences immediately. Some people love this effect and even exaggerate it which makes it even worse.
Our eyes aren't that great for vision, it's our brain that does the most job and turns something bad into something good. The problem with current cameras is their inability with situations where you have both a lot of light and nearly no light at all. Our vision (eyes + brain) is unbelievably good at such situations. HDR is just a way to mimic how our vision works. The idea is great but in reality HDR sucks due to things like technical limitations in our equipment (lenses, cameras, etc.) and in the way the equipment and/or you create HDR images (one thing being taste). It's not the idea I oppose, but how it's done in reality.
I see an evenly light blue sky with white clouds and an evenly green field. What I see on HDR pictures is a darker blue sky which most of the times shift to a much darker blue (sometimes even blackish) colour at the top of the picture (as one of the images in the last couple of pages here) and a green field which has a darker green than the real thing. What I see in nearly all the HDR pictures are different colours, colour shifts (which aren't there in reality) and other distortions. That's what makes it fake.
Again, the idea is different from how it's currently done in reality. Due to technical limitations you get all sorts of weird colouration and it's those things that make the picture look fake. The problem lies in the way can create HDR images. There are some technical limitations we currently can not work around. HDR currently is not proper HDR and thus HDR photography unfortunately is not more true-to-life than regular photography (it mostly is more fake than regular photography).
If it's about getting more details in your pictures there are other ways of doing that. Most people will shoot in RAW and make sure the picture is not overexposed. They edit the RAW file and retrieve quite a lot of data. The problem with both HDR and RAW are the limitations. You simply can not retrieve every piece of data and make it look natural (aka the same as you saw it in reality). Things like colour saturation, contrast, etc. play a huge part in HDR pictures. There are quite a lot of things you need to adjust to get it as close to reality as possible. It's not simply overlaying 3 pictures with different exposures and putting all the differences into 1 picture. Getting proper HDR images is extremely difficult.
The other big problem is the fact that people seem to love HDR pictures with those unnatural colour shifts and things like that. They'll choose the wrong and unnatural pictures instead of the more true-to-real-life ones. That's what I meant with "HDR is about taste". Most people won't use HDR to get things as real as possible. Take a look at some of the HDR pictures on interfacelift.com. Completely unnatural but loved by many. And this leads to another thing about photography in general. Photography mostly isn't about creating images true to life but about capturing a moment or creating a beautiful image (unless you're a crime scene investigator photographing a crime scene of course).
HD regarding movies has got nothing to do with HDR, it is something completely different. Talking about thinking what you say...
The HDR you're talking about is over-tonemapping. If you don't over-do the tonemapping, you can get some very natural photos without over-exposing the sky. Sure, some HDR looks fake. Basically, if you can tell that it's HDR, they did it wrong. I'd post another photo of a natual looking HDR, but I'm on my iPhone right now.
You make some interesting observations.
The sky is not evenly blue. The colour changes a lot in relation to the position of the sun and proximity to the horizon. It's a thing with our athmosphere. You might want to try using a light meter because your eyes (or your brain if you will) fool you quite a bit and just assume it is an even colour. The blue can be very dark sometimes even at noon. The colour also changes with geographical location and, of course, there is the continuous haze you get in cities.
I seriously doubt you see evenly green fields either unless you have some sort of eye condition. All natural surfaces have variation. If they didn't you wouldn't know what they were. You just assume they are even because your brain says the different colours and tones are part of the same "whole".
Once you learn to see and not assume the world is quite a different place. I've worked for a good while as a photographer and I see all the colour gradients you say don't exist. If you said the hdr pictures look exaggerated, that would be closer to the truth.
The sky is not evenly blue. The colour changes a lot in relation to the position of the sun and proximity to the horizon. It's a thing with our athmosphere. You might want to try using a light meter because your eyes (or your brain if you will) fool you quite a bit and just assume it is an even colour. The blue can be very dark sometimes even at noon. The colour also changes with geographical location and, of course, there is the continuous haze you get in cities.
I seriously doubt you see evenly green fields either unless you have some sort of eye condition. All natural surfaces have variation. If they didn't you wouldn't know what they were. You just assume they are even because your brain says the different colours and tones are part of the same "whole".
Once you learn to see and not assume the world is quite a different place. I've worked for a good while as a photographer and I see all the colour gradients you say don't exist. If you said the hdr pictures look exaggerated, that would be closer to the truth.
This is true but it doesn't apply to picture since seeing those changes would require an exposure time of an entire day. Pictures are taken in a very short period of time at a certain location. The only colour differences you have are caused by the way light shines on something or bounces back to your eyes. The colour changes in the air are also caused by many other things such as clouds (which is a lot more likely to cause the "colour change" you see in the sky (it's not a colour change, you simply see an object in front of it)). However, those colour changes are completely different from what you see on nearly every hdr image.
Light meters measure light intensity, they don't measure colours and gradients.
Very very slight variations mostly which caused me to say they were evenly. However you do have a point here.
Et voila, the problem is you're a photographer
Photographers see things completely different from the average human because of their way of thinking and looking at things. This can also lead to something that is extremely dangerous: routine. They think they see a certain colour because they've seen it many times before. Routine is a very dangerous thing and one of the main causes for accidents. For example, some engineers thought they could see the differences between some bolts. Unfortunately this has been the cause of several airplane crashes (why? because you absolutely can not see such differences, you need to measure them). Being a professional can be a hindrance.Btw, the colour gradients you're talking about are also visible on non-hdr pictures so it's not hdr you need for things like these. Which is quite obvious since hdr is more something you use if you have a composition that is made up of parts that are very light and parts that are very dark. The differences between those parts are too big for the camera to see but easy for us humans. Using proper lighting is key and can resolve such situations. However people seem to think hdr is some holy thing that is the answer to all their problems (which it is not, that would be 42
). If you can not change the lighting then something like hdr can be an option.
Ok, here's a simple test: 1. Wait for a cloudless day, 2. go outside, 3. Look at the horizon and note the colour of the sky, 4. Look straight up and note the colour of the sky.
They differ quite a lot don't they? And it's lighter closer to the horizon isn't it? That's the variation I was talking about. There is absolutely nothing even about the sky. It's just endless variation. The amount of variation in a given moment is dependent among other things on the factors I listed in my previous post. Here's a better explanation. Just scroll down to where it says "Sky luminance and colours".
A colour gradient consists of a maximum of three things: Luminance, chrominance and hue. Perceived chrominance is also dependent on luminance so if you want, you could also get a colour meter and use that in combination. However, my point is if you see the numbers clearly change, it is not "even". It doesn't matter which of the three components changes just as long as there is change. Luminance meters are easiest to come by which is why I suggested it.
I only commented on your observations of our natural world, I have no intention of arguing further about HDR.