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 Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you want the best pictures, yes.
That's depth. A camera module and lens also require height and width. Just making it thicker won't fix that.
That was my thinking. I've used the camera on the 7 Plus -- the image quality is marginally better than the 6s, if at all. It's just that now, you have the option of a standard wide-angle shot, or a slightly-zoomed-in "telephoto" shot. And that's not to mention the narrower aperture on the telephoto lens. The two cameras do NOT work in tandem to create a better picture -- you get to use one or the other.
IMHO, Apple could benefit from investing more in their image processing the likes of Google. Google's HDR+ image processing yields some crazy good results.
Some of the rumors pre iPhone 7 were saying the multiple cameras were going to be used to increase light S/N, and not for focus tricks. I still think this is a great idea if it can be done technically.
So if the iPhone Edition improves on the 7 (did you mean the existing 7 or the upcoming 7s?) in every way except for the camera, you're going to be upset? Is the iPhone 7 camera in some way bad? People get all up-in-arms about the $1000 price point, but a maxed out iPhone 7+ is already $969. It's not that far of a leap. Seems like that number has a considerable psychological effect.
It baffles how so many people want more megapixels, when all they do with the photos is post them to Facebook or Instagram. Hell, 4 megapixels suits your needs.
They didn't imply that Apple would use the plant's entire capacity, only that lesser plants wouldn't have sufficient available capacity (perhaps after factoring in potential future growth), and keep in mind iPhones and iPads have 2 cameras (front/rear), and the newer dual-lens iPhone models likely mean 3 cameras per phone.
[doublepost=1504633031][/doublepost]
I'm not a fan of a mindless megapixel race, but one thing to be gained from more pixels (if they're well executed) is the ability to zoom in more on a picture while retaining decent sharpness - especially helpful with phone's fixed-zoom relatively wide-angle lenses. And with a surplus of (well executed) pixels, for non-zoomed images, the phone's camera module and software can combine multiple pixels to produce better normal-resolution pixels ("better, faster, stronger - we can rebuild them, we have the technology").
It's fun to watch the "more is better" vs. "bigger is better" debate.
At the beginning of digital photography, the number of pixels was a big deal - the comparison was "resolution of film vs. resolution of digital," and the cost of individual pixels and large sensors was very high.
Eventually, the Pixel War reached a point of diminishing returns and the cost of larger sensors dropped, so the quality of those individual pixels (predominantly, in terms of noise/dynamic range) became more important - the large sensor debate came to the fore.
In the end, the only thing that matters is "better is better." How one arrives at "better" using existing technology is pretty predictable - the benefits/constraints of existing technology are well known. New technology, however, has the ability to upset conventional wisdom.
In this particular case, I doubt a camera-maker producing the reported number of modules is using new technology. And if they're producing for every mobile device maker, the mobile device makers need to come up with something other than raw tech specs to differentiate their camera from the next.
At the beginning of digital photography, the number of pixels was a big deal - the comparison was "resolution of film vs. resolution of digital," and the cost of individual pixels and large sensors was very high.
Eventually, the Pixel War reached a point of diminishing returns and the cost of larger sensors dropped, so the quality of those individual pixels (predominantly, in terms of noise/dynamic range) became more important - the large sensor debate came to the fore.
In the end, the only thing that matters is "better is better." How one arrives at "better" using existing technology is pretty predictable - the benefits/constraints of existing technology are well known. New technology, however, has the ability to upset conventional wisdom.
In this particular case, I doubt a camera-maker producing the reported number of modules is using new technology. And if they're producing for every mobile device maker, the mobile device makers need to come up with something other than raw tech specs to differentiate their camera from the next.
Didn't they have iPhone 7 headphone jack gate before anybody else? Somebody reported it about a month after the 6s came out.
When I look at the back of an iPhone I see plenty of space to make the camera module wider and higher. Sure, the 'broader' it is, the more difficult it is to fit it in the bezel area such that it can use close to the full depth of the case and isn't limited in depth by being behind the display. But that train has left with the 'iPhone 8' anyway because there is no bezel anymore. The switch to vertical arrangement of the dual cameras was also enabled by not needing to fit them into the top bezel area.
Apple is just playing catch-up to "Thunder" !
[doublepost=1504637923][/doublepost]Forgot to mention, Apple is NOT a company that innovates ... Apple is a company that copies others' ideas.
[doublepost=1504637923][/doublepost]Forgot to mention, Apple is NOT a company that innovates ... Apple is a company that copies others' ideas.
As I said, with 'bezel-less' screen of the iPhone 8, there the camera module has to be behind the screen anyway, thus any space it uses up competes with the battery and the logic board. But if you add thickness to the phone such that there is no camera bump anymore, you gain so much space for the battery (by making it thicker) that even if you quadruple the area taken up by the camera module, you still come out ahead in terms of battery capacity.
Not that I am advocating it, I'm perfectly fine with the camera bump.
Yes, you can eliminate the camera bump with thickness. I was talking, the entire time, about a second camera in the 4.7.
Today the limit may be more associated with more pixels requiring more processing/bandwidth/storage than fewer. If you have reached the point where the lens has a hard time producing decent MTF anywhere on image plane, more pixels simply produce more work post capture, and thus possibly lower frame rates for instance, without yielding any cropping benefits.
Collection area vs. boundary seems to not have that large an influence since the introduction of BSI. Hard numbers are hard to come by though, at least in the public domain.
Double This!
Sony and Samsung have 2 sized flagships but have same specs in both sizes. No surprise Apple has fragmented specs across their line up, in hopes of upselling.
Maybe if the phrase "fragmented specs" catches on, it will shame Apple into responding.
A bigger phone has more internal space for components. Let's stop pretending Apple is being evil or greedy by not throwing a second camera in a smaller enclosure. Everybody wouild be up in arms if they got a second camera but lost battery but the case is basically full right now.
Something has to shrink and we don't want it to be battery.