Apple Working on Standalone Point-and-Shoot Digital Camera?

[charlituna]

Shutter speed goes away if you capture 500 frames at 500 fps - the user can decide how many of those to blend afterwards.

User reaction speed goes away if you let the use choose which of those frames to start from, and camera reaction speed goes away if you pre-record a 250 frame buffer at all times.

Camera shake is easy to solve too if you are capturing 500 frames, because you can track motion and compensate.

Expensive optical zooming goes away if you have enough megapixels and throw away most of the data (as seen in the Nokia 808 Pureview phone).

Exposure and ISO both go away if you capture at a higher bit depth (and of course that gives you HDR abilities).

Nice ideas but that amount of data isn't feasible at the moment. Not for the consumer level. It's barely feasible for us Pros. It's just too expensive to be practical.

Now in another 3-4 years when SSD pricing has hopefully come down and storage sizes have gone up. Yeah then we can look at that for the general market. By then the optics etc will hopefully be there also.

Meanwhile the only folks that will be playing at that level are the industry pros and even then mostly in film and tv. We're going for a 5k image that can shot super clarity at a good 240fps for the very things you are talking about -- better color, contrast, stabilization. And yes a lot of it is done in post. But we still need a ton of data to do that. However unlike the consumers we will spend a good $20k a rig for the cameras and millions on redundant storage to hold it all no questions asked.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Nice ideas but that amount of data isn't feasible at the moment. Not for the consumer level. It's barely feasible for us Pros. It's just too expensive to be practical.

Now in another 3-4 years when SSD pricing has hopefully come down and storage sizes have gone up. Yeah then we can look at that for the general market. By then the optics etc will hopefully be there also.

Meanwhile the only folks that will be playing at that level are the industry pros and even then mostly in film and tv. We're going for a 5k image that can shot super clarity at a good 240fps for the very things you are talking about -- better color, contrast, stabilization. And yes a lot of it is done in post. But we still need a ton of data to do that. However unlike the consumers we will spend a good $20k a rig for the cameras and millions on redundant storage to hold it all no questions asked.

You realize that filming raw 1080p, with 24bit color(like your HD TV), @24fps , takes 150MB/s (1.2 Gbps).

No camera does real 5k yet, even at the top end.

 

[charlituna]

I have a feeling it would be the start of $99 wedding photos which is not a good thing. (if you are a pro photographer, find a new profession sooner rather than later!!)

Cheap is cheap, anyone that picks cheap over good for something like this gets what they deserve.

 

[doelcm82]

It's why photography as an art form has taken just a spill the last ten years, with the rise of digital photography things have become more accessible to everyone. That has led to the rise of the "purchased artist" I guess you could call it. People who make great digital photos -- thanks to their equipment. They buy an incredibly expensive DSLR and touch up their photos contrast, color, etc in Photoshop often afterwards and claim they're "photographers" when if it wasn't for all the automated settings on their $3000 camera they couldn't shoot a kids' birthday party decently.

They know nothing about how lens focal length effects a photo, only rudimentary info on aperture and shutter speed creative usage, or using composition other than 4/3rds, judging exposure manually or anything a real photographer does.

The real photographic artists are the ones who mix their own chemicals, build their own cameras, grind their own lenses, and make their own photographic plates. The advent of film that could be purchased by any schmuck at Walgreens completely ruined the art of photography, and the "photographers" who only know how to set a few dials on their fancy store-bought "cameras" are just posers. They know nothing of real photography.

Seriously, the main criterion I use to determine if a photo is good is whether it is pleasing (or interesting) to look at.

 

[charlituna]

You realize that filming raw 1080p, with 24bit color(like your HD TV), @24fps , takes 150MB/s (1.2 Gbps).

No camera does real 5k yet, even at the top end.

I said we are going for it. Not that we can get it. We work VFX so we get to work with some cameras that go that extreme but they are far from perfect and they are very limited on the fps.

And your math is exactly what I'm talking about. That's bare bones for something like my work and it's pushing what a consumer will tolerate (remember most consumers thinks that a 5MB file is big for an image). Go higher like what my bosses want to be working with and forget it. No consumer can afford that or would spend the money on it. But to get perfect shots every time or have the data to perfect a shot after the fact, every time, they need something that high end. Or at least the middle between the two. And that's still crazy expensive for the general consumer. And the software to really get that prime shot out of all that data. Too complex, too expensive for the GC market.

That reality is why real Pros don't have anything to worry about just yet.

 

[winston1236]

Point and shoot sales are plummeting due to the higher quality cameras in cell phones, no way apple would bother with this

 

[guzhogi]

That is not a mock-up it is the shipping Lytro camera.

Cool, thanks. Haven't seen one before. But even then, doesn't it get kinda bulky?

 

[Dave00]

The thing that no one seems to be mentioning is that this is not your old-school point-and-shoot camera. The Lytro is an interesting technology based on a physics dissertation (available for a not-so-light read on the Lytro website.) It's a whole new ballgame, incorporating directionality vectors rather than a two-dimensional rendering of the light source, the practical effect being that you can change focus and depth-of-field dynamically long AFTER the picture was taken. This gets rid of one of the banes of digital P&S - you find out later the autofocus focused on an object farther or nearer than the intended object, leaving the intended object out of focus and no opportunity to fix it.

There are several problems with the technology - one is that it requires cameras to have this boxy dimension. Another is immense complexity of the data captured, which requires much more processing power.

I like the idea, in that it's tackling a problem in a completely different way, rather than the usual megapixel bump, etc. However, I don't see a large commercial appeal, and it doesn't seem to fit with Apple's overall strategy or pass the visual test that makes something look like an Apple product. I more had the impression that the meeting between Jobs and the Lytro guy was Lytro getting some ideas on how to market the product, rather than trying to interest Apple in taking it over.

 

[SeaFox]

What annoys me is people who know all about aperture, shutter speed, exposure and think it makes 'them' better than 'they' and a true artist / photographer. It's an industry / attitude that needs a shake up !!

An artist by definition is someone who has skills, and skills beyond the common denominator. The people I'm referring to don't have those skills. They just have a lot of disposable income. So to say the former are the "true" artists is entirely accurate.

If I know how to build a nice birdhouse using computerized drills and saws I don't claim to be a carpenter.

The real photographic artists are the ones who mix their own chemicals, build their own cameras, grind their own lenses, and make their own photographic plates. The advent of film that could be purchased by any schmuck at Walgreens completely ruined the art of photography, and the "photographers" who only know how to set a few dials on their fancy store-bought "cameras" are just posers. They know nothing of real photography.

Ha-ha.

In the olden days they might have actually done that but making optics and the chemistry knowledge needed to create developers really isn't quite as integral to photography itself, and requires a whole different range of skills and equipment for those parts. Issues like patents come into play here as well since the developer formulas in use are covered by legal protections like that.

But you can't lump knowing how to grind glass into high quality optics into the same boat as knowing things that have a more definitive impact on the image in an artistic sense.

BTW, many modern film photographers still do experiment with things like pinhole cameras -- an example of a camera they made themselves.

 

[chriscrk]

If you want a computer for light use, you don't need to spend apples premium prices...... premium cutting edge hardware and sophisticated architecture in OS and hardware at a premium price for light you say, fair enough.

Apple surpassed microsoft in terms of what exactly? _________ < your answer goes here.

Did they surpass Samsung Google or Microsoft in market share in anything other than tablets ?

Their sales are steady but so insignificant compared to all of its competitors in computers and phones. And apple may be successful financially and surpassed some companies financially, so they are just good at making money right. I rest my case

Apple surpassed Microsoft in market cap., which was a very big deal. Apple's customer base has continued to increase year after year (in Mac's, not just iPhone's or iPad's). They've also outgrown the industry for years now, while the PC shrank.

How can you argue against Apple's success when the facts show you stuff like this? Yes, they are making a lot of money, but that is a CONSEQUENCE of selling their products, which means their products are really good. Even if they are more expensive, they must be good if people buy them despite other companies selling cheaper alternatives :/

And no, they are not just "good at making money". Look at computers before and after the Mac. Look at MP3 players before and after the iPod. Look at phones before and after that iPhone. Look at tablets before and after the iPad. They change the market completely, they make such a big dent that leads to virtually every big competitor to make their products similar to how Apple makes them. So no, they're not just "good at making money." They're FANTASTIC at making quality products, that sell well, and as a consequence allows them to earn money.

 

[jaymzuk]

I'm thinking that an Apple camera is unlikely at this juncture. Not that it's impossible, but I certainly wouldn't jump on the bandwagon of 'Apple can do X because it's vaguely tech related and they have huge cash/market cap/expertise etc.' fallacy that is unfortunately all too prevalent these days.

Apple's core competency in the long run will be perceived high-end computers and iTunes/media distribution.

Macs are far too high margin devices for Apple to turn away from, their reliability and ease of use is well established, and customer support is second to none. The Mac App Store takes a cut of all sales. Happy days.

Similarly, iPhones and iPads are high margin devices, but are also geared towards media consumption, almost exclusively through iTunes. Add Apple TV getting some more love, and the possibility of an Apple branded TV set, and you have an entire home and mobile entertainment ecosystem. All of your media, on all of your devices, as long as they're Apple, naturally. I view apps as a bit of an outlier when it comes to iOS. My thinking is that elegant HTML5 webapps may disrupt the key selling point that iOS apps are by and large more functional and easy on the eye than their Android counterparts. But, Apple takes a sizable chunk of all App and music/movie sales, so Apple are happy making money for essentially hosting some content.

Now we get to cameras. What's in it for Apple?

They could make a great device, that makes taking great photos and sharing them on Facebook easy, but how would Apple monetize this? Camera apps would make the base camera seem almost half finished if certain apps become seen as essential. iCloud integration could drive some additional revenue in people bumping up their allowance, but if deeper Facebook integration with iOS is to be believed, then surely FB would be the host of choice.

Also, an Apple developed and branded camera would be a big departure from their norms. Trying to stretch a premium brand across the entire electronics sector is something that Sony have tried and has tarnished their reputation with, as they can't master everything. When your entire brand is built around simplicity and dependability, then a big flop (Not just a Ping sized flop) could leave a dent in the reputation that allows Apple to command such premium prices for its products. Would customer service be as good when a genius has to know their Macs, iOS devices, TVs as well as Cameras?


I can't rule it out. If Steve Jobs was passionate about it, then Apple is that sort of non-traditional company that could do something random like this. But I'm not sure that it fits in with the current portfolio or direction of products

 

[coldmack]

I like the camera but I would like to see the new Mac Pro too.

NO. Mac Pro is nothing more than a glorified PC with an Apple logo on it. Bring back the Power Mac, but with graphene technology!

 

[BradTucker]

Light Field built in

More interesting than a standalone point and shoot would be adding Light Field technology into the current iPhone. Like the HDR option.

I don't think they would actually do this though, since it seems like a lot of work for a feature most people wouldn't use much. Post-focus is neat, but Cinemagram gives a similar feel as the "living photos" the Lytro website talks about.

 

[AndyUnderscoreR]

Nice ideas but that amount of data isn't feasible at the moment. Not for the consumer level. It's barely feasible for us Pros. It's just too expensive to be practical.

Absolutely, which is why I think it's going to be Apple's new 'hobby' for several years before it's ready for prime time. The expense issue is where Apple have a lot of leverage. High end pro gear doesn't get any economies of scale, and there are massive economies of scale to be had in this field if you are prepared to put billions into custom designing optimised DSP sillicon from the ground up for volume sales, rather than employing generic high end DSP chips in large numbers as bleeding edge pro gear has to do. Storage is an issue, as you point out, but given the quantities of SSD Apple is buying, they have massive leverage in that market. I've described a product that would cost $1m and be as big as a fridge if you built it now as a one-off... but if you told Foxconn you needed 100 million units for delivery in 5 years time, and you threw a couple of billion at optimising the DSP and shoving it onto the same die as the sensor, you'd end up with one hell of a consumer product (and a patent portfolio that would let you rule the industry to boot).

 

[bwillwall]

What? Someone on here agrees with what I have been saying lately???? Your whole post is exactly how I feel.

People have been saying this crap for years... An mp3 player? A phone? A tv? Yes Apple is looking into making new things. Be happy.

On a side note this is just a rumor with no significant evidence to back it up.

 

[Swordylove]

So if they make a standalone camera, then will the quality of the future iPhone will be decreased because of a slim-down? Please forget about it. Why do we even need a slimmer iPhone? A tougher iPhone, yes maybe we do. Bluetooth file transfer, yes we really do. A slimmer one, thanks, but no.

For a point-and-shoot camera, I like to have it all integrated into one device (e.g the iPhone), so that I only have to bring one device wherever I go. If I want superpro quality and highly customizable photos, I'll bring a DSLR.

Oh and people MUST know the basics like ISO, aperture, and shutter speed if they care enough to take a picture exactly the way they want it. Otherwise, I'd rather stick with a decent-quality phone camera like in the iPhone.

Stop with the silly ideas. Focus on the Macs pls.

 

[mrfrosty]

An artist by definition is someone who has skills, and skills beyond the common denominator. The people I'm referring to don't have those skills. They just have a lot of disposable income. So to say the former are the "true" artists is entirely accurate.

If I know how to build a nice birdhouse using computerized drills and saws I don't claim to be a carpenter.



Ha-ha.

In the olden days they might have actually done that but making optics and the chemistry knowledge needed to create developers really isn't quite as integral to photography itself, and requires a whole different range of skills and equipment for those parts. Issues like patents come into play here as well since the developer formulas in use are covered by legal protections like that.

But you can't lump knowing how to grind glass into high quality optics into the same boat as knowing things that have a more definitive impact on the image in an artistic sense.

BTW, many modern film photographers still do experiment with things like pinhole cameras -- an example of a camera they made themselves.

By Definition ? That is not the definition of an artist. Skill does not come into it. You can be an artist without having any technical understanding, of course some artists with understanding don't like that artists without it are put into the same bracket. I wonder though for all he extra understanding why so much concern about the unskilled masses of artists, surely cream rises to the top !! Unless of course all the technical stuff only makes an image sharper, cleaner, brighter e.t.c if only there was some deep physics that only a few could understand that actually made a picture look good !!!!

To be a musician must you be able to read music or understand how your instrument works ? John Lennon anyone ? Paul McCartney ? Hopeless wannabes I suppose, certainly an annoyance to all the Beethoven's !!

 

[elppa]

NOPE.

Kodak sell film and photo papers. The company was way too slow to embrace digital.

They made one of the first digital cameras. Even today, look at the Leica M9 – that's a kodak sensor inside.

They didn't move "too slow". They were one of the innovators. The problem was they couldn't find a way to make anything like the profits from digital they used to make from film.

Can Nikon or Cannon (or the other "usual suspects") really do it? Hm. Maybe. But they have so much invested in the status quo.

Nikon and Canon can't produce a decent mirrorless interchangeable lens camera between them.

All the innovation in that sector is by Sony, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic.

To me though cameras like Sony NEX series have dumbed down photography, the whole enjoyment for me was learning the manual controls of my DSLR and Film SLR's understanding ISO, Aperture etc. Makes you a better photographer that way.

But you can do all of that on an NEX – completely manual operation if you want it. And with Tri-Navi on the NEX 7 it very efficient.

So I think that is unfair. It's like saying a Mac is dumbed down computing, when you have the full power of the Unix command line if you want it. What Sony are attempting to do is to give "the rest of us" a camera very capable of professional quality results in a compact and easy to use package.

And then if people want to explore the manual options later – they can. Everyone needs to start somewhere.

I would pay attention if they did something along the lines of the Sony NEX line.

Funny you say that, because I agree that NEX is indeed many ways very Apple like.

Minimal buttons. Software heavy interface. Replacing technical terms with "dumbed down" language such as "Background defocus" and "warm/cold" (to frowns and discord – see above).

Lots of genuine (not gimmicks) value added through software (Sweep Panorama, Handheld Twilight, peeking manual focus).

Great external build quality, but also (something Apple pays attention to) very simple internal design:

it’s amazing how much Sony has simplified the design of this camera – not just compared to SLRs, but even to other mirrorless cameras. And props to them for doing a lot of little things that cost money but probably make the camera better and more reliable: heavy electronic shielding, gluing down the flex clamps, using copper shields instead of aluminum, etc.

Parallels are definitely there.

Failing that Apple could license BIONZ for iPhone 5. I'm sure Sony could use the money right now.

 

[mikerr]

Please don't do this, Apple.

Just leave it alone.

If anyone, make a video console in the future.

Pippin ? Though a descendant of that now exists as apple TV

Nowadays ipod touch / ipad are handheld game consoles.

 

[danahn17]

Instagram is the worst. However, I will contend Ping Photos would be awful.

Considering Samsung makes cameras, I can just see their next set of ads with the barista guy again:

Person 1 (taking photo with Samsung camera): "Why are you in line?"
Barista guy: "I'm waiting for the the iCamera with Ping Photos. Because I'm creative."
Person 2: "Dude you're a barista."

All joking aside, I'll agree that Instagram has really cheapened photography. I'm not saying you can't take beautiful pics with Instragram (you can) or that you need the best DSLR to make good shots (nope)... but rather, people seem to think that all those filters somehow automatically make their pictures art.

It's even more annoying than the DSLR users that bought the camera when the prices became affordable and suddenly thought they were expert and pro-caliber photographers. (I even saw a self-proclaimed "expert" acquaintance advise my friend to set the camera on automatic mode because the manual, aperture-priority, shutter-priority were just for people who were used to old cameras).

 

[joeshell383]

There is no way. Apple has a camera that does 1000 other things.. it's called iPhone and iPod touch. They'll keep working on bringing down the cost and incorporating the best optics they can into their devices, but they will not build a standalone camera. They have no pedigree here are there's also no money – they've eaten the bottom and middle out of these markets with devices that do much more and are at the "good enough" stage already for posting pictures. The top end of this market is relatively small and Apple has no pedigree here. At the DSLR and micro four thirds level, pros want Nikon, Canon, Sony, and the very expensive brands we never hear about (Hasselblad for instance). Apple is now a mass market company and if the Mac Pro is too niche for them to update frequently then the DSLR market has no chance.

Apple short term: iPod Nano becomes more watch friendly (always on, slightly smaller, talking to your other devices, etc.). iPod Touch continues being an iPhone without the contract. iPhone continues to improve along with the iPad. Apple introduces a television.. it's much more than a television (interactive gameshows, live voting on American Idol style shows, built in app store replacing most gaming consoles, bringing more clout to user generated content Podcast style.. up front, etc.).

Apple longer term: An SDK for 3rd parties like the Nest thermostat so they benefit from every niche player's innovations. You control and monitor all these things from your Apple devices. Very long term I do see a car in Apple's future, though it may be 10+ years away... it's just too mass market of an electronic device and Apple has too much to bring to the table for them to ignore it.

And that's as far as my crystal ball goes.

I agree. As far as an SDK goes, Siri tech can play a role. If Siri is operated in an always-ready mode where it is activated by its name being called, things could become very interesting. "Siri, turn down the heat." "Siri, transfer $500 from my checking to my savings." "Siri, how much do I have in checking?" "Siri, pay my phone bill with my debit card." "Siri, send a Father's Day card to my dad that says xxx."

 

[ctrlshft]

Cool idea but I suspect they will have trouble finding the core "niche" for a product like this.

Consumers: Will use their iPhones
Prosumers: Will use their iPhones and/or prosumer DSLRs and mid-level lenses
Professionals: Will use their Professional DSLRs and high-end lenses

IMO this idea would've been more interesting 5-7 years ago; not current day when my phone has 8 megapixels and excellent optics suited for both video and stills.

All this said, I DO think it could happen. Apple still sells the iPod nano (aka a music-only-centric device). It wouldn't be a stretch in their product lineup to add a camera-fuction-only-centric device, maybe with something a bit better than the 4S. If they sold that for maybe <$200, they'd probably do ok. I can't say that I'd buy one though, I'm very happy with the 4S for everything not-pro (which is most of the time). The market will be for folks that live somewhere inbetween consumer and prosumer. Question is, who with an iPhone will care about it?

 

[Obi-Wan Kubrick]

I could see Apple making a user friendly DSLR, which would be great for regular folks but piss off professionals. But who cares.

 

[Blu Reel]

Apple has done extremely well, but they've all been in markets which are in their infancy and or haven't really taken the world by storm. I.e

The iPod. No other MP3 player was really competitive at the time.

The iPhone. Smartphones before it were rather laughable, like the Blackberry 7730 and were not considered by consumers or even known well in the mass market.

The iPad. Tablets, again like the iPhone, the market was still rather small and hadn't took off, due to companies not really offering many options.

Unlike these markets, the digital camera market has been very well established for the past 8-10 years now. There are more than enough manufacturers in the camera world and I personally always buy Nikon, its been the best for me with DSLR's and stuff.

To your latter statements. Everyone has different photographic needs. Thats why manufacturers make so many lens options all for different purposes. Making a camera whats dumbed down isn't going to benefit anyone. The whole enjoyment for me was learning manual controls and experimenting with them. People who don't want to learn these skill are quite simply ignorant and I, like many others would never consider them a real photographer. Photography is more than just composition, its all the setup and control process for the perfect image. The whole art of photography is being able to manipulate on camera manual controls. A dumbed down camera would be more like painting by numbers and being a killer of creativity and artistic merit.

I actually agree with you on the end result, but I don't think you understood what I was trying to say in the portion that you quoted from my posting.

First, I have to admit I myself wasn't as clear I as should have been. I was actually referring to the current marketplace for Apple's products and their competitors such as the Android devices.

And my intention was to setup the background of a very large and diverse consumer base. So much so, that it would be highly improbable that 1 single device/product would "own" the entire market.

The question for Apple when they create a product for sale is what is the market for that product?

As you pointed out in hindsight, the mp3 player market was young and underdeveloped and the smartphone market only had 1 real player in it, Blackberry. It was "easy" for Apple to take over those markets with their ability to create both the hardware and the software and redefine the consumer experience in those markets.

With the photography market as you said, this is not the same scenario. It has been around for many many years with a number of key and competitive players. I would also add that it also involves "technology" not related to software or computer electronics - optics.

But let's not forget Apple's success in the retail market. Prior to the Apple store, we could only buy Apple products online or at a select few retail outlets. Apple changed all that dramatically and very successfully with their very non-software and non-computer hardware retail stores. First, Apple identified what their "problem" was - lack of consumer reach for their products in the retail marketplace. Second, they researched how best to sell their products to their target consumer base. In doing so, they redefined what the shopping experience should be for a computer/electronics buyer. A "buy product" of that redefinition is that Apple has discovered or has pushed forward the technology of glass wall and glass stair case designs which is altogether unrelated to it's core "skill" set of hardware and software design.

I say all this to point out that Apple is a far bigger and better company than when it redefined the mp3 market and the smartphone market. Could they "redefine" the photography? They have the resources to take on such an endeavor. But should they? That depends on whether or not they believe they can make money on the specific market they see in the world of photography.

For all the reasons I posted in my original post, I do not see Apple going after the professional market with a competing DSLR like product. A couple of additional reasons are:
1) Apple doesn't make optics. They would have to partner with or buy out an optics manufacturer like Carl Zeiss.
2) The volume sales are not there for an ROI like the iPad or the iPhone.

Just because someone says they saw Apple making a digital camera doesn't mean Apple is planning on entering the photography market more so than it already has through the iPhone.

For example, Canon made and announced a 120 megapixel image sensor that would fit in their EOS-1D camera body series in 2010 which they said they have no productions plans for it.

We have learned in hindsight that Apple itself has made many versions of their products that never saw public distribution like the two port iPad.

A lot more has to happen before any rumors about Apple making a digital camera and entering the photography market could be considered credible. And Apple would have to make something pretty incredible for it to have the same kind of impact that we've all grown to expect with their successes in the smartphone and tablet markets. The Light Field Camera technology is not enough.

I'll be interested when there are rumors of research/products that cover the following:
1) ISO - no digital noise when shooting by a single candle light
2) Shutter speed - can hand hold a camera while shooting by a single candle light
3) Optics - A pair of binoculars will be as good as the Hubble telescope.
4) Aperture - Light field technology can work inside current iPhone dimensions and "knows" when to keep everything in focus and what to keep in focus - everyone sitting at the dinner table, just of the birthday child blowing out the candles at the dinner table surrounded by friends and family.
5) File size - bigger isn't better when it comes to storing all my photos or transferring them. I've got thousands.
6) Color management - it should be "automatic" for my images to look their best and to look the "same" when printed or on my iPhone or on my website.
7) File size corollary - Why can't I print a wall size photo from my iPhone?
8) Physical output cost - Why does it still cost $20+ to print a photo album?

I'm sure I haven't covered everyone's different needs, but I hope you all get the point.

 

[SeaFox]

By Definition ? That is not the definition of an artist. Skill does not come into it.

5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.

Unless of course all the technical stuff only makes an image sharper, cleaner, brighter e.t.c if only there was some deep physics that only a few could understand that actually made a picture look good !!!!

A picture "looking good" is a perceptual thing. Something can be pleasing to a person's eye and still be poorly done or incorrect.

The settings on an HDTV being a prime example.

To be a musician must you be able to read music or understand how your instrument works ? John Lennon anyone ? Paul McCartney ?

Err.. you do realize playing an instrument is itself a skill. If you can't produce musical notes in consistent way you're not going to be able to perform a song again and again on a concert tour.