Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

commercials for other tablets use simulated screens

lol @ the guy saying Apple puts the worst cameras in their products

Check Flickr, the iphone 4 is the most used camera on that site. You know why? Because it takes amazing pictures that are usually on par if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera

Show me a phone that takes better pictures

Obviously the ipod touch isn't going to have as good a camera because it's not meant to be the exact same as the phone
 
Looon said:
lol @ the guy saying Apple puts the worst cameras in their products

Check Flickr, the iphone 4 is the most used camera on that site. You know why? Because it takes amazing pictures that are usually on par if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera

Show me a phone that takes better pictures

Obviously the ipod touch isn't going to have as good a camera because it's not meant to be the exact same as the phone
Click to expand...
Seconded. This is a photo I took of flooding in my area, taken with the iPhone 4 with high dynamic range enabled. I then applied a quick 70's-esque filter with Luminance. Anyone who rags on the iPhone 4's camera knows nothing about photography/cameras.

photo.jpg
 
Looon said:
lol @ the guy saying Apple puts the worst cameras in their products

Check Flickr, the iphone 4 is the most used camera on that site. You know why? Because it takes amazing pictures that are usually on par if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera

Show me a phone that takes better pictures

Obviously the ipod touch isn't going to have as good a camera because it's not meant to be the exact same as the phone
Click to expand...

Sorry, but pointing out that the most popular single camera phone is used most frequently to take photos does not mean it has a great camera. It means it's the most likely camera to be used.

I have nothing against the iPhone's camera (or for that matter the camera in the iPad) for simple snapshots with average lighting. It is not, however, "on par (with) a $200...point and shoot camera." At least not a good P&S and not for more challenging conditions. In fact, in situations where a camera phone is "on par" with a reasonably high quality $200 P&S camera a $10 disposable camera is, too.
 
jsh1120 said:
Sorry, but pointing out that the most popular single camera phone is used most frequently to take photos does not mean it has a great camera. It means it's the most likely camera to be used.

I have nothing against the iPhone's camera (or for that matter the camera in the iPad) for simple snapshots with average lighting. It is not, however, "on par (with) a $200...point and shoot camera." At least not a good P&S and not for more challenging conditions. In fact, in situations where a camera phone is "on par" with a reasonably high quality $200 P&S camera a $10 disposable camera is, too.
Click to expand...
I've done some incredible photography with the iPhone 4's camera (the one above excluded), and I have to disagree with you. I've used plenty of different DSLRs in the past, as well as numerous vintage analog cameras, but the iPhone is definitely one of my personal favorites. Someone keen to photography can take some excellent shots with it, and while you will get better quality photos out of say, a high-end Canon DSLR, it definitely is on par with my point and shoot Nikon, which was near the $200 mark.
 
jsh1120 said:
Sorry, but pointing out that the most popular single camera phone is used most frequently to take photos does not mean it has a great camera. It means it's the most likely camera to be used.

I have nothing against the iPhone's camera (or for that matter the camera in the iPad) for simple snapshots with average lighting. It is not, however, "on par (with) a $200...point and shoot camera." At least not a good P&S and not for more challenging conditions. In fact, in situations where a camera phone is "on par" with a reasonably high quality $200 P&S camera a $10 disposable camera is, too.
Click to expand...

Take a look at some of the examples and tell me the camera is not great. Being extremely popular DOES prove that the camera is fantastic because it shows less people feel the need to carry a separate camera with them as the iPhone is more than adequate for what they want to do. As far as challenging conditions if you're referring to low light then there is not many cameras out there capable of doing good under those conditions.
 
cshearer said:
Seconded. This is a photo I took of flooding in my area, taken with the iPhone 4 with high dynamic range enabled. I then applied a quick 70's-esque filter with Luminance. Anyone who rags on the iPhone 4's camera knows nothing about photography/cameras.
Click to expand...

Sorry, buddy. I don't mean to rag on either your photographic skills or the iPhone's photographic capabilities. The photo you posted is certainly adequate to document the flooding you folks have suffered. (My sympathies, by the way.) But it's more an example of overexposure than a capable photographic tool.

Again, I don't mean to denigrate the iPhone's camera. It's perfectly adequate for the purposes for which it's designed. And some improvement can often be had with post-processing. But it shouldn't be compared to a dedicated photographic tool. Nor should that of any phone.
 
Looon said:
...Being extremely popular DOES prove that the camera is fantastic because it shows less people feel the need to carry a separate camera with them as the iPhone is more than adequate for what they want to do. As far as challenging conditions if you're referring to low light then there is not many cameras out there capable of doing good under those conditions.
Click to expand...

What most people "want to do" with a camera is to take casual snapshots in more or less ideal lighting conditions and post them on the web. For that limited objective a camera phone is perfectly adequate. So is a $10 disposable camera.

One of my favorite photographs is one I snapped with my iPad's camera. It looks beautiful as the home screen on my iPad and it's one of my favorites because it captured my seven year old's delight as she sat on the lawn at an afternoon concert. That doesn't make the camera on the iPad great. It was the subject, the lighting conditions, and the intended use of the photo that makes it a great photograph. (At least to me.)

On the other hand, I can use a good DSLR or even a good P&S in a much wider variety of conditions (including low light) and do much more with the resulting image than I can with the camera in my iPad (or that in my phone.) That's what makes a good camera.
 
jsh1120 said:
Sorry, buddy. I don't mean to rag on either your photographic skills or the iPhone's photographic capabilities. The photo you posted is certainly adequate to document the flooding you folks have suffered. (My sympathies, by the way.) But it's more an example of overexposure than a capable photographic tool.

Again, I don't mean to denigrate the iPhone's camera. It's perfectly adequate for the purposes for which it's designed. And some improvement can often be had with post-processing. But it shouldn't be compared to a dedicated photographic tool. Nor should that of any phone.
Click to expand...
As I said in the post, a quick 70s filter, and I have yet to touch it again. Also assuming you do have some degree of photographic skills, then you would certainly realize that although accidental, I could have very well been using overexposure in an artistic way. Looking at that, given the situation, the exposure creates a dramatic effect (in my opinion), and puts emphasis on the flooded pathway and not the sky in the background (which is distracting in the original.)

The original is much better, in my opinion, and I do all of my photography with my iPhone 4 (and my analog Minolta, sparingly), as I don't have a couple hundred dollars to drop on a camera. Again, I respectfully disagree with you. It absolutely takes better quality photos than my Nikon, therefore my comparison with it still stands firm.

----------

Anyhow, this thread has gone severely off topic. Let's agree to disagree, eh? :)

As per the topic of the thread, it's been said, but simulating the screen IS way easier. Have you ever seen those knuckleheads who record something you really want to see that was on TV at some point, but they just pointed their video camera at the TV and threw it on YouTube using that method? Case and point.
 
Last edited:
bocomo said:
how, exactly?

care to actually add anything to the conversation?
Click to expand...

Because you made a statement that other tablet makers are not confident because they use simulated screens in their commercials.

When in fact apple uses simulated screens all the time in their commercials.

So you just contradicted yourself.

Seriously, how are you having this much trouble understanding this basic concept.
 
Looon said:
lol @ the guy saying Apple puts the worst cameras in their products

Check Flickr, the iphone 4 is the most used camera on that site. You know why? Because it takes amazing pictures that are usually on par if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera

Show me a phone that takes better pictures

Obviously the ipod touch isn't going to have as good a camera because it's not meant to be the exact same as the phone
Click to expand...

The iPhone has a fantastic camera. But you're using that opinion in order to skew the facts.

1) Popularity does not equal "best". Look at the most popular DSLR shots on Flickr and you'll find more from the Canon Rebel series than the Pro end Canons. That's not because it's a better camera, it's because they're in the most hands.

2) You're talking about the back camera. But the front camera which is used for FaceTime or self portraits is equally terrible on all iOS device including the iPhone 4

3) again, the iPhone 4 takes great photos... Outdoors. But if you want to find some terrible shots then just skim through all those indoor shots and you'll find an equal/greater amount of terrible photos taken with an iPhone 4

Most people will agree that the iPhone has an amazing back camera and the addition of apps to alter/enhance photos makes the iPhone the most ideal camera for casual photos. But let's not pretend that you can make those claims with the entire iOS line. The Apple brand name indicates a very high expectation in quality that we PAY for so it's not blasphemy to point out that the iPad/Touch/iPhone Front camera could be a lot better.

(BTW. I'm not hating. I just ebayed a lot of my low end gear because when I get an iPhone 5 then I have no reason to own a Point and Shoot or a Micro 4/3 anymore. It'll be my Canon 7D for big trips/jobs and the iPhone 5 for EVERYTHING else)
 
Last edited:
Interesting point. I went back and rewatched the iPad ads. I'm kind of thinking that these are live images. If they blue screened them in it is really impressive. In many cases you can see the reflections of the actors' hands on the screen. You can also see the hands being lit by the iPad display. In some cases the actor is interacting with the screen as in turning a page or drawing a letter or character.

Clearly these were very professionally done. I suspect that if you balanced the lighting, ran the iPads very bright and covered up things towards the camera with black flannel or something like that then you could make videos using a live screen.

As for the actors using Facetime. It would be easy to get the alignment right, just position them in front of the camera, not the center of the screen. If the lights are really bright then the images are not grainy.

Steve generally has a penchant for not faking things from what I've heard of internal discussions of product demos. I'd be surprised if they faked the displays on something as important as this.
 
Original poster hating on competitor tablet ads bring out Apple tablet ad haters out of the woodwork.

Negativity breeds like tribbles.
 
urkel said:
The iPhone has a fantastic camera. But you're using that opinion in order to skew the facts.

1) Popularity does not equal "best". Look at the most popular DSLR shots on Flickr and you'll find more from the Canon Rebel series than the Pro end Canons. That's not because it's a better camera, it's because they're in the most hands.

2) You're talking about the back camera. But the front camera which is used for FaceTime or self portraits is equally terrible on all iOS device including the iPhone 4

3) again, the iPhone 4 takes great photos... Outdoors. But if you want to find some terrible shots then just skim through all those indoor shots and you'll find an equal/greater amount of terrible photos taken with an iPhone 4

Most people will agree that the iPhone has an amazing back camera and the addition of apps to alter/enhance photos makes the iPhone the most ideal camera for casual photos. But let's not pretend that you can make those claims with the entire iOS line. The Apple brand name indicates a very high expectation in quality that we PAY for so it's not blasphemy to point out that the iPad/Touch/iPhone Front camera could be a lot better.

(BTW. I'm not hating. I just ebayed a lot of my low end gear because when I get an iPhone 5 then I have no reason to own a Point and Shoot or a Micro 4/3 anymore. It'll be my Canon 7D for big trips/jobs and the iPhone 5 for EVERYTHING else)
Click to expand...

I would counter by saying that there's a lot of cameras out there that don't do so hot in the indoor setting either. Take a look at some of the the "beginner" DSLR cameras from cannon that cost $500 new, even their indoor shots leave something to be desired. So why bother spending the extra money when you get a slight drop in quality for a huge drop in price? It's a cost/benefit thing and when it comes down to it the iPhone makes the most sense. No matter what camera they put on it there is always going to be something left missing because with phones getting thinner it's not possible to fit the same lens in as you would for a stand alone camera and especially not some DSLR that has a huge optical zoom, but who wants to carry that around? The best camera is the one that's with you
 
Doesn't the nokia N9 and most other high end nokia phones have better cameras then the iphone 4.
 
spiderman0616 said:
I think the problem with "other" tablets is that the wireless carriers are the only ones who seem to want to market them. And the wireless carriers (especially Verizon. example: the new Bionic ad. Yes, I know it's a phone, but it's the first thing that comes to mind.) like to use flashy action sequences and crazy animations to get you to buy the product rather than show you what it does.

Apple just says in their ads, "Here is our product. Here is what you are able to do using our product. Isn't that cool?" Apple logo. Fade out. Just like the company itself, the ads are simple, well designed, and play to the emotional attachment people seem to have with their Apple products. I will admit, sometimes when I'm browsing Apple's site, I watch those iPad ads. In the same way that the Pure Michigan commercials make me want to go to Michigan, the iPad commercials make me want to go get my iPad 2 and just hug it for a few minutes.
Click to expand...

Look up Pure Michigan parody adds on YouTube closer to the truth. Up north is pretty amazing though.
 
fizzwinkus said:
curious. i've never had problems filming live screens on powerbooks, MacBooks, iMacs, etc. in studios.

is it a fluorescent backlight or an led backlight?
Click to expand...

It's an LED model. It's not a bad, CRT like flicker(which I can actually see with my own eyes), it's just rainbow lines that move across the screen, especially if my hands are moving a little.
 
swy05 said:
Because you made a statement that other tablet makers are not confident because they use simulated screens in their commercials.

When in fact apple uses simulated screens all the time in their commercials.

So you just contradicted yourself.

Seriously, how are you having this much trouble understanding this basic concept.
Click to expand...

apple doesn't seem to be simulating their screens though

that's what i'm talking about
 
bocomo said:
apple doesn't seem to be simulating their screens though

that's what i'm talking about
Click to expand...

I don't think you read the replies to your own thread. Just because someone believes in purple unicorns doesn't make them real. And yes your the one believing in unicorns.
 
labman said:
I don't think you read the replies to your own thread. Just because someone believes in purple unicorns doesn't make them real. And yes your the one believing in unicorns.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It really is odd that someone would crate and participate in a thread, yet not read the replies that have consistently pointed out that Apple also simulates screens in most of their advertising just like everyone else does.

I think that if the OP really has that odd desire to "prove" superiority of a product that is already the market leader then he should focus on bragging at how much better and more effective Apple ads are than the competition. Even when I see a competing ad for a product I already own then I still don't understand the point...
 
Looon said:
lol @ the guy saying Apple puts the worst cameras in their products

Check Flickr, the iphone 4 is the most used camera on that site. You know why? Because it takes amazing pictures that are usually on par if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera

Show me a phone that takes better pictures

Obviously the ipod touch isn't going to have as good a camera because it's not meant to be the exact same as the phone
Click to expand...

"if not better than a $200 range point and shoot camera"

Wow, talk about getting over excited, I've just a few cameras in that price range and let me assure you the quaility, as expected, is significantly better than that from an iPhone! The panasonic tz20, the samsung wb2000 come to mind in the price, with 16x optical zoom, 1080p recording and great picture quality with raw support etc, just about any $80+ digital camera should thrash an iphones, I mean lets me honest, ones a phone, ones a camera, its too be expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back