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.
Future iPhones Could Capture 'Super-Resolution' Photos Using Optical Image Stabilization
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is this going to deal with fast moving objects?
Surley by the time the second part of the photo is being taken the image will have changed.
It won't work with them. However, it has a chance of working OK with static ones, assuming you use a tripod to can lean the iPhone to something to avoid camera shake.
Don't have high hopes, though - Apple's previous multi-frame "pick the best frame" implementation wasn't really great either.
The human eye works in the same way. By making constant rapid movements it scans and "stitches" multiple pictures and creates a much higher resolution image.
Can you patent something already existing in nature ?
Can you patent something already existing in nature ?
Vibrating sensor never led to better images. Ask Pentax how their idea of optional AA filter by shaking sensor works in real life. TL;DR: not so good.
There is a human limit of perceived resolution anyway. iPhone/etc photos end up on the web with resolutions well below 2MP.
I would have understood if Apple stood up to the stupid MP race and made a say 4MP camera with excellent sensor and good optics. IMO zoom (or e.g. tri-prime) is needed more than resolution. That would have been something. (Or put three cameras with different lenses!) Apple of the past was the company which stood up to the stupid gimmicky trends...
The article quite clearly states that neither CPU nor GPU will take any part in stitching together multiple shots.
Also, you're more or less wrong about requiring a lot of processing power. A G4 could do it.
----------
Oh, right
They did just hire the Lumia guy tho =P
"More detailed" is also a strange way of describing 5mp output from a 41mp sensor, when I think you mean 'better detail than some other 5mp sensor would give'.
Sigma has been doing this pixel-combining with the Foveon sensor since it came out, and they don't bother calling it anything except High, Med, Low resolution.
the only thing that iphone lens can't do is shallow depth of field. that is just to do with physical size of the lens+sensor. unless they do some clever software bluring. and in addition not on a wide angle lens like that.
The text and your interpretations are wrong. The patent doesn'T describe any stitching but a way to get the needed variation to get super-resolution processing going.
A little reading for people really interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superresolution
This approach has imo the key to overcome the sucky resolution of the mini lens in the iPhone.
A little reading for people really interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superresolution
This approach has imo the key to overcome the sucky resolution of the mini lens in the iPhone.
Not if the 6 cylinder was made in America
I had a Buick Grand National with a 3.8L turbo v-6 back in 1987 that held it's own against much more expensive competition.
In a drag race there weren't many stock V-8's that could beat it. As far as American made cars, the only one faster in the 1/4 mile was the Corvette that year. When Detroit puts its mind to something, they can do an outstanding job.
You are correct. Phone cameras have improved drastically, but they can't match the performance of DSLRs. And if depth wasn't needed like many here try to claim, than professional cameras would have slimed down long ago.
What a novel, never-heard-of-before concept!
Still, given the sensor is pitifully small next to real cameras that have wider gamut, RAW mode, exchangeable higher quality lenses to cover macro to telephoto ranges, and other actually professional features and uses as opposed to overpriced kiddietrash...
Still, given the sensor is pitifully small next to real cameras that have wider gamut, RAW mode, exchangeable higher quality lenses to cover macro to telephoto ranges, and other actually professional features and uses as opposed to overpriced kiddietrash...
What a novel, never-heard-of-before concept!
Still, given the sensor is pitifully small next to real cameras that have wider gamut, RAW mode, exchangeable higher quality lenses to cover macro to telephoto ranges, and other actually professional features and uses as opposed to overpriced kiddietrash...
So you're saying that phone cameras can't compete with professional system cameras?
Guys - No reason to fight over. If Apple can improve the quality of the iphone cam great for all users. Will never be a match for my Nikon D7k, but in a pinch it's better then no cam at all.
I had a Buick Grand National with a 3.8L turbo v-6 back in 1987 that held it's own against much more expensive competition.
You’re really in your [mid] 40s ... ?
On-the-off-topic: The GN was a terrific vehicle - a few bolts-ons away from a 12 second car ... a friend of mine has a GNX in storage and daily drove a Typhoon (speaking of domestic V6s) until a couple of years ago.