I'm never going to be interested in the larger model. 4.7 inch is too large already. Bring it to 4 inch models.
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.
Hands-On With the New 'Portrait' Mode Beta Feature in the iPhone 7 Plus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One thing to note it's not just high end DSLR's that can give this shallow depth of field. Any half decent digital camera with a reasonable sensor size can do this with relative ease. The smaller the sensor the harder it is, but most crop sensor DSLR's and kit lenses, far from top end, can easily get the same shallow depth of field
Having said that it is an interesting tool that I cant wait to play with when (if) my JB iPhone 7+ eventually ships
Having said that it is an interesting tool that I cant wait to play with when (if) my JB iPhone 7+ eventually ships
Interesting because on my old canon dslr I had to press the depth of field button to get the view with bokeh. While looking through the viewfinder everything was always in focus, no matter what f-stop the camera was set to.
Phil should have been more specific but at the same time I still think he is right by what he said. After downloading and using the 10.1 beta with the portrait mode I understand it even more.
The iPhone camera is able to automatically adjust the f-stop or amount of blur automatically just by moving the phone closer or father away from the subject, or if you were to move around the subject totally changing what would be in the background.
It's all done continuous and automatic, and I think that's what Phil was bragging about when he said dslr cameras cannot do that. To be honest I haven't seen a dslr camera that can do it all "automatically" in live preview.
I'm not even sure if I'm explaining it clearly. But if you guys download the beta and try it you'd understand. It even tells you if you're too near or far to focus, also if there isn't enough light.
Last edited:
Yep as soon as I blow up the iPhone 6 images, even high brightness "Easy" images for the camera to get, the noise is absolutely terrible. Do the same on my DSLR and I'm looking at ISO 3200 before I start to see a similar quality degradation when "pixel peeping" I believe the iPhone 6S was a little better, but cant expect a massive improvement for such a small sensor - there is simply only so much light that falls on a small section so the effective amplification is going to be huge in comparison with the 77mm or 82mm front element sixe on some of my lenses (And they are only f2.8 lol)
[doublepost=1474532410][/doublepost]
That's because the normal view is with the aperture full open to give the maximum light in to allow easier focussing. Pressing the DOF button usually steps the aperture in to the one that the camera/you have selected for the image.
Yea I know that's what the depth of field button does but someone else quoted my post and said it doesn't work like that. If you read back a little on this same page you'll see.
The important thing here is that your average DSLR cannot shoot wide open in full sun. Also, you need a really good lens to get sharp images while shooting wide open. So the artificial bokeh solves both of these things, essentially bringing that sought after effect to everyday photography. I think this is great and I hope they will be able to bring it to the smaller iPhone as soon as possible!
Yup - here's one from my Nikon D5100 with a Nikkor 50mm prime, which combine cost less than an iPhone 7 Plus.
Attachments
Cool, now people can take crappy photos of their damn cats/dogs with bokeh.
This is one of the most embarrassing features I've ever seen them add. The blur looks horrific! Especially around the edges of whatever in focus, which is particularly obvious on the photo of the succulent plant - half the leaves are blurred away with the background! They should be pin sharp while the background is out of focus.
I realise they've done what they can with limited technology, but what they've done is poor quality.
I realise they've done what they can with limited technology, but what they've done is poor quality.
If you have an SLR, good, take real bokeh pictures. If you have an iPhone, take photos your iPhone's lens produces. What's the point of making an iPhone shot look like it was taken on an SLR, without the true advantages of either. To me this is like breast implants — trying to make it look like they're bigger than they are. Be proud of what you got and stop trying to fake it with artificial trickery. Or like drinking hot chocolate and telling everyone it's coffee, or drinking water and saying it's Vodka just to appear more cool. Or like putting a hole in your crappy car's exhaust to make it sound like it's a sports car when it isn't. It ruins it for everyone and people will just make fun of it.
The iPhone doesn't have an f-stop. That's why it can do this "live". Real cameras let you change the aperture. If you had a Canon with an F 2.8 lens and you set it to only shoot in F 2.8, then you would 100% of the time have a "live" view of the Depth of Field "effect".
And if you had an F2.8 lens and set your camera to F5.6, it will show you an F2.8 image in the viewfinder and in the LCD, and when you hit the DOF Preview button, it will switch it to F5.6 to show you the less blurry image that will result.
It is better for the camera to let you frame the shot wide open because it makes checking focus a lot easier. If what you want to photograph is not in focus, it will be really obvious at F2.8. Not so much at F5.6, when half the scene is in focus.
Bottom Line: Phil Schiller just made this whole thing up to score some free points. Or maybe to create some fake controversy so that we would be talking about it instead of doing something better with our lives.
Anyway... the effect looks cool but it does not do a great job with edge detection. I'd like an option to tone down the effect to get something a little more subtle without such obvious flaws when it doesn't work quite right.
Hah, not quite. Though I've always been a big fan of Lamborghinis, my Mini Cooper cost substantially less and is quite a bit easier to drive. This was just from a video shoot I was on, and I thought having a Walmart in the same frame as a Lamborghini would be a fun shot to have.One would of course assume that that is your car in the photo.
Nice ride, sir!
It looks great and it's great feature for a phone, but I can see that the depth of field is generated and not produced physically right away. It will never be the same as DSLR or a medium format camera.
I guess most people won't see the difference but photographers should see it right away.
Something to bear in mind during all this discussion on what does and does not comprise "real" bokeh or indeed whether a DSLR is better than a Mirrorless or if that is better than a smartphone. What really matters is capturing a moment in a way that is faithful to the experience that you, the photographer, had at the time. What you are trying to do is preserve that experience so that you can enjoy it and share it again and again.
From my understanding, the human eye captures a scene by jumping from point of interest to point of interest in a (largely) involuntary manner and builds up a mental photograph of the scene. Both the iris and the lens within the eye will constantly adapt to each point of interest adjusting focus and exposure each time. The process is a bit like building up a jigsaw of image segments to form the whole scene. If you've ever seen any science programs which involve eye-tracking then you'll understand what I mean. So the human eye won't normally experience 'bokeh' unless it is staring at a single point unblinkingly. Even then, because we usually have two eyes, we don't see the unfocussed area in the same way as a single lens camera due to divergence.
So this is already very different to how a typical camera captures a scene and so pretty much every photograph ever taken is already "artificial" when compared to what you would experience with the naked eye.
What a good photographer does is capture the essence of the scene through a combination of techniques, probably the most important of which is framing the shot followed by things like focus and depth of field etc. Lighting is also crucial obviously. However, regardless of the equipment or techniques employed, the resulting photograph is necessarily a subjective and opinionated representation of the real-life scene and what really matters is whether it captures the experience in a way that pleases the photographer.
Until light field cameras such as the Lytro are perfected and hit the mainstream our photographs will always be opinionated and subjective. What's great about smartphone cameras is that they are more likely to be in your pocket when you see a scene you want to capture and although optically they will never be as "good" as larger format cameras, we can all gain from any improvements in their capabilities.
So enjoy whatever camera you have in your hand and keep experimenting with different techniques and tools to get the effect you want. Nobody can do that better than you!
From my understanding, the human eye captures a scene by jumping from point of interest to point of interest in a (largely) involuntary manner and builds up a mental photograph of the scene. Both the iris and the lens within the eye will constantly adapt to each point of interest adjusting focus and exposure each time. The process is a bit like building up a jigsaw of image segments to form the whole scene. If you've ever seen any science programs which involve eye-tracking then you'll understand what I mean. So the human eye won't normally experience 'bokeh' unless it is staring at a single point unblinkingly. Even then, because we usually have two eyes, we don't see the unfocussed area in the same way as a single lens camera due to divergence.
So this is already very different to how a typical camera captures a scene and so pretty much every photograph ever taken is already "artificial" when compared to what you would experience with the naked eye.
What a good photographer does is capture the essence of the scene through a combination of techniques, probably the most important of which is framing the shot followed by things like focus and depth of field etc. Lighting is also crucial obviously. However, regardless of the equipment or techniques employed, the resulting photograph is necessarily a subjective and opinionated representation of the real-life scene and what really matters is whether it captures the experience in a way that pleases the photographer.
Until light field cameras such as the Lytro are perfected and hit the mainstream our photographs will always be opinionated and subjective. What's great about smartphone cameras is that they are more likely to be in your pocket when you see a scene you want to capture and although optically they will never be as "good" as larger format cameras, we can all gain from any improvements in their capabilities.
So enjoy whatever camera you have in your hand and keep experimenting with different techniques and tools to get the effect you want. Nobody can do that better than you!
It's fine for you! But people here are talking in general, and I know people who use smartphone and don't buy PC/Laptop and definitely don't buy adobe Photoshop. I don't know how good Photoshop is on smartphone to be honest. But personally I would avoid using if I can achieve from camera what I want.
That's amazing... I think this feature alone is worth upgrading for. But the main problem is that it's only on the 7 Plus and I can't carry such a huge phone. Hopefully the next iPhone will have a dual camera on both models.
Bo-keh vs Bo-kuh debate. Here is Stu Maschwitz (worked on Star Wars at ILM and is married to an asian woman):
https://twitter.com/5tu/status/770347779289788416
https://twitter.com/5tu/status/770347779289788416
Yeah thats probably true, but I do manage f2.8 at ISO 100, but it's often in the 1/4000 sec range, sometimes up to 1/8000 sec which is the limit of my camera (I shoot motorsport so that high a shutter speed is often not that bad). To get slower wide open, or if I drop to my f1.2 lenses I do have to resort to filters, a messy necessity of photography
[doublepost=1474540380][/doublepost]
Agreed - I did a similar pic with an old D7000, and a guys D90 with a 18-105 f4-5.6 kit lens. When compared to my D800 there was no difference, so we proved that it's not the camera or lens, it is the way you structure the image.
It's not arguing, just stating facts, at least from my side as a photographer. I honestly think it's interesting, but a little overdone, at least in the very few images I have seen, but its early days and can only get better. I'm almost a week closer to the 8 week estimate of getting my 7+, so I wont be trialing it for a while yet lol
