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.
iPod touch HD video but only VGA photos...?
- Thread starter lotones
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just to be perfectly clear here....
The market today is saturated with cheap 1.3 megapixel or less cameras.
There's this one:
This one....
Oh and this one....
And the newest digital camera for COOL kids now comes from Apple!
Seriously gang....Apple just totally spec'd the new iPod Touch with a camera of lesser quality than Fisher Price. Its insulting.
The market today is saturated with cheap 1.3 megapixel or less cameras.
There's this one:
This one....
Oh and this one....
And the newest digital camera for COOL kids now comes from Apple!
Seriously gang....Apple just totally spec'd the new iPod Touch with a camera of lesser quality than Fisher Price. Its insulting.
I understand what you are trying to say, but to say pixel count means absolutely nothing is absurd. Pixels are the basic building blocks of every digital image. Nothing? Seriously? The images may look ok on an iPod, iPhone, or iPad, but as the display gets bigger and higher resolution, the picture will fill a smaller and smaller part of the screen. Want to make a print? Ok the math is pretty simple, take each dimension in pixels and divide it by 240 and you'll have the dimensions in inches for a good quality print.
Pixels do matter.
Pixel COUNT means nothing when discussing quality. As I said in another thread, you could have a 20MP camera that doesnt take pictures as good as a 5MP camera.
If you're concerned with prints, cellphones or mobile devices should be the last thing you'd be using for such important pictures. The iPod touch, iPhone, etc. are meant for quick shots that you'd upload to social networking. Not archival quality.
And, again, my point is that pixel quality is more important than pixel count. A "0.7MP" camera isn't going to necessarily take BAD pictures. It will just take SMALL pictures.
I do agree that Apple should have included a higher resolution camera. But theres no reason to say that the iPod touch will take BAD pictures because of its low pixel count.
The iPod touch is marketed as a portable gaming device and is primarily a music player, it doesn't deserve a 5mp camera.
The regular Joe isn't going to be taking photos with it and printing it out to put in his album! No he'd just want to upload something to twitter and facebook.
I think you guys need stop complaining and get a real digital camera/handphone which takes better shots because the iPod is never going to compete with those and it doesn't need to
The regular Joe isn't going to be taking photos with it and printing it out to put in his album! No he'd just want to upload something to twitter and facebook.
I think you guys need stop complaining and get a real digital camera/handphone which takes better shots because the iPod is never going to compete with those and it doesn't need to
Really? Then why didn't the media slaughter them for making it taller?
What's with Steve and his fetish for thinness?
the same thing can be said for a cellphone...but they have 3.5-5+mp cams,gps,games,maps,tv shows.music players and internet browsers now
no new device deserves a .7mp in 2010 lol
Taller doesn't change how it is held in your hand.
I'm also glad to see the swarms of moronic people who all completely believe the megapixel myth.
Note that I am in no way saying that this is a great camera, but to say that it will be as bad as a Razer's camera just based on the megapixel count alone? Come on guys. Get educated.
Here's a shot resized to 960x640 (a bit smaller on the one end than the new iPod Touch's 960x720 resolution) of a snake I found last fall.
At this size it is very good quality IMO, but the thing is I've never seen a sub-megapixel camera deliver good image quality. I don't mind a small image file; I rarely use photos larger than this one I attached here. But if anyone thinks the iPod Touch's camera will even come close to this shot I think you're sorely mistaken!
That aside, a 0.7MP camera is better than none at all...and we can't really judge the IQ (image quality) until we start seeing some samples! I'm sure in a week or so there will be a mega-thread devoted to the rear camera stills. Can't wait!
At this size it is very good quality IMO, but the thing is I've never seen a sub-megapixel camera deliver good image quality. I don't mind a small image file; I rarely use photos larger than this one I attached here. But if anyone thinks the iPod Touch's camera will even come close to this shot I think you're sorely mistaken!
That aside, a 0.7MP camera is better than none at all...and we can't really judge the IQ (image quality) until we start seeing some samples! I'm sure in a week or so there will be a mega-thread devoted to the rear camera stills. Can't wait!
But it affects how it fits in your pocket. That aside, it was already super thin at 0.33". What's to gain by making it even thinner? It doesn't improve how it's held.
Here's a shot resized to 960x640 (a bit smaller on the one end than the new iPod Touch's 960x720 resolution) of a snake I found last fall.
At this size it is very good quality IMO, but the thing is I've never seen a sub-megapixel camera deliver good image quality. I don't mind a small image file; I rarely use photos larger than this one I attached here. But if anyone thinks the iPod Touch's camera will even come close to this shot I think you're sorely mistaken!
That aside, a 0.7MP camera is better than none at all...and we can't really judge the IQ (image quality) until we start seeing some samples! I'm sure in a week or so there will be a mega-thread devoted to the rear camera stills. Can't wait!
No way you'll get this quality image from the ipod's camera. at .7 megapixel you wont have the sharpness in the distance or clarity in the foreground. i could be wrong though. Maybe Steve pulled a magic lens out of his ass and somehow made this camera work. We'll just have to wait and see..
The picture isn't loading for me, but he said the resolution of the picture provided is 960x640. That's smaller than the resolution that the iPod touch will give you. 960x640 is 0.61 megapixels.
Nobody actually knows what the hell camera is in the iPt 4G yet, except people at Apple and the people that made the camera I'd say. Geez, folks... it's a convenience feature, it's not something that'll turn you into the world's greatest photographer, good lord.
And there is absolutely nothing that stops Apple from actually doing some form of cropping the input when the camera is in still mode - it could be a proper 1280x720 .9MP camera in there, we simply do not know.
Nobody has one, nobody has torn it apart yet, Apple isn't saying what the exact megapixel rating or the camera resolution actually is, so... give it a week and somebody will know for sure.
It works, it's useful, get over it.
And there is absolutely nothing that stops Apple from actually doing some form of cropping the input when the camera is in still mode - it could be a proper 1280x720 .9MP camera in there, we simply do not know.
Nobody has one, nobody has torn it apart yet, Apple isn't saying what the exact megapixel rating or the camera resolution actually is, so... give it a week and somebody will know for sure.
It works, it's useful, get over it.
Nobody has one, nobody has torn it apart yet, Apple isn't saying what the exact megapixel rating or the camera resolution actually is, so... give it a week and somebody will know for sure.
It works, it's useful, get over it.
+1.
I'm really excited to have a utility camera on this new touch. I have a real camera for any real photography I want to do.
The iPod touch specs page tells us that it can take 720p video, and can take 720p stills using the back camera at 960x720. I'm not sure it gets more official than that.
How can u tell that it takes *720p* stills? 960x720 ain't 720p when i last checked.
PLUS, according to his image (below) by Apple, the preview picture on the iPod Touch on the right looks pretty good! It's gotta be the camera still setting, because it isn't set on the video setting as you see at the bottom of the screen where you can switch between video and still camera.
So if it is that quality, then SUCCESS, looks like a pretty nice SOLID upgrade from Apple and definatly worth the WONGA
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=249742&stc=1&d=1283440896
Attachments
The camera on the iPod (and most cell phone cameras) are clearly meant for casual use. I have a 6 MP Nikon DSLR at home, and I have a *12* megapixel Canon point-and-shoot (that's 4000x3000 pixels).
And what do I do with most of the photos I take? Sure, I keep the full-size original for my own storage, but the ones I share end up getting resized to about 640x400 to share on Facebook, or at best 800x600 for sharing by email, Twitter, or on a personal gallery site.
There actually comes a point where you can have TOO MANY megapixels, especially when the sensors are so small.
And what do I do with most of the photos I take? Sure, I keep the full-size original for my own storage, but the ones I share end up getting resized to about 640x400 to share on Facebook, or at best 800x600 for sharing by email, Twitter, or on a personal gallery site.
There actually comes a point where you can have TOO MANY megapixels, especially when the sensors are so small.
The point you quite obviously are missing, however, is that a resized 4Kx3K photo down to 640x480 will typically look remarkably better and more vibrant than a 640x480 picture taken at native resolution.
Take the snake photo above as the example. That photo clearly wasn't taken at that resolution, as is evidenced by its EXIF tags. The native resolution of that photo was over 4000x4000.
I don't disagree with you that for use on Facebook or any other small-format media sharing site, the toy-like optics of the iPod Touch are likely more than sufficient. But don't kid yourself....they are for producing something far less than casual pictures.
Nice photo of the snake! As has been mentioned above, taking a DSLR image and lowering its resolution will not produce a comparable result to a .7mp sensor image. For starters the much smaller size of the sensor and its photosites will dramatically reduce the quality of the pixels and image produced.
Its true pixels aren't everything - but you do need enough of them to capture acceptable detail - anyone for a 4 pixel camera? We do have to throw lens quality, sensor design, and processor algorithms into the mix. Soon, we'll start to see some stills and everyone can decide for themselves, but the fact that Apple has not released any sample images, and that they pretty much buried the details back on the spec sheet is not encouraging.
Its true pixels aren't everything - but you do need enough of them to capture acceptable detail - anyone for a 4 pixel camera? We do have to throw lens quality, sensor design, and processor algorithms into the mix. Soon, we'll start to see some stills and everyone can decide for themselves, but the fact that Apple has not released any sample images, and that they pretty much buried the details back on the spec sheet is not encouraging.
How can u tell that it takes *720p* stills? 960x720 ain't 720p when i last checked.
PLUS, according to his image (below) by Apple, the preview picture on the iPod Touch on the right looks pretty good! It's gotta be the camera still setting, because it isn't set on the video setting as you see at the bottom of the screen where you can switch between video and still camera.
So if it is that quality, then SUCCESS, looks like a pretty nice SOLID upgrade from Apple and definatly worth the WONGA
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=249742&stc=1&d=1283440896
You do realize these images are composited in Photoshop right? The image on the iPod screen area is not really on the screen, its comped in there so it looks better in print.