iPhone 3.0 Firmware to Take Better Photos?

[Surklyn]

Right, you can change wording to make it sound wrong. But thats not the point of logic.
The original statement is called the Premise, and is taken as true.
You can't just make up what comes next.

He didn't change the wording. He inserted a premise that is proven to be true, and following your format proved that the format commits a fallacy. The format is only true some of the time, not all of the time.

 

[kjs862]

Nice, amazing what they can do with a little software tweak.

 

[jandep]

My comparison photos

Here's the results I had...

and

and

The side by side comparisons were taken with the very same iPhone camera with a freshly cleaned, untouched lens. Attempts were made to place the camera in the same position, have the same lighting and subjects, and to not move the camera at all while snapping the pictures. I braced the phone against a frame in each case. Each picture set was taken about 5-10 minutes apart.

However, these differences are not from a firmware upgrade. I took the tip of a poster in this thread to look at the UV-film wearing problem. I thought I'd clean the film off of my lens and see if I got better results. I had noticed the blurriness and bloom effect in my photos recently (after a trip to the beach, no doubt the cause of the UV-coating wear) that looked suspiciously like the pictures on the right in the original news article.

Here's close-ups of the lens. You can see the purple coating in the first pic which is obviously unevenly worn. Mid-cleaning cycle I took a pic. Then a third when I was done. There's still coating left, and probably some scratches to boot. But I was having to press surprisingly hard between pic #2 and #3, so I figured I was getting diminishing returns.

Yes, the images are photoshopped for you EXIF info freaks. I had to make the side by side comparisons and JPEG 'em and then shrink the images to make them manageable, but no other tinkering was done. I will gladly make available, to anyone that asks, the original, unedited, individual files.

Sorry for the long post. I've just been very suspicious since I saw this earlier today. Sure there could be, and probably are, some software tweaks to improve pics in FW3.0. But I doubt that the dramatic changes in the original article are solely due to that. You can tear apart my scientific method too. But I tried to be as transparent as possible.

Anyone else willing to scuff up then totally sacrifice their UV-coating and give us a before/after series in the name of research?

 

[Powerbooky]

Maybe 3.0 adds a "RAW" option? That way its much easier to 'improve' the image afterwards Photoshop or iPhoto.

 

[bobertoq]

Not sure how just software can do that but the better, the better!

to bad it cant add a flash

That's for Adobe to take care of!

haha

 

[Compile 'em all]

Someone complained about the iPhone not having a flash. It's there. You just have to know how to do it.

1. Run myLite. Set it to continuous full white.
2. Point the screen at your subject.
3. Run the camera app. It is important that you do this step quickly. Very quickly.
4. Take the picture of your subject at the same time the light from your screen reaches the subject.

Presto. Instant flash.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it instant though

 

[(L)]

ALL phone cameras are utter rubbish. Who cares if the next one is 1% less hopeless.

agreed. wasted effort.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I for one like what is shown as an improvement in quality.... did not wade through all the posts so far.... but my iPhone 1G seems to be like the ones posted on the main page...

 

[kas23]

I for one like what is shown as an improvement in quality.... did not wade through all the posts so far.... but my iPhone 1G seems to be like the ones posted on the main page...

I was actually surprised by the photos on the main page. My 3G never takes horrible pictures like that. But, I guess I wouldn't know, as I never use the native camera to take pictures - I use a steadying program like Darkroom. Another question would be if this will improve the use of Darkroom at all?

 

[Habakuk]

Here's the results I had...

So you've downgraded/"upgraded" (beta) firmware/os on your 1st gen iPhone just for those photos?

And bought all those cleaning agents on your kitchen table just for polishing the camera lens? (scnr)

Seriously: The precious iPhone camera is located at a very exposed place. So protect it as much as possible, p.e. with the Griffin Clarifi hardcase. It seems to be the only case in this huge market that protects the delicate camera.

Every photographer learns at first place that it's important to keep lenses clean and protected. The smaller the lens the more important. Clean the absolute tiny iPhone lens this way: Breathe on it and use a fresh Q-Tip (cotton-wool tip, cotton swab). Twist it softly with almost no pressure, then use the other end for drying. Clean the Griffin Clarifi hardcase lens the same way on both sides.

I don't believe the UV coating legend. It's simply dirty (and scratched). And your photos don't prove anything because when you move your iPhone one millimeter you may have a complete different exposure.

Tap on the camera once with greasy or humid fingers and it looks like that and makes photos like that. It's very hard to hold the (naked) iPhone without tapping on the lens sometimes.

I was actually surprised by the photos on the main page. My 3G never takes horrible pictures like that.

Mine not too. I am almost convinced that most of those artifacts are simply dirty or scratched lenses. There may be blurriness by other reasons too (unsteady) but most of those results come from that.

 

[madrag]

Here's the results I had...

good share!, thanks for doing that experiment.

I also thought the UV-film tearing was the issue...

I wish the russian site made the photos with the same iPhone; we don't know the state of the v2 iPhone compared to the v3...

 

[CarlisleUnited]

It's all nice and well to improve the camera but there is very little point when the camera takes 10+ seconds to load up

 

[Habakuk]

Once more: It's not UV-coating but it's dirt.

Just protect and polish the lens every day as described above and you'll get crisp sharp images.

 

[iPhoneNYC]

Improved photo software would be welcome news. However, looking at the two photos: The "old software" one looks a lot like mine do when I don't clean the lens. Sometimes I actually don't clean the lens and get that glow that mimics an early Atget photo on printing-out-paper. In those instances I keep a PAS standing by to take a sharper picture.

 

[ozzyman500]

Looks good. 3G's camera is lame.

 

[iSamurai]

the cat picture isn't that promising coz the cat might be moving...

but the vending machine is certainly a good comparison. maybe it's software that tweaks the phone to take pics quicker -- coz ther's always a slight lag when you take a photo...

and i get a green tint towards the centre of all my photos. i guess it's the camera lens that's been exposed to bright light for quite a while... for example when i take a pic of a plain paper (in this case a really random news article... or is it?) -- look below.

P.S. if you really want to know, that newspaper is The Australian, 14 April 2009.

 

[Freis968]

Excellent!!!

 

[Sander]

I'm never fast enough...

(lets assume that the subject of the photo is 1m away. This gives me roughly 3.3•10^-29 s , or 0.000000000000000000000000000033 seconds to turn the camera, close myLite, open the camera app and press the button. This is of course approximating that light is traveling at 3.0•10^28m/s in air, which is actually it's vacuum speed)

Oh but you have much more time. The light needs to travel back and forth, from the screen to the subject and back again to the sensor.

So that can't be the problem.

 

[michael.lauden]

um.. wow. photos taken outside in full sunlight.

my cardboard box pinhole camera ALSO takes good photos in those conditions.

in fact, EVERY camera takes their best pics in those conditions. all this proves is the iPhone camera can take a decent picture in the most forgiving conditions possible.

not really that impressive. or impressive at all. it's still a crap camera.

that isn't true. take into account the new lumix - it has a small image sensor and actually takes better pictures in low light.

in fact, to say that something performs better in EVERY application is most likely going to be wrong

 

[war eagle]

I dont care about the quality getting better just make the camera come up quickly!!!

 

[veeco3110]

can software really make a better picture? hmmm

 

[diemos]

I would assume, yes, better picture stabilization. I hope this is true, because the current quality of pictures iphone takes sucks. you have to take the picture and not move the phone for like 10 seconds if you want the picture to come out not blurry.

 

[jandep]

further studies

Well, I've updated to the 3.0FW beta. So I'll have some pics soon once I recreate the conditions and subject matter of the above photos.

Of course I think that they can improve the photos through software tweaks or utilization of the accelerometers like other available programs.

However, after taking some sample pics with the new 3.0 enabled phone...the same phone that took pics with a scratched-UV-coating and a newly-removed-UV-coating...I can say with near certainty that the pics in the original "news" story were so drastically different due to factors OTHER THAN the firmware difference. The most likely suspect would be the UV-coating being worn or the lens otherwise scratched/dirty/foggy/damaged.

By this time, it's set in the minds of most that 3.0FW will suddenly turn their cellphone snapshots into something worthy of the Louvre. Hence setting up the cycle of overanticipation and disappointment once again.

Please MR, research things a little closer next time before just regurgitating what Giz says. Don't be like TUAW.