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

iPhone 4's Camera Capabilities Evaluated

HotApplePie said:
Yes, 30 FPS is faster than 24 FPS but in this case faster isn't necessarily better.

You can't think of FPS for movies in the same way that you think of FPS in video games or even stop-motion. Each frame is an exposure that is not instantaneous, but captures light over a fraction of a second. A slower frame-rate allows for longer exposures. And longer exposures produce a different look than shorter exposures. Firstly, a longer exposure collects more light (all else being equal) which means that less amplification is needed. This results in less noise (or grain in film). A longer exposure is "better" in the same way that a physically bigger sensor is... it collects more light.

A longer exposure also captures motion (blur), depending on what you're trying to do this may be a benefit or a disadvantage. 24fps is often described as "smooth" or "dreamy" and is used for movies and many prime-time dramas. 24fps is fast enough to not look "jerky" but very fast motion will look blurred. In certain cases this may be a disadvantage such as sports where you want to very sharply track very quickly moving items like hockey pucks.

I was very happy and surprised to hear that Apple seems to understand and defend the concept that "better pixels" are more important than "more pixels". It's not a tragedy that the iPhone shoots only 30fps, it is a phone after all. But it is aggravating to see reviewers automatically favor cameras with 30fps over 24/25fps. This is the type of thing that has inspired the pixel-race and the possibility of people pushing for higher frame rates at the cost of lowered quality from tiny sensors in the future could end up being a tragedy.
Click to expand...

I should point out that shooting video at the fastest exposure possible (or that required for 30FPS) then "throwing away" 6 frames per second doesn't give you any of the "advantages" of 24fps and keeps all the "disadvantages" of 30fps. It's important that your exposures are optimized for the end frame rate.
 
ThanatosId said:
Very good post! Thank you for the education. It does appear, however, to be a matter of choice depending on a circumstance. I'd much rather read posts that are informative rather than posts like the one I responded to from Skellener. Skellener, does the Droid X give the user the choice of 30fps?
Click to expand...
If it doesn't do it standard, you can be sure that it will be hacked to take advantage of 30fps(as the camera most likely supports it, but Moto chose to use 24fps).
 
bloodycape said:
If it doesn't do it standard, you can be sure that it will be hacked to take advantage of 30fps(as the camera most likely supports it, but Moto chose to use 24fps).
Click to expand...

The Droid X is gonna be my next phone. I hope to god XDA hacks it to get 30fps cause 24 is way to low.
 
I just upgraded from an iPhone 1, so I have nothing but good things to say about image quality on the iPhone 4. :)

But compared to the 2-second launch time of the Camera app on the iPhone 1, the 10-second launch time of the iPhone 4 (from tap to the iris opening) is incredibly frustrating. In that time I could've pulled a real camera out of my pocket, turned it on, and waited for the zoom lens to reposition itself. And meanwhile Bigfoot is long gone.
 
WB on iPhone 4

I know I must not be the only one to notice this but the WB on the iPhone 4 produces way too yellow coloration indoors under artificial light. I did a side by side test with my 3Gs in the other hand that only confirmed the difference!
I then looked online and one of the test sites:( reported ..... "That's a shame, because the iPhone 4 is solid with just about everything else it does. The new 5-megapixel camera (up from 3 megapixels in the iPhone 3GS) takes photos that look better than a lot of dedicated point-and-shoots we've used. However, white balance seems slightly off, often appearing too yellow, so you'd benefit from touching up photos with an image-editing app. Also, photos shot with the iPhone 4's new LED flash look eerie — as you'd expect with an LED flash. "

Please put out a fix for this Apple it's a real nice little phone camera otherwise.
 
iPhone 4flash leaves me jaundiced

I am sorry but despite the hype over the camera on the new iPhone it has two serious defects, noise and a flash colour cast.

I was expecting there to be noise (grain) on the new camera because the more pixels you squeeze onto a small chip the more electrical interference the pixels generate towards each other. This is inevitable. However, I was not expecting the new built in flash to cause a yellow cast over the entire picture leaving subjects looking as if they were suffering from jaundice. Because of this defect the flash is virtually useless unless you like Andy Warhol type pictures. Has anybody else had this problem?:mad:
 
Kproberts said:
I am sorry but despite the hype over the camera on the new iPhone it has two serious defects, noise and a flash colour cast.

I was expecting there to be noise (grain) on the new camera because the more pixels you squeeze onto a small chip the more electrical interference the pixels generate towards each other. This is inevitable. However, I was not expecting the new built in flash to cause a yellow cast over the entire picture leaving subjects looking as if they were suffering from jaundice. Because of this defect the flash is virtually useless unless you like Andy Warhol type pictures. Has anybody else had this problem?:mad:
Click to expand...

I have on occasion, and I found that it was when my finger was quite close to the flash (the light reflected of my finger and screwed up the shot)... try holding the lens side nearer the bottom.
 
JAQ said:
I just upgraded from an iPhone 1, so I have nothing but good things to say about image quality on the iPhone 4. :)

But compared to the 2-second launch time of the Camera app on the iPhone 1, the 10-second launch time of the iPhone 4 (from tap to the iris opening) is incredibly frustrating. In that time I could've pulled a real camera out of my pocket, turned it on, and waited for the zoom lens to reposition itself. And meanwhile Bigfoot is long gone.
Click to expand...

It takes 10 seconds for the camera app to launch on the iPhone 4?! It takes my old 3G exactly 3 seconds using iOS 4.
 
I love the iphone cameras but something I don't know if anyone else is having problems with is the fact that you can't email a video clip longer than 54 seconds. I have tried this on my iphone 4 and my 3gs (which used to be able to email just about any length video) but since updating to iOS4 it is limited at 54 seconds. Kind of defeats the purpose for an HD camera and iMovie app if you can't send friends and family more than 54 seconds.
 
JAQ said:
But compared to the 2-second launch time of the Camera app on the iPhone 1, the 10-second launch time of the iPhone 4 (from tap to the iris opening) is incredibly frustrating. In that time I could've pulled a real camera out of my pocket, turned it on, and waited for the zoom lens to reposition itself. And meanwhile Bigfoot is long gone.
Click to expand...

Okay, I just got back from the Apple Store and played with an iPhone 4. It only took 2 seconds for me to take a picture from the moment I tapped the camera icon to launch the Camera app. Maybe you should consider reloading the iOS. Sounds like your phone is a bit jacked up...
 
firewood said:
Not when you are going to playback on a display with 60 Hz refresh (e.g. any iPhone). 3:2 pull-down introduces lots of motion artifacts.
Click to expand...

The worse part is HD TV went to 60hz instead of going to 72Hz. So we still have the same issue of 3:2 pull-downs on movies. It would of been nice if they went to 72 Hz because then they could of done a 3:3 pull down for movies shot for a the big screen which do a 2:2 pull down so it would of been much better quality for us veiwers.
It not like it would of been a big deal for the TV to be able to run at 60hz and 72hz and they could just flip between them depending on the broad case and once everything went digitall it would of all been 72hz. But the TV exes did not want to make that change. It would of been ZERO problem for the board case since they still put out info at the same rate. It just would of been better for viewers and showing movies....

Mind you I think Samsung and other TV makers solved the entire problem by just making at 120hz TV and running at 5:5 pull down. That complete solves the problem of stupid execs
 
Hopefully apple's public recognition that megapixels aren't everything will be the start of a trend. Not just in smart phones either... I'd love a 6MPish slim-sized camera that used modern manufacturing to gather more light rather than pointlessly giving me 14MP or some such.
 
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