iPhone 6 Camera May Feature Electronic Image Stabilization, Bigger Pixel Size

[Menneisyys2]

So what is the point here, one camera, in one set of tests, delivers better images. That doesn't make the iPhone camera bad by any measure.

You're mistaking the technical capabilities of a camera with the "artistic" "eye" of the person that operates it. The latter is, of course, important. However, even the best photog profits a LOT if the camera he uses has excellent IQ and not a cr@ppy one.

And yes, IQ can be measured. Resolution charts, dynamic range tests, vignetting tests, flash tests, corner sharpness tests - all can be very thoroughly and reliably measured and the results numerically described.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Compare the quality of images coming from an iPhone to a 110, disk camera or even a low end 35 mm point and shoot. iPhone delivers vastly superior images.

Oh come on... it's not old tech that the iPhone's objective IQ should be compared to but other, current cameraphones... the Nokia 808, for example. (Lol, the 808 isn't even a recent model - it's two years old... but still unbeaten WRT pure IQ.)

If any of this stuff you are offering up was even remotely important to most cell phone camera users the point and shoot market wouldn't be the dried up mess that it is these days. This isn't my opinion by the way, I have friends in the business of selling cameras in actual camera stores and frankly they have suffered significantly from the improvements in cell phone camera technology.

Exactly this is what I've referred to when stating converged devices, because of plain convenience, quickly eat away the P&S market. Pretty much independent of their relative IQ. For example, I don't keep my Sony RX100 with me because my Nokia 808 is a multi-purpose device capable of a lot other things in addition to shooting (unlike the RX100) and, in good light where the dynamic range needed isn't that big, easily outresolves the RX100 and has a slightly wider lens, particularly in the 41 Mpixel non-standard mode.

Apple certainly can't beat the laws of physics but that doesn't mean they have hit a real limit on what is possible in a cell phone. There are things they can do just from the mechanical standpoint that could improve the camera. Beyond that there is much research going on with respect to enhanced sensors, meta materials and new optical formulas.

Yeah, I know this area is constantly developing. However, at the current state of technology, it's pretty much impossible for Apple to come up with a, say, 1/2.3" sensor with OIS in a phone only 6mm thick. In, say, 2017+, with possibly curved sensors, maybe. But definitely not this year. The tech is just not "there".

I'd be the first to admit that OIS would be nice but not at the expense of compromising other features. By the way one of the things I hate about cell phone cameras is their unstable nature in the hands, it isn't like grabbing a SLR where the mass actually works for you. The problem can be so bad that image stabilization doesn't always do the trick.

It indeed doesn't always help. In most of the cases, however, it does. Even in smartphones like the Nokia 920, 1020, 1520, the LG G2 and Pro 2, the 2013 HTC One's etc. These models have all shown OIS is a big plus and can help you shoot at even 3-4 stops slower at times.

And what are the disadvantages of OIS? It wouldn't allow for putting huge sensors in a phone because of the size. However, a 2/3" sensor (that of the 1020) was successfully OIS'ed in a 11mm thick phone. And the G2/ the other, smaller-sensor models show even 7-8mm thick phones can have working, useful OIS modules.

It'd be highly regrettable if Apple indeed opted for leaving out the OIS just to keep the thickness down. I really hope they do change their mind. After all, I, despite the IQ disadvantages, I frequently use my iPhone 5 for quick sweep panos (when doing the stitching of my Nokia 808 shots would be impossible or just too time-consuming) and plan to purchase the iPhone 6 as well.

 

[wizard]

You're mistaken - as usual. I didn't talk about "just" shooting sports with a tele in a stadium but shooting your friends, your kids while they're running / racing / swimming / playing / anything next to you. A pretty common scenario with iPhone users, isn't it?

Constantly redefining what you mean doesn't help you make a point.

Again: I'm not talking about shooting in a stadium with huge teles but shooting from a short distance, where the wide FoV of a cell phone doesn't pose a problem.

Well why didn't you say kids playing when you first posted! Most people have an entirely different idea in their head when the term shooting sports is used.

Are all people wanting to take a decent, non-blurred shot of their playing kids etc. "photo geeks"? I really don't think so. They would also love taking decent shots. Too bad they can't, "thanks" to Apple's serious lag WRT camera tech.

Hell I've gotten blurred pictures with my Nikon DSLRs I don't go around blaming Nikon for my screw ups though. I honestly think half of what you are complaining about here is a figment of your imagination. No camera is perfect you need to work within its capabilities.

Look, it's pretty evident you're a typical Apple apologist. I understand you love Apple.

You are so wrong here. What I have a problem with is your biased posting and contorting of facts to try to paint a good camera as a bad camera. You sound a lot like the guys that use to shoot medium format for everything turning up their noises at the guys carrying a 35 mm SLR. Sure back in the day a guy that really knew what he was doing could get very good results from a medium format camera. That however doesn't invalidate the usefulness of a 35 mm SLR.

Nevertheless, even then you should admit Apple is certainly behind the competition not only in IQ, but also in everyday usability. The competition can shoot sports (running kids etc.) in lower light because they allow for either scene selection or manually bumping up the ISO. The iPhone can't. The competition can shoot sports - the iPhone can't. It's this easy.

No it isn't that easy. You want it to be to justify your position but again you are missing the point Apple is after simple. If they find a way to make the camera more useful by biasing shutter speed and at the same time make the feature easy to use they will do so. It is obvious that they have gone after other features as being more important. So who really knows when such capability will land.

Let me point out again that simply selecting a "sports" scene mode isn't a "pro-only" feature - no wonder all P&S cameras have scene selectors. Scene modes are targeted at people that do nothing about ISO, shutter speed, their relation and the like. You're seriously mistaken if you think otherwise.

A scene mode might be fine but again you are contorting the discussion as you where promoting features such as shutter speed and ISO adjustments. My point is that the simple mention of such features leads to eyes glassine over in some of Apples targeted user base.

Well, in this very case, knowledge of at least "if I turn up ISO" or "if I select the 'sports' mode, I will be able to shoot my kid without it getting unusably blurred results" would help even the technically non-savvy. They would also welcome such a feature if it existed in the iPhone. It doesn't.

And, to add insult to injury, the iPhone doesn't even make an attempt at intelligently deciding what kind of subject you're shooting and accordingly heavily increase the ISO (and, consequently, the shutter speed) to avoid blurring. Talk about "engineering marvel" - lol, even many of the 5-year-old, cheap cameras were capable of these "intelligent" modes. The iPhone 5s still isn't. Again, talk about "Apple's being the best"...

There are only two things I can say here. One is that iPhones camera app has come a long way in a short period of time. The second is that picking the right camera can make all the difference in the world.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Exactly so why all these comments about features the vast majority if point and shoot users don't care about? This is what I find frustrating, people trying to make this camera into something it isn't.

They do care about being able to properly shoot their kids running around. Something the recent iOS just doesn't make available, it both lacking any kind of manual shutter speed increase methods (ISO / shutter speed / scene mode setters) and intelligent scene analyzation ("iA" modes in Panasonic's P&S cameras).

And that was just one example of Apple's camera implementation, including the API, seriously lagging behind the smartphone competition.

----------

Hell I've gotten blurred pictures with my Nikon DSLRs I don't go around blaming Nikon for my screw ups though. I honestly think half of what you are complaining about here is a figment of your imagination. No camera is perfect you need to work within its capabilities.

Look, anyone knowing anything about photography know I'm the one that is right in this discussion. The iPhone lacks even elementary support for "sports" photography. It is a major handicap.

 

[wizard]

You're right about smartphones all but destroying the point 'n shoot market. People want convergence, and products like the iPhone provide that. They've got a computer, a phone, and a decent camera all in one device.

But the iPhone's camera, nice as it is among its contemporaries, is merely decent compared to even a midrange point 'n shoot. When it comes to quality, you can't beat specialization.

This is so true.

That's what point 'n shoots do. They're cameras. They're only cameras. And they're quite good at what they do.

Today they are and that is a direct result of cell phone cameras eliminating the market for all but the high performance, feature filled models. Even then camera dealers have a hard sell on their hands. Cell phone cameras have effectively eliminated what use to be a very broad and vigorous market for point and shoots. Today's point and shoots are of far better optical quality and more controls oriented than in the past. Frankly point and shoots are pretty much a niche market these days.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Well why didn't you say kids playing when you first posted! Most people have an entirely different idea in their head when the term shooting sports is used.

Lolz, then, please, explain to me why the scene mode is called "sports" in almost all P&S cameras and, even worse, zoom-less smartphones (incl. the Nokia 808)? Because "sports" doesn't only mean shooting distant sportsmen in a stadium with 500+mm equiv, huge lens. If that were the case, smartphone manufacturers wouldn't use the word "sports" to describe this kind of a shooting mode, wouldn't they?

Again - it was you that turned out to be twisting others' words, not me.

----------

The second is that picking the right camera can make all the difference in the world.

Yes, I know a dedicated camera, with OIS, brighter lens, larger sensor and stuff, would definitely be better for shooting "sports". Nevertheless, as has also been proven(!) by competing smartphones, with a very-very little bit of support on the manufacturer's part (sports scene mode / manual ISO / shutter speed), shooting "sports" wouldn't be as fruitless as it is currently on the iPhone.

----------

A scene mode might be fine but again you are contorting the discussion as you where promoting features such as shutter speed and ISO adjustments. My point is that the simple mention of such features leads to eyes glassine over in some of Apples targeted user base.

Again: as I've explained above, even Apple's targeted user base would be able to understand "select the 'sports' scene mode when shooting running kids". No magic, no technical jargon, no ISO, no shutter speed. Even a 70-year-old senior (no age racism on my part) would be able to understand why this would be hugely beneficial.

It would be so easy for Apple to greatly enhance the usefulness of their phones' cameras without any change to hardware. (It'd be all software - after all, the iPhone, as all smartphone cameras, do know the relative setting of the ISO and the shutter speed. Adding some additional code to force the phone to use high shutter speeds when the user selects a "sports" scene mode woulnd't be that hard.)

----------

I've been far more accurate than you.

You're wrong - as usual.

----------

There are only two things I can say here. One is that iPhones camera app has come a long way in a short period of time.

... too bad it's still seriously lagging behind the best of the competition, both hardware- and software (manual settings / scene modes via either the stock Camera app or the API)-wise. And that's what counts, not the past...

 

[mazz0]

Exactly and use the rest of the space to fit in a bigger battery.

Or/and waterproofing!

Seriously, why aren't iPhones waterproof yet?

 

[CarpalMac]

There is. Buy a camera.

You may like to carry one with you all the time; along with your notepad, pencil, diary, atari lynx, address book, OS maps, walkman, dictaphone, telegram machine, video player etc..

I personally like to embrace new technology and strive for things to have higher quality, be faster and ultimately help to enrich my lifestyle.

Each to their own, though somehow, I don't think I am on my own with this one.

 

[Virtua1]

thinness, magic, and image quality

If the phone is in fact thinner it will be interesting to see how they accomplished this. Maybe they are bonding the sensor to the back of the front glass to pick up a millimeter or two of thickness.

In any event larger sensor elements would be a big win, if they also up resolution, even a little bit, the quality of the pictures should be great. Frankly the big pixels will improve low light performance and Apple needs that as low light performance isn't all that great in these cameras.

One possibility is that Apple could use the largest sensor they can possibly put in and use a lens that is wider than 30mm. They could then use the 64-bit architecture of the processor and iOS 7, and of course, clever programming to quickly apply digital lens correction to remove distortion before the image is cropped slightly (to 30mm equivalent) and saved. This could potentially happen without lag or delay to the user. The technique would allow Apple to keep the phone thin, and appear to work like "magic".

Lens correction software has been around for a long time as part of the tool set seen in Photoshop and compositing software. There is no reason to believe this could not be adapted for use in the camera app.

 

[Avenged110]

Technically, depending on how you define "electronic image stabilization," the iPhone 5s already has it. Apple says it has "Auto Image Stabilization" where it takes four quick exposures and stitches the best parts together. And that is really just a form of EIS. So I'm assuming this is just to say it will have improved EIS like how the A6 improved stabilization and noise reduction.

 

[afsnyder]

Surely electronic stabilisation won't ever be as good as optical stabilisation? What do SLR cameras use?
Are Apple willing to lower its camera quality and lag behind the competition in the name of thin? Utterly pointless if you ask me.

Camera quality is already incredible... as long as it doesn't get worse over the next 2 years... they will stay with the competition.

 

[CPx]

The photographer that took the pictures at my wedding had a cannon with either 5 or 6 MP. I was surprised and asked him about it, and he said that the quality was fantastic because the CMOS chip was large enough to pull in the light and provide great depth. Adding more pixels without increasing the chip size would actually make it worse. The pictures turned out fantastic.

You were sold. A five or six megapixel DSLR sounds old and any decent camera these days will produce cleaner pictures no matter how many megapixels. Sensor tech has come a long way.

 

[2IS]

Honestly I understand the desire for high quality cameras as I've owned many over the years from Nikon Maymia and a couple of others. The problem is when you buy an iPhone you are getting a device that has a primary function of being a cell phone with the camera being tacked on feature. I've seen more than a few responses to my comments that seem to imply that people want a DSLR when it comes to the iPhone. I don't think this is Apples intention at all, they want a camera that delivers great results to the largest number of users possible.

Now this doesn't mean that the iPhone camera app can't be improved but I highly doubt that Apple has any intentions of adding traditional camera controls to the device. So if people are looking for shutter speed control and other similar features advanced photographers use then you will likely be out of luck. Mind you there have been times where yes I could have used such control, but I don't expect it out of a cell phone camera that is trying to leave traditional photography behind.

I see Apples attempts here as being more a case of trying to think different when it comes to cameras and the users they have of that camera. They are in no way trying to deliver a professional quality camera in the sense of the composition control such cameras gives one. Really how far should we take this, should we demand that Apple add shift and tilt features to the camera?

I look at it this way Apple has improved the camera and the camera app with every release of the iPhone, sometimes significantly. Has it always improved in the way I want - nope but on the other hand they have added features that I didn't even consider useful in a cell phone until they arrived (HDR for one). It really appears that Apples mission here is to evolve the camera, as a feature, in ways that don't look towards the past. That unfortunately leaves many old school photographers behind and maybe limits the capability if the camera a bit these days.

There's a HUGE gap between what the iPhone camera offers and what you think people are asking for, which you seem to be completely ignoring in an effort to defend it.

Also, the iPhone is certainly not a "phone first" approach. If it was, it would not have talk and standby times that are significantly lower than phones from a decade ago.

It's very clear that Apple's primary goal is thinness, and this applies to their entire product line. They make it thinner and make sure it's at least not any worse than the previous model so Ive can swoon everyone with his British accent by stroking his engineering ego about how they accomplished it.

That 1mm of thickness they shave will not at all affect my ability to hold, carry or transport the phone. It will however make every single photo and video I take with the phone of lower quality than it could have been, and I'll be able to take less of them because the battery will also be of lower capacity than it could have been. The point of diminishing returns is upon us.

 

[LordVic]

You were sold. A five or six megapixel DSLR sounds old and any decent camera these days will produce cleaner pictures no matter how many megapixels. Sensor tech has come a long way.

Older likely. One of Canon's earliest consumer DSLR's, the Canon D300 (Rebel) was already 6.2mp. If he's using a camera from within this decade, it's likely this resolution or higher. (there are a couple older ones, but doubtful any professional is still using one)

DOn't get me wrong, so many years later, I still have a perfectly functioning one that takes amazing photos. But anyone doing wedding photography in 201x is not likely using a camera at that rate. Even midrange 40d's or the higher range D

One possibility is that Apple could use the largest sensor they can possibly put in and use a lens that is wider than 30mm. They could then use the 64-bit architecture of the processor and iOS 7, and of course, clever programming to quickly apply digital lens correction to remove distortion before the image is cropped slightly (to 30mm equivalent) and saved. This could potentially happen without lag or delay to the user. The technique would allow Apple to keep the phone thin, and appear to work like "magic".

Lens correction software has been around for a long time as part of the tool set seen in Photoshop and compositing software. There is no reason to believe this could not be adapted for use in the camera app.

You're playing with Physics here. Not something easily corrected by CPU power and software.

If you were to widen your aperture, enlargen your sensor area, you have to take into acount your focal length, which changes how the light focuses. For something like a camera phone, having an extremely narrow depth of field for example would not make a lot of people happy, sicne the point of a camera phone is quick snapshots with lots of focus

just because we're super advanced in 2014, we still cannot defy the laws of physics.

 

[2457282]

You were sold. A five or six megapixel DSLR sounds old and any decent camera these days will produce cleaner pictures no matter how many megapixels. Sensor tech has come a long way.

I guess you missed the part where I stated that the pictures came out fantastic. And yes I was sold a package for the day, it was more than I wanted to spend, and yet I have no regrets. Simply awesome photos.

 

[Virtua1]

One possibility is that Apple could use the largest sensor they can possibly put in and use a lens that is wider than 30mm. They could then use the 64-bit architecture of the processor and iOS 7, and of course, clever programming to quickly apply digital lens correction to remove distortion before the image is cropped slightly (to 30mm equivalent) and saved. This could potentially happen without lag or delay to the user. The technique would allow Apple to keep the phone thin, and appear to work like "magic".

Lens correction software has been around for a long time as part of the tool set seen in Photoshop and compositing software. There is no reason to believe this could not be adapted for use in the camera app.

You're playing with Physics here. Not something easily corrected by CPU power and software.

If you were to widen your aperture, enlargen your sensor area, you have to take into acount your focal length, which changes how the light focuses. For something like a camera phone, having an extremely narrow depth of field for example would not make a lot of people happy, sicne the point of a camera phone is quick snapshots with lots of focus

just because we're super advanced in 2014, we still cannot defy the laws of physics.

You are absolutely right about the focal length being a major factor. From an engineering standpoint though, the distance from the lens to the sensor could be increased. This could be achieved by shaving off a fraction of a millimeter of the opposite wall of the interior of the phone, particularly since it is offset from center already, and there are no other components to get in the way of this. It might just be enough to satisfy the physics requirements of getting the light focused to the sensor in such a short distance. It is also such a small area that it would not affect overall structural integrity of the phone itself.

A quick look at the current iPhone 5s iFixit teardown is not enough to determine if they are already doing this in some form or not. It would also be an additional cost in phone production most likely. The marketing and camera performance payoff might be worth it, though.

Also, what advances can be made in the lens or lens cover materials, and their respective refractive indexes? Even though the diagram at the link is for illustrative purposes, it seems like you could position the lens even closer to the cover, increasing focal length further.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/08/apple-invents-a-camera-design-for-thinner-idevices-and-a-new-accessibility-app-tailored-for-chinese-and-japanese-users.html

 

[snprintf]

I might be kidding when I say I wish for Optical ZOOOOOM.
But no OIS? DAMN!

"No need. There's already digital zoom." - all the dumb consumers with dollar votes equal to ours

----------

Or/and waterproofing!

Seriously, why aren't iPhones waterproof yet?

Apple needs to work on dust-proofing their camera lenses first. And I mean that dust gets INSIDE of them. Or maybe the 5S already fixed that. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1465603/

 

[LordVic]

You are absolutely right about the focal length being a major factor. From an engineering standpoint though, the distance from the lens to the sensor could be increased. This could be achieved by shaving off a fraction of a millimeter of the opposite wall of the interior of the phone, particularly since it is offset from center already, and there are no other components to get in the way of this. It might just be enough to satisfy the physics requirements of getting the light focused to the sensor in such a short distance. It is also such a small area that it would not affect overall structural integrity of the phone itself.

A quick look at the current iPhone 5s iFixit teardown is not enough to determine if they are already doing this in some form or not. It would also be an additional cost in phone production most likely. The marketing and camera performance payoff might be worth it, though.

Also, what advances can be made in the lens or lens cover materials, and their respective refractive indexes? Even though the diagram at the link is for illustrative purposes, it seems like you could position the lens even closer to the cover, increasing focal length further.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/08/apple-invents-a-camera-design-for-thinner-idevices-and-a-new-accessibility-app-tailored-for-chinese-and-japanese-users.html

i'm always excited to see if they can figure out new ways of playing with physics. That will be the next break through in optics and cameras.

Currently, we're still constrained though by the same basic principles of photography that have always been there.

if you think about it, aside from the sensor on the back of the device, Very little has actually changed in how photography works.

imagine one day we come up with that new way of changing how light behaves enough to really wow us.

 

[lk400]

Increasing the pixel size is exactly the right thing to do! While all the marketing gurus are counting their megapixels, which lead to increasingly worse images with more noise, scaling up the pixels adds a lot to the image quality. More light, less noise.
Also read this website, which suggests that 6 megapixels are enough for most photographers and more megapixels only worsens the image: http://6mpixel.org/en/

You know, what you said is really true for the mid 2000s compact P&S wars. But the rules are a little more cloudy now. Bigger pixels doesnt always mean less noise, smaller pixels doesnt always mean more noise. Its not quite that simple. Also, the marketing gurus at many companies have simply shifted from one number where bigger is better (megapixel count), to another (pixel size).

 

[576316]

It may be off topic but that image has just reminded me. It seems pretty rare to me to see a silver iPhone 5s. The only ones I've ever seen (including myself) have been either gold or black. Did these out-sell the silver or did more people go for the gold because it was a new colour? What do you guys think? Do you often see people with a silver iPhone 5s? I almost forgot that one even existed, before that image reminded me.

 

[CPx]

I guess you missed the part where I stated that the pictures came out fantastic. And yes I was sold a package for the day, it was more than I wanted to spend, and yet I have no regrets. Simply awesome photos.

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply the pictures were bad. I'm not saying you can't get the job done with older cameras. I've seen plenty of beautiful work done with, for example, the Canon 10D, which is 6 megapixels. That is one of the cameras that really made people take DSLR's seriously. But that doesn't change my point. His justification of holding onto a dinosaur camera body (the 10D is over ten years old now) does not hold water. Now if Canon made a 6 megapixel DSLR with today's technology, that would be interesting to compare with the high-megapixel bodies.

----------

You know, what you said is really true for the mid 2000s compact P&S wars. But the rules are a little more cloudy now. Bigger pixels doesnt always mean less noise, smaller pixels doesnt always mean more noise. Its not quite that simple. Also, the marketing gurus at many companies have simply shifted from one number where bigger is better (megapixel count), to another (pixel size).

Yes, it really is quite murky and a bit of a black art. Right now the attitude I have is the two best predictors of noise are sensor size and year of release. Well, as long as we are talking about manufacturers that know what they're doing.

 

[nerdAFK]

"No need. There's already digital zoom." - all the dumb consumers with dollar votes equal to ours

----------



Apple needs to work on dust-proofing their camera lenses first. And I mean that dust gets INSIDE of them. Or maybe the 5S already fixed that. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1465603/

No need? Do you have any idea what digital zoom or optical zoom is? Hint: big big big quality difference.

Again, no way there will be optical zoom at least for the next couple of years. It was meant for a joke, but you are deadly wrong

 

[Menneisyys2]

No need? Do you have any idea what digital zoom or optical zoom is? Hint: big big big quality difference.

Again, no way there will be optical zoom at least for the next couple of years. It was meant for a joke, but you are deadly wrong

It was a joke - he meant the typical Apple customers are very non-tech-savvy and don't know how superior optical stabilization is. This is why they will believe if they're told by Apple "electronic stabilization is superior".

 

[Wuiffi]

No need? Do you have any idea what digital zoom or optical zoom is? Hint: big big big quality difference.

Again, no way there will be optical zoom at least for the next couple of years. It was meant for a joke, but you are deadly wrong

he clearly marked the statement as sarcasm

 

[darngooddesign]

How about more APIs for manual control of the camera such as f-stop?

If the iPhone camera doesn't have a physical aperture you wouldn't need more APIs to simulate it with software.

----------

...Hell I've gotten blurred pictures with my Nikon DSLRs I don't go around blaming Nikon for my screw ups though. I honestly think half of what you are complaining about here is a figment of your imagination. No camera is perfect you need to work within its capabilities.

Can you control all aspects of the exposure triangle on your DSLR to eliminate blurred subjects by raising the shutter speed? Can you do that on the iPhone?

----------

imagine one day we come up with that new way of changing how light behaves enough to really wow us.

Light Field technology is one of the new leaps in photography.

 

[mtneer]

Where is the logic for getting a super thin phone only to make it fat with a thick case?

Maybe his purchase decision parameters were heavily weighted towards the OS and the ecosystem and not so much on the thinness..