iPhone 7 Series Said to Feature 60FPS 4K Video Recording Capability

[ghost187]

Fellas, this is definitely not the worst iPhone upgrade ever as the whole web seems to think. I definitely think it's a better upgrade than the iPhone 3g, 3gs, 4s, or the 6s.

 

[BvizioN]

Wow, it has the ability to fill up 32gb in no-time

Get 128gb or twice of that if available. That's what I would do.

 

[HarryWild]

You don't need to have tiny hands to want a 4-inch iPhone, just the lack of desire to carry something larger around. That 4-inch size seemed to be quite a good size from 2007-2014 and up to today.

The 4-inch dream isn't over, SE suggests the next release, next year will bring an all new iPhone 4" back into the line up from the beginning.

I know the differences in hardware from 2011 to 2016, and MP differences, it's better, but not supremely better. I'm waiting and bypassing this next model. Photos still look great on 4s. If you want supreme quality, go for a dedicated camera, not a point and shoot iPhone (or Samsung).

Apple needs a budget iPhone for the carriers to do a "zero" down deals and the 4" will live on in that slot! All the salespeople call it the budget iPhone other then the Apple Store Associates.

 

[Anim]

That is not the constructive argument I was looking for. If that was the case we would have all movies in cinema now on 60fps and not on the old 24fps.
So again, can someone with MORE knowledge please explain to me what is really the benefit of having 60fps (except slow mo effect) when we have cinema format 24fps, and tv 25&30fps?

Let's add some more confusion. Why have displays with super high refresh rates too? Should they need no more than 24Hz? So, to answer your question a chap called boyuber put it quite well here.

Quote:
"Film is shot at 24fps because it has always been shot at 24fps. This framerate, while slow, provides you with the classic 'movie' experience.

Television programming (in the US with the NTSC standard) displays at 30fps. Traditionally, television sets were 60Hz, and would display 30fps in an interlaced format. That is to say that in one cycle, they would 'draw' half of the lines of the picture, and in the next, they would interlace the missing lines. 60Hz / 2 cycles per frame = 30fps.

Newer televisions operate at 120Hz or 240Hz (or 600+Hz, if you buy into the ******** subfield nonsense that plasmas advertise [basically, the image is broken into 8 pieces, and each of them refreshes at 72Hz, giving you 600Hz total. This is ******** because you can get one whole image every 1/72 of a second, but they multiply it just because math]), though they do not necessarily provide you with 120+fps. The benefits of higher Hz are twofold: it allows for true reproduction of 24fps source material and the extra cycles allow for 'missing' frames to be inserted in the image.

To explain the first benefit, recall that movies are shot at 24fps, and television is 30fps. TV shows are fine on a 60Hz set because 60/30 = 2 cycles per frame. However, if you were to try to play film content on a standard 60Hz TV, how would you divide the 24 frames into the 60Hz?

The television industry created something called 3:2 pulldown that would use 3 cycles for one frame, and two for the next. This produced an unnatural jitter that most non-videophiles wouldn't notice, but it's what had to be done when trying to shoehorn 24 frames into 60 slots. With 120Hz, 240Hz, 480Hz, 600Hz, etc etc etc, both 60fps and 24fps content can be nicely displayed because they can be evenly divided into the processing cycles.

For the second benefit, consider once again the 24 or 30 fps source material. Current image processing allows televisions to cache one frame, look at the one that follows it, and try to identify what could happen in between. If an object is moving across the screen at 40 pixels per frame, you could insert a frame where it has moved only 20 pixels between the two frames from the source material. This allows these higher-frequency sets to interpolate (take two data points and determine what should be between them) missing frames and create a more fluid image.

As others have said, this can produce a very distracting effect, especially if the interpolation is inconsistent or if too many frames are inserted. At 240Hz, the set could theoretically interpolate 7 frames between each of the frames from the source material. When you're interpolating an interpolation from an interpolated frame that was itself interpolated, you're gonna have a bad time. This is why most sets that offer any sort of motion-smoothing should be set to their lowest enhancement; you get an enhanced image, but without the jarring 'soap opera' effect."

So what does 60fps give you? Smoother video playback, especially with panning shots that 24fps film is known to be terrible at without inter frame processing, frame blending etc.

 

[Wowereit]

Fellas, this is definitely not the worst iPhone upgrade ever as the whole web seems to think. I definitely think it's a better upgrade than the iPhone 3g, 3gs, 4s, or the 6s.

I understand where you come from, but I have to disagree.
3G was HUGE. Sure, adding 3G connectivity is boring, but it was a huge step in real world usability.
3GS and 4S were pretty much spec bumps, but remember - we are talking different times here. A spec bump actually affected daily performance very noticeably.

I'm not that happy with 6S either. Feels for me like 6S is what 6 should've been in the first place. Ironed out some manufacturing and design flaws, added the long overdue 2 GB RAM.

 

[smacrumon]

Apple's camera tech from 2011 compared to today isn't nearly as sharp on detail, 8MP or not. Although it's probably serviceable enough. The 4S is also a 3.5" screen, so compared to the 4.7" and 5.5", yeah, it is tiny. Regarding an "all-new" 4-inch iPhone, I think the SE is the closest you're going to get to that, but I could be wrong. I say none of this to begrudge you your 4S, if that works for you, stick with it. My wife stuck with her 4S until the 6S, and having tinkered around with it, I definitely couldn't rock it because I need the Plus sized screen as my hands are a bit big and my fine motor skills not all that great.

Thanks, indeed I will continue rocking 4s. There's nothing wrong with the screen size for me. And it's still powerful. Not giving SE a look in anymore and will remaining waiting for an all new brand new 4 inch, whether it be next year, that's fine. Save some cash in the process.

Now if I said I still use a 3G, that might be controversial, but iPhone 4s was only discontinued in September of 2014 and in some countries discontinued just this year in February 2016. 4s is really a good device.

A friend of mine also needs a Plus size unit, but for larger work I use my Mac. I guess it depends on how we all work.

I do enjoy reading the marketing material on the Apple website when a new device is released, but it just doesn't persuade me to buy one.

 

[SMIDG3T]

Indeed, given the Samsung recall, it would be a massive kick to Samsung if Apple do a quicker launch. Could convert some of them.

I don't know how late you can leave it but there are reports the iPhone 7 is already shipping to certain countries (Might've Apple told them to get a move on?!?). Including the UK where I live. If that's the case, surely it'll be next week and not the week after.

 

[smacrumon]

Apple needs a budget iPhone for the carriers to do a "zero" down deals and the 4" will live on in that slot! All the salespeople call it the budget iPhone other then the Apple Store Associates.

It's really an odd situation, up until September 2014, two years ago, 4" was considered flagship, not a budget phone. If Apple doesn't release a flagship brand new iPhone in 4", then sadly 4s will be my last Apple phone device. I'll make do with something else should the time come to retire my iPhone.

 

[rGiskard]

Another sign that this camera will be an iPhone milestone that potentially takes back the lead in smartphone camera tech.

Yet Apple must gimp the low end with 32GB NAND, rendering the 4K 60fps useless. Typical.

64GB should be the minimum, with 4GB RAM minimum.

 

[jonnysods]

Amazing... can't believe the amount of quality pics and video with just a cell phone.

 

[2457282]

Dear Apple/Tim,

I am very excited to hear what surprises you have in store for us tomorrow. I am already on the iOS beta and find that the refinements are great. I love my 6s and am happy to hear that the form factor is mostly staying the same as I don't see a need to change it. I do hope to see you reduce the bezel as I believe you can gain screen real estate without changing the form factor just by getting rid of the bezel. I love the constant upgrades on the camera and the photo app, but hope that you will push it further to bring back aperature features.

My real hope however is beyond the hardware - I know you will make it crazy fast and better in every way. My hope lies primarily in two areas - your apps and your services. In the app category I really wish you would invest in making iWorks more competitive. I don't want to pay MS subscription fees for their bloatware, but honestly there are significant feature gaps in your apps. In the service area, I really want a family data plan for iCloud that includes music match. Right now I have three separate bills for music match and two iCloud data plans for my wife and I. It makes no sense. Also, do not abandon those of us that still like to buy music. It seems you are overly focused on the non-committed music renters (streamers) and have totally forgotten the rest of us. In other words, iTunes needs some love.

I doubt that you will talk about the iPad, but just remember that if you really want to make it a PC replacement, the OS will need to grow. True multi window support and better file management app to start. I am holding off to see what you do there before buying anything from Apple other than the phones.

Thank you. Wishing you all the best at the event,
CM

 

[nordique]

I've considered 5s and SE in the past, but they are an awful mix of newish tech in old designed packages. I'm happy to wait longer. 4S still functions well, battery still works (and side note the battery can be replaced!).
And... 4S looks supremely beautiful. No need to upgrade for the moment.

Can't deny that - still the nicest looking iPhone to date (imo and going by the polls on this site and others in the past, many others seem to agree with you!)
[doublepost=1473167743][/doublepost]

Apple's camera tech from 2011 compared to today isn't nearly as sharp on detail, 8MP or not. Although it's probably serviceable enough. The 4S is also a 3.5" screen, so compared to the 4.7" and 5.5", yeah, it is tiny. Regarding an "all-new" 4-inch iPhone, I think the SE is the closest you're going to get to that, but I could be wrong. I say none of this to begrudge you your 4S, if that works for you, stick with it. My wife stuck with her 4S until the 6S, and having tinkered around with it, I definitely couldn't rock it because I need the Plus sized screen as my hands are a bit big and my fine motor skills not all that great.

Geez, they like their 4s, It works for them, let them enjoy it and use what works for them.

That poster is right - effectively, it functions the same. For some people that's ok.

 

[Grahamps]

my iphone 5 is gagging for an upgrade.

In two consecutive, freakish weekends, my 5S got caught in a hard downpour, followed the next weekend by me sweating on it for 2.5 hours in a mountain bike race (on a single speed bike, I was hovering/sweating over it while out-of-the-saddle). Ugh.

Now, I am using an 8GB 4S, which is very, very slow. It's been enough to forget how enjoyable and fast the iPhone is! I'm excited for the blazing experience of the 7+, and hope that the AT&T network keeps up!

No more handlebar phone mounting without a dry bag... or, a 7+!

 

[macaximx]

Personally, I hope this rumor is true. 4K 60fps would be a terrific feature upgrade on a mobile device that is going to have a camera and shoot 4K anyway. Having a 4K 60fps camera in your pocket at about all times facilitates the opportunity to capture any big or little moment at high resolution and silky smooth.

It doesn't force anyone to ONLY shoot 4K60fps but it is a terrific option for the video quality hounds- like me- who would rather capture even life's little moments at "overkill" quality because I know I can't come back in the future when this quality of video & fps might be the norm and reshoot those same moments.

If you've ever watched old, old home movies shot on VHS or earlier on your HDTV and wished that you can have those same precious movies reshot in the much greater clarity of HD, you know the feeling of shooting with a popular (mainstream) lower quality standard of the time and then trying to make it work 10, 20, 30+ years later when the mainstream has stepped up several notches. I've got plenty of old family movies shot with the mainstream quality of the times. Obviously, they are NOT HD quality and I wish I could go back to those moments and re-shoot them at HD. But that's impossible, so I live with chips upscaling lower resolution video as good as those chips can guess what should be in the pixels they are making up. That never looks as good as native 4K or native HD source where all the guessing is not necessary.

Rendering down to current standards yields exceptional quality current standards playback. Rendering up from a lower quality shoot means a chip has to make up the details that could have been captured, but were not.

Besides, building 4K60fps into a mobile device retailing for about $1000 should get the camcorder manufacturers moving on bringing 4K60fps to their consumer models at competitive pricing. I'd definitely like to see that too.

As much as I'm so very (personally) down on ejecting the headphone jack, I'm so very up on the possibility of Apple adding 4K60fps to the new iPhone. For those gushing at the idea of the still camera improvements rumored to be coming with this phone, this is basically an optional way to bring significant improvement to the motion that can be captured through that same camera. Instead of one better still frame captured when you take a picture, it could also capture 60 better still frames PER SECOND when shooting video. WOW! WOW! WOW!

Well said!

4K60fps is great future proofing whether you can edit it on a Mac or not. I rather have high quality video shot and saved so it will be there when the macs catch up than to continue to shoot in 1080p. Who cares if you don't have a 4K tv yet, at least precious memories are recorded and will look great when you are 4K ready.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Unless they keep charging $100 for each storage tier, in that case everybody wins. But I'm afraid they'll charge $150, so Tim Cook wins

We have to let go of this notion that for Tim Cook to win, we have to lose.

 

[Freida]

Let's add some more confusion. Why have displays with super high refresh rates too? Should they need no more than 24Hz? So, to answer your question a chap called boyuber put it quite well here.

Quote:
"Film is shot at 24fps because it has always been shot at 24fps. This framerate, while slow, provides you with the classic 'movie' experience.

Television programming (in the US with the NTSC standard) displays at 30fps. Traditionally, television sets were 60Hz, and would display 30fps in an interlaced format. That is to say that in one cycle, they would 'draw' half of the lines of the picture, and in the next, they would interlace the missing lines. 60Hz / 2 cycles per frame = 30fps.

Newer televisions operate at 120Hz or 240Hz (or 600+Hz, if you buy into the ******** subfield nonsense that plasmas advertise [basically, the image is broken into 8 pieces, and each of them refreshes at 72Hz, giving you 600Hz total. This is ******** because you can get one whole image every 1/72 of a second, but they multiply it just because math]), though they do not necessarily provide you with 120+fps. The benefits of higher Hz are twofold: it allows for true reproduction of 24fps source material and the extra cycles allow for 'missing' frames to be inserted in the image.

To explain the first benefit, recall that movies are shot at 24fps, and television is 30fps. TV shows are fine on a 60Hz set because 60/30 = 2 cycles per frame. However, if you were to try to play film content on a standard 60Hz TV, how would you divide the 24 frames into the 60Hz?

The television industry created something called 3:2 pulldown that would use 3 cycles for one frame, and two for the next. This produced an unnatural jitter that most non-videophiles wouldn't notice, but it's what had to be done when trying to shoehorn 24 frames into 60 slots. With 120Hz, 240Hz, 480Hz, 600Hz, etc etc etc, both 60fps and 24fps content can be nicely displayed because they can be evenly divided into the processing cycles.

For the second benefit, consider once again the 24 or 30 fps source material. Current image processing allows televisions to cache one frame, look at the one that follows it, and try to identify what could happen in between. If an object is moving across the screen at 40 pixels per frame, you could insert a frame where it has moved only 20 pixels between the two frames from the source material. This allows these higher-frequency sets to interpolate (take two data points and determine what should be between them) missing frames and create a more fluid image.

As others have said, this can produce a very distracting effect, especially if the interpolation is inconsistent or if too many frames are inserted. At 240Hz, the set could theoretically interpolate 7 frames between each of the frames from the source material. When you're interpolating an interpolation from an interpolated frame that was itself interpolated, you're gonna have a bad time. This is why most sets that offer any sort of motion-smoothing should be set to their lowest enhancement; you get an enhanced image, but without the jarring 'soap opera' effect."

So what does 60fps give you? Smoother video playback, especially with panning shots that 24fps film is known to be terrible at without inter frame processing, frame blending etc.

Wow, that is one complex thing. thank you for taking the time to elaborate on this.
One thing though, I thought the reason for 24fps in cinema is to actually not have everything smooth and to actually have blurred things as it works for the benefit of the viewer. (especially in cartoon animation where they actually use those smear frames). Thats why I was under the impression that cinema keeps the 24fps on purpose.
So can we expect movies to switch to higher framerates in the future? The technology is here so whats the hold up?

 

[Jsameds]

64GB should be the minimum

 

[1Zach1]

Maybe this will mean 1080 at 240fps and 720 at 440fps.

 

[bitslap47]

I really just couldn't care less about the camera and video capability. Please get rid of the bump. Honestly, the camera was good enough for me in the 5S.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Well said!

4K60fps is great future proofing whether you can edit it on a Mac or not. I rather have high quality video shot and saved so it will be there when the macs catch up than to continue to shoot in 1080p.

Exactly. We're such a weird bunch here. We practically burn for advancements in just about every technology within the phone except the one (video) technology where- it appears- many of us want to stick with the status quo- or less- until the rest of the world has already fully moved on to that "the future." That appears to be saying we want Apple tech to get there about last. Yet, in other threads, we're passionately arguing FOR the ejection of the headphone jack so that Apple can apparently LEAD the industry to some higher quality audio advancement when the ejection is not necessary to actually do that. I just don't get how the same people can burn for Apple to lead in just about every way, except this ONE way, where we want them to cling to the present.

For those that care about video, every potential gain in original shoot quality is a gift. Even if it was 30 years until maybe 4k60fps is ubiquitous, why should we try to convince everyone that clinging to the status quo is the best possible option for all? Those that do want to cling can still cling- nobody will be forced to shoot only 4K60fps. However, those that would rather "waste storage space" or adopt something "99% can't see..." can get what they want too. Everybody wins. Everybody can get what they want out of a video capture technology capable of "more," including those completely satisfied with "less."

Personally, I enthusiastically welcome the 4K60fps if this rumor pans out. And if the next phone has 8K30fps, I'll feel the same. And if the one after that has 8K60fps, I'll feel just as enthusiastic. I want to shoot life memories at the highest possible resolution now, downscale the renders until other tech catches up but have a master ready when that other tech does catch up. 20-30 years ago, VHS quality was the status quo and I have a lot of life memories shot at VHS. Scaling those up to today's status quo SHOWS... and not in a positive way- far from it. I have huge wishes that I could go back in time and give modern 4K camcorders to all the family "videographers" who shot those moments. Instead, I have to just roll with the fact that VHS quality is as good as that video will ever be viewed.

Anyone that values such stuff and maybe has some old videos knows exactly what I'm talking about. Now step forward in time about 30 more years. By then, 1080p or less will probably be VHS-like in the video norms of 2046. You don't get to come back and re-shoot at 2026, 2036 or 2046 norms. Take it from me: some of what you shoot in 2016 will only grow in value to you by 2026, more so by 2036 and more so still by 2046. Get it as good as you can... while you can. You can only capture now right now.

 

[Tompkinson]

It's really an odd situation, up until September 2014, two years ago, 4" was considered flagship, not a budget phone. If Apple doesn't release a flagship brand new iPhone in 4", then sadly 4s will be my last Apple phone device. I'll make do with something else should the time come to retire my iPhone.

You are really that adverse to a slightly larger phone in your pocket? it's only about 30g heavier.

 

[Tech198]

when we see the word "limited" our brain clocks it in as "oh ya, that's bad" Not always

 

[Tompkinson]

Another sign that this camera will be an iPhone milestone that potentially takes back the lead in smartphone camera tech.

Yet Apple must gimp the low end with 32GB NAND, rendering the 4K 60fps useless. Typical.

64GB should be the minimum, with 4GB RAM minimum.

Some people aren't interested in video, they use device as a pocket office.
64GB would not be necessary for them. 32 would be fine.

 

[cyanite]

32 GB chips are actually cheaper than 16 GB because it's a way higher volume product.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Apple, though.
[doublepost=1473169542][/doublepost]

Can someone explain to me what is the use of 60fps, please?
Cinema format is 24fps, TV is 30fps in US and 25fps in Europe
48fps on Hobbit wasn't really well received so that only reason for 60fps I see is to have slow motion effect in which 60fps doesn't really give you that much slow motion anyway.

So, what is the real and true benefit to someone wanting to shoot 60fps? Cinema was on 24fps for ages and apparently there was always reason for it so what am I missing?

Yes, cinema is 24 and while that certainly gives a certain "cinema" feel, it's also a very low frame rate for motion, especially sideways motion, too much of which in a movie can make you lose track and feel sick. Especially for 3D, a higher framerate is needed, which I why I liked The Hobbit's 48 fps (although not so much the movie itself ). 24, and 30, is really too low.

 

[smacrumon]

You are really that adverse to a slightly larger phone in your pocket? it's only about 30g heavier.

Yes, larger ain't better, too wide, too tall. At one point in time we were getting smaller and smaller phones, then we started going larger with iPhone introduction. 4s is as large as I want. So yes, to answer your question, completely adverse.
[doublepost=1473169650][/doublepost]

Fellas, this is definitely not the worst iPhone upgrade ever as the whole web seems to think. I definitely think it's a better upgrade than the iPhone 3g, 3gs, 4s, or the 6s.

Nah, 4s was a good upgrade. 4 was specular. 5s speed increase was impressive.