Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Coming from a background in photography, I find this feature interesting but I think it will never break out of being "gimmicky". There are ways to portray movement, action, and most importantly emotion through a still frame so, in a way, I don't think it's anything new. I also edit every photo before I post it and I assumed from the beginning that you won't be able to edit Live Photos like you can with a single image.

For sharing on social media and in messages, this will be pretty fun though. It's always been a little too difficult to make a GIF until now.

Must be quite the magical still photo that can show what was happening 1.5 seconds before and after! Magical motion blur!
 
So that's the best feature the reviews can come up with? A feature that Android has had for ages and Apple has coppied and branded it as though they invented it.... Typical.

So the reviews want to totally ignore the one thing Apple has come up with on its own with the Force Touch and 3D interface, I actually think it's a pretty cool interface but hey ho.
Perhaps it's because its something new on iOS that can be sent via SMS to your pals?
 
Reminds of the gimmick comments on MR right before Touch ID was released.

Also reminds me when the Compass feature landed in iOS and how it was supposed to lead to an avalanche of awesome new app categories.
 
Yep, it is the Apple effect in full force. It is funny though; similar features have been available on other platforms but never been called more than useless gimmicks in most reviews.

A couple of examples are 'Animated photo' and 'Sound and shot' which both debuted on the Samsung Galaxy S4 and Note 4 in 2013. Not very different from Live Photos, but no one saw the point of moving pictures - or pictures with sound - when you could just as well use the movie feature...
What are the differences, if any?
 
I'm kind of disappointed with this. It's basically just a video and a photo, saved separately. I was sort of expecting them to be a little more creative with the solution for this. Sure, they wanted the photo to have a traditional format, but for the video part I expected them to use a format that would refer to the actual photo as a keyframe to save some space. Apparently nobody gave much thought to this.
I think they gave it a lot of thought. To do what you suggest, they would have to have invented a new format where a single frame of a 720P MOV file was a 12MP still. Keyframing that would be a nightmare, and compatibility would have been a big issue, because no one would have the codec to view a MOV file with a key frame at such a vastly higher resolution.

It's quite possible that they make a keyframe of the frame in the video that corresponds to the high res still image. that would make the transition into and out of the still image look crisp and clean, so great idea there, but using the full still image as a key frame--that way lies madness.
 
Whoohoo! A new feature! Oh, wait! :rolleyes:
cinemagraph-feature.png
 
cell phone photos were cool for a minute and then i got into real cameras. i view my photos on my mac and not on my phone. the thing is on a vacation or a night out video captures the memories that a still may not. so with this i can still be taking a still as my primary thing and then have video along with it that will play seamlessly on mac and ios. it's a cool idea and i think i'll enjoy using it.
 
The additional frames only pay attention to the differences. If it's me standing in front of a building it doesn't need 45 copies of the building, only the parts of me moving need to be saved.

Shoot some video on your camera. Shoot 30 seconds of your backyard but just leave the camera sitting there. Then shoot 30 seconds in the backyard (without much moving in the background), but constantly move the camera around (just spin in circles), you'll have drastically different file sizes even though it's the same quality and same length. The still video should compress much smaller, you could even try shooting the still shot but walk in front of the camera a few times or just stand there and talk, it'll be bigger than the still video but still smaller than the wildly moving one...

Gary
Great explanation!
 
  • Like
Reactions: garylapointe
I think they gave it a lot of thought. To do what you suggest, they would have to have invented a new format where a single frame of a 720P MOV file was a 12MP still. Keyframing that would be a nightmare, and compatibility would have been a big issue, because no one would have the codec to view a MOV file with a key frame at such a vastly higher resolution.

It's quite possible that they make a keyframe of the frame in the video that corresponds to the high res still image. that would make the transition into and out of the still image look crisp and clean, so great idea there, but using the full still image as a key frame--that way lies madness.
Honestly, nothing there sounds too crazy or like an unsolvable problem. The compatibility issues are not really a real problem, as these live photos are viewed on Apple devices anyway. I just hoped that there was more to it. It's an interesting problem to solve, but Apple decided to go with a really boring solution. Usually I love how they sometimes come up with inventive solutions to seemingly simple problems. Maybe it's more a thing of the past though.
 
I don't think in the end anybody particularly cares who came up with a new thing first -- it's more important who does it best and makes it the easiest to use. Remember before the iPod how there was the Creative Nomad, and the Archos Jukebox and so on? No, nobody does.
Exactly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
This phrase is confusing, to say the least. When I take a picture, I press the button the exact moment I want to take it. There's no way the software can know 1.5 seconds ahaed that I am going to press it a little bit later, and start recording...
So the right description would be: the iPhone captures a time span of 3 seconds from the moment you press the button, and chooses the frame in the middle as "the picture"... (which is not necesseraly the one moment that I wanted to capture)...​
I believe that your statement is incorrect. I believe that when the camera is opned, it starts caching up to 1.5 seconds, until you click to take a picture, and then saves that 1.5 seconds, PLUS the 1.5 seconds after the picture is "clicked".
 
Whoohoo! A new feature! Oh, wait! :rolleyes:
cinemagraph-feature.png
Yeah, no. That's not the same. It's based on Flixel's Cinemagraph, which you may recall was an iOS app from 2011, long before the Lumias adopted the feature. A cinemagraph is a gif (With all its limitation) where a portion of the image moves. It was inspired by the work of photographers Kevin Burg and Jamie Beck.
 
If with iPhone you mean iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac, Instagram, and Facebook, then you are correct at the moment. But like Facebook, other social media sites may also support it.

If you read you will see that they can, but, on specific devices with specific OS's. Again OS X 10.11.x El Capital, iOS 9 and WatchOS 2.

OS X is on a computer, iOS can be on iPad/iPod touch (not sure yet how it would work on the iPad/iPod touch but they do show an iPad in the poster) and WatchOS is the Apple Watch.. so 2 out of 3 are not iPhones.

That's how most people today view their photos... On Their phones.

Sorry, I meant to say outside the native Photos app.
 
Yep, it is the Apple effect in full force. It is funny though; similar features have been available on other platforms but never been called more than useless gimmicks in most reviews.

A couple of examples are 'Animated photo' and 'Sound and shot' which both debuted on the Samsung Galaxy S4 and Note 4 in 2013. Not very different from Live Photos, but no one saw the point of moving pictures - or pictures with sound - when you could just as well use the movie feature...
What are the differences, if any?
From what I can see, "Animated Photo" had
  • Lower frame rate -- 10 per second
  • Lower resolution -- 450 pixels high
  • Larger file sizes
  • GIF file type -- could be more useful for posting on the web -- except for the file size
  • Limited color palette because of the GIF file type
  • Ability to limit the motion to certain area (s?) of the image -- could help the file size
So Apple's approach has
  • Higher resolution MOV 720 pixels high (in landscape) -- I'd like the option for 1080
  • 12MP still picture JPG
  • Smaller file size
  • Automatic. So long as the feature is on, it takes both a movie and still every time, so you don't have to decide before you shoot that you want to make it a high res still or a 720P movie.
  • Records sound as part of the MOV file.
I think Apple's is a bit more refined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
I have a 6+ I just hope we will be able to download some that people create so I can put them on my Apple Water for moving watch faces! Would be awesome
 
Nope. Of course it knows you are taking a picture, you have the camera open! And it continuously record and discard the frames until you hit the shutter. Then it keeps the 1.5second before and the 1.5 seconds after.

For the record Zoe only keeps .6 second before you press the shutter and then you have to keep still for a further 2.4seconds. No wonder HTC shut down Zoe.com
That has nothing to do with HTC shutting it down, if Apple had used those times fans would still be gushing over it. The reason HTC has closed a few of their innovations down is due to the lack of large sales of their phones, which is unfortunate because they make beautiful and reliable phones, I know I've had 3 and never had even one little glitch.
I'm of the opinion that HTC will eventually stop making their own phones which is a real pity and a sad day for competition.
 
Must be quite the magical still photo that can show what was happening 1.5 seconds before and after! Magical motion blur!

So when you look at this photo you believe the water is just suspended there like that? Can you not extrapolate what is happening? If that's the case, I think it's pretty unusual. Most people don't need to see 3 seconds of video to infer that something is happening when they look at an action photo...

forest-trees-waterfall.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrimeMatrix
So when you look at this photo you believe the water is just suspended there like that? Can you not extrapolate what is happening? If that's the case, I think it's pretty unusual. Most people don't need to see 3 seconds of video to infer that something is happening when they look at an action photo...

forest-trees-waterfall.jpg
Wow. That's a cool picture. It would look even cooler with 1.5 second animated leads in and out!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.