MacRumors Readers Share Beautiful Depth-of-Field Photos Shot With iPhone 7 Plus

[akash.nu]

Sorry, you did not understand what I mean, I did not mean google had a photo filter for making blurry backgrounds
I mean the work Google has and is putting into it's deep image learning AI systems, so that now it's getting amazingly good at being shown an image and being able to tell you what is in the image, even where it may have been taken.

In your example, Humans, and Computers need to know it's a guitar, and it's a bow on the guitar also.
Those things are trees and flowers in the background, and know which pixels are related to which objects in the image.
It#s what out brains do, and it's what AI systems need to know.

I don't believe anyone is ahead of google right now with relation to this type of work.

This has nothing to do with liking Google or not.

Along with Google, Facebook is investing heavily on contextual learning.

 

[Piggie]

Along with Google, Facebook is investing heavily on contextual learning.

Oh I'm sure many are in varying degree's.
Most seem to feel that Data and learning from it, in order to help us all, is what Google is really good at.
I remember how amazes we all were when the Google Earth project started, what an outstanding undertaking, and what we take for granted now, despite it being to recent that, we can sit at our desk and browse the globe in ever increasing detail.
The Google cars, People with google backpacks on recording areas, The tours of museums, and so much more.
Whilst there are some that don't like Google, the world would be so so far from where it is now, were it not for those who started Google and made such amazing things a reality AND make them available for everyone in the world to benefit from.

 

[akash.nu]

Oh I'm sure many are in varying degree's.
Most seem to feel that Data and learning from it, in order to help us all, is what Google is really good at.
I remember how amazes we all were when the Google Earth project started, what an outstanding undertaking, and what we take for granted now, despite it being to recent that, we can sit at our desk and browse the globe in ever increasing detail.
The Google cars, People with google backpacks on recording areas, The tours of museums, and so much more.
Whilst there are some that don't like Google, the world would be so so far from where it is now, were it not for those who started Google and made such amazing things a reality AND make them available for everyone in the world to benefit from.

They try a lot and abandon a lot. They're very non customer focused company to be honest. But somebody has to do it.

 

[Piggie]

They try a lot and abandon a lot. They're very non customer focused company to be honest. But somebody has to do it.

Microsoft does the same, but does not let so much make its way out to the public.

If I'm honest, and had to choose, I would much rather live in a world where products were invented/created and put into producing for the public to buy, and if the 'Public at large' speak thru buying that they are not interested, the product gets put to one side, perhaps to re-emerge after lessons have been learned some time later, or perhaps the public do like it, and then future revisions can be made.
Whilst inconvenient at times, I would much rather live in that world, than a world where only a tiny fraction of things are ever able to be enjoyed by you and I, and we are controlled in what we can or cannot have.

Or, to put it into computing terms, if we HAD to choose one or the other.

I'd feel most, even Apple fans would rather a world of PC's and no Apple, than a world of just Apple and no PC's

Whilst we may like Apple designs and their views on how things should be, being limited to ONLY that, would be devastating for the whole industry.

There is a place for Apple and it's narrow viewpoint and it works them to make money, but it's not the real world thats out there which keeps the world turning.

Variety is the spice of life as they say

I enjoyed growing up with the computers of the 80's and 90's and LOVED and ADORED the fast pace of change, every few years throw it all away and move onto the next amazing product.
Now it's so stagnant in comparison. Sure it's cheaper and easier to carry on from year to year, but it's way more boring than those exciting times, when new things were coming out and getting dropped all the time.

 

[IKAR0S]

Hello,

Apple finally responded to my complaint that the Bouquet effect was not being applied to the photos (instead a Gaussian filter was being used)
...

Apple answer:

Apple Developer Relations10-Jan-2017 07:11 PM

Please know that our engineering team has determined that this issue behaves as intended based on the information provided.

We are in fact using a soft edged disc filter for the captured images - not a Gaussian as several reviews on internet have incorrectly stated. The on screen preview uses an approximated Gaussian for performance reasons.

A soft edged disc filter was chosen to try and match the look of lenses featuring apodizing filters, which help reduce harsh and distracting artifacts in the blurred out background.

 

[dotnet]

A soft edged disc filter was chosen to try and match the look of lenses featuring apodizing filters, which help reduce harsh and distracting artifacts in the blurred out background.

And this, right there, is the reason the iPhone 7 Plus algorithmic blur tends to look much better than your average Canon or Nikon lens blur. Only very few of the best optics actually produce pleasing bokeh. Most ruin it through the spherical overcorrection designed into the lenses (done of course to make the in-focus bits appear sharper).

Remember, selective focus is a compositional tool. The blurred background or foreground should recede and not attract attention, in order to make the subject stand out. With many DSLR lenses the blurred parts are full of artefacts (like ugly ringed highlights) that counter this intention.

If the iPhone algorithm can overcome the issue of getting confused about what should be sharp and what blurred it can produce better bokeh than most mainstream DSLR lenses.

EDIT to add: Let's not even mention longitudinal chromatic aberration ("bokeh fringing") that plagues many lenses but is completely absent with the algorithmic blur.

 

[I7guy]

And this, right there, is the reason the iPhone 7 Plus algorithmic blur tends to look much better than your average Canon or Nikon lens blur. Only very few of the best optics actually produce pleasing bokeh. Most ruin it through the spherical overcorrection designed into the lenses (done of course to make the in-focus bits appear sharper).

Remember, selective focus is a compositional tool. The blurred background or foreground should recede and not attract attention, in order to make the subject stand out. With many DSLR lenses the blurred parts are full of artefacts (like ugly ringed highlights) that counter this intention.

If the iPhone algorithm can overcome the issue of getting confused about what should be sharp and what blurred it can produce better bokeh than most mainstream DSLR lenses.

EDIT to add: Let's not even mention longitudinal chromatic aberration ("bokeh fringing") that plagues many lenses but is completely absent with the algorithmic blur.

Not really. I can obliterate the background with a cheap zoom lens. With an expensive lens the bokeh has a soft round pleasing quality, but the background can also be obliterated.

Sure apples software for approximating blur using software does a good job, but having control over bokeh is great as well.

 

[mixel]

And this, right there, is the reason the iPhone 7 Plus algorithmic blur tends to look much better than your average Canon or Nikon lens blur. Only very few of the best optics actually produce pleasing bokeh. Most ruin it through the spherical overcorrection designed into the lenses (done of course to make the in-focus bits appear sharper).

Remember, selective focus is a compositional tool. The blurred background or foreground should recede and not attract attention, in order to make the subject stand out. With many DSLR lenses the blurred parts are full of artefacts (like ugly ringed highlights) that counter this intention.

If the iPhone algorithm can overcome the issue of getting confused about what should be sharp and what blurred it can produce better bokeh than most mainstream DSLR lenses.

EDIT to add: Let's not even mention longitudinal chromatic aberration ("bokeh fringing") that plagues many lenses but is completely absent with the algorithmic blur.

Better than "your average Canon or Nikon lens blur" ?? Poppycock and balderdash! "Only very few of the best optics actually produce pleasing bokeh" ... Huh? According to whom? A lot of dSLR users would disagree with that. Particularly as the iPhone is a fixed lens camera. So you should be comparing prime lenses.. And primes are cheap and usually have good bokeh.

What do you consider the average Nikon/Canon lens? Frequently the 18-55ish kit lenses that come with the bodies offer nicer blur than the iPhone camera, with prettier bokeh, a smoother (linear, non-stepped) focus transition and less weird artefacts. Obviously you have to compose to suit the range of the lens, but it's crazy to imply the iP7 is even remotely better at doing this. Some of the characteristics of the bokeh in a lens are absolutely a selling point of a particular lens, too.. Artisitically not everyone wants everything out of focus to look like gaussian blur. Hopefully Apple will add those sort of things to the software in time.

I'm not saying Apple's implementation isn't great, but come on. It's not that great.

 

[akash.nu]

Would you say this was a good job?!

 

[I7guy]

Would you say this was a good job?!

Yes, I would say that is good job. Apple has clearly raised the bar on blurring backgrounds through software innovation. The point however, is that on DSLRs or even mirrorless and other body types, you have to worry less(or not at all) about perfect lighting, as the lenses just do their job using physics and lens design. And as noted above, some lenses sell(some at ridiculous prices I may add) specifically for the bokeh the lens produces.

 

[dotnet]

Would you say this was a good job?!

Look at the background in the bottom right corner, that's textbook bad bokeh. It brings the background forward and thereby flattens the image. Good bokeh would be smooth and without this busy texture (which is not the texture of grass, but a mess of diffraction rings). Look at the ringed highlights in the distance. The lens created so much structure in the out-of-focus areas that it looks like you're standing in front of a poster.
[doublepost=1484189837][/doublepost]

Artisitically not everyone wants everything out of focus to look like gaussian blur.

And neither does Apple, that's why they're not using Gaussian blur (see above).

I'm not saying Apple's implementation isn't great, but come on. It's not that great.

They definitely have to work on the artefacts, where the algorithm cannot tell subject from background.

 

[akash.nu]

Look at the background in the bottom right corner, that's textbook bad bokeh. It brings the background forward and thereby flattens the image. Good bokeh would be smooth and without this busy texture (which is not the texture of grass, but a mess of diffraction rings). Look at the ringed highlights in the distance. The lens created so much structure in the out-of-focus areas that it looks like you're standing in front of a poster.
[doublepost=1484189837][/doublepost]

They definitely have to work on the artefacts, where the algorithm cannot tell subject from background.

The ringed highlights are probably because of the filter i threw on top of the original image.

 

[falainber]

Half of the ear was eaten by the fake bokeh. Bakground along the back/shoulder line is still in focus in some areas (for example, inside the black belt loop).

 

[dotnet]

Even with the same lens the quality of the blur varies, depending on magnification ratio/focussing distance, and aperture of course. In these examples the two shots with the worst and best bokeh were taken with the same lens (Nikon 180/f2.8), the one in between with a Nikon 300/f4.

Worst bokeh:

Here, the messy background completely destroys the intended isolation of the subject. A lot of my shots look like this, because I can't afford a Leica tele

This one is much better, but far from perfect. The blurred highlights are still slightly ringed, and there is also a small amount of fringing:

The last shot (same lens as the first) gets it right, perfect isolation of the subject, no busy background structure to attract attention:

 

[mixel]

Look at the background in the bottom right corner, that's textbook bad bokeh. It brings the background forward and thereby flattens the image. Good bokeh would be smooth and without this busy texture (which is not the texture of grass, but a mess of diffraction rings). Look at the ringed highlights in the distance. The lens created so much structure in the out-of-focus areas that it looks like you're standing in front of a poster.

I'd be more concerned with the weird focus fringe on the left of the photo by his face/arm. What's up with that?

[doublepost=1484189837][/doublepost]

And neither does Apple, that's why they're not using Gaussian blur (see above).

They definitely have to work on the artefacts, where the algorithm cannot tell subject from background.

I said it looks like Gaussian blur, not that it technically is gaussian blur. It still sometimes looks weird, and theres a reason users have been calling it that. Blurring in its' style isn't inherently worse..

Your "bad bokeh" tree example above has a more painterly quality but that can come in handy sometimes. The 7+ would likely have had weird sharp/blurry fringing around the twigs in the same shot anyway.

I guess as eyes are pretty imperfect and out of focus (particularly in the periphery) perception is full of weird details too, which may explain why sometimes more perfect smooth blur looks a bit artificial? It's interesting looking at side by side comparisons though.

Looking around the web there seem to be multiple dslr/iPhone 7+ photo comparisons which play this out using all sorts of lenses and bodies. I haven't come across one that claims iphone7+ bokeh is superior to anything but high end lenses yet though..