you know what I mean. I didn't know how to describe it, what I was trying to get at is they'd have some really screwed up resolution. lol
1. What is "ISO blur"? Did you just make up your own term? ISO refers to film speed and has absolutely nothing to do with whether an image is sharp or blurry.
2. The image has absolutely no blur whatsoever. It's clear that the "iPod touch/3rd generation" font is a heavier, more narrow style of the "iPod touch/2nd generation" font.
When you have ISO Set higher on a camera, it tends to blur the picture slightly. It looks blurry to me on the right handside where it gets darker compared to the left handside.
LOL to these. This is what I hate about the explosive popularity of digital photography -- people trying to explain stuff who don't know anything about photography.
A square lens isn't going to effect the resolution of the photo, the image sensor in the camera is what determines the resolution/shape of the image. But the way the lens focuses the scene onto the small image sensor makes a round lens better for this. They could probably make a square lens that did this correctly too, but it would be harder and more expensive to manufacture than a round lens, and nobody cares about the shape of the lens to begin with.
ISO = film speed = sensitivity of the film to light. The term still works in the digital world with the reaction time of the image sensor. ISO blur would be more accurately described as Motion Blur. The ISO speed is too low on the camera so the sensor requires the scene to sit still longer to take the exposure. This "sitting still" isn't talking about the subject themselves, it's referring to the entire scene. So whether its a person in the picture moving too much or the photographer's hand shaking the result is the same -- a blurry subject.
Remember when you were still using film and you knew you needed a high speed film (ISO 400-800) to take picture in low-light situations (like birthday-cake blowing-out)? The speed of your film had nothing to do with you ability to take photos in low light situations, that was just the marketing dept of Kodak trying to help you deal with this stuff. The real reason you needed a higher speed film is you wanted to take a photo in low light and have things be sharp or at least recognizable. So you needed to use a film with a high enough light sensitivity to take a shot with a short enough exposure time to avoid motion blur either in your subject or from you holding the camera with your hands. If everyone had been frozen like statues and you'd had the camera sitting on a tripod, you could have used ISO 50 film at that birthday party and gotten a picture lit up like daytime if you'd wanted.
Another reason is many people had cheap point-n-shoot cameras. These cameras had a
fixed shutter speed. So no matter what kind of film you have they took the photo in 1/125 sec or whatever. How did the camera prevent overexposure/underexposure? It didn't! The dynamic range of film still allowed all the detail to be captured because it wasn't possible to print a photo that showed everything the film had picked up, so the processing center would adjust their printing for the exposure level your film had. Go look at a bunch of your negatives from different rolls of film. The higher speed rolls will be darker overall than the lower speed rolls even when taking pictures of the same types of scenes. This is what that "brightness/contrast" adjustment was you used to hear about in commercials for Kodak Processing, the printer making up for your cheap-ass camera or your lack in ability to set proper exposure for your film. This is also why it's so hard to get a decent night picture with commercial processing (because their machine assumes a "dark" photo is underexposed, not that it really was a dark scene you were shooting).
The "blurriness" you see in high ISO photos is due to the quality of the image sensor. It's noise introduced by the sensor and the camera itself, not blur! Look up photos taken with a real expensive Digital SLR and a nice lens. I've seen good photos taken at ISO
6400 with no noise. Noise is also caused by the resolution of your pictures and current image sensor technology. Right now, manufactures are packing more and more pixels onto the same size image sensors in more consumer digital cameras. This is wrong! It's causing photos that are extra noisy when taken it higher ISO settings, whereas if they kept the resolution the same as last years models, they could instead have a camera that took better low-light photos and supported higher ISOs overall. The resolution of cameras is already way higher than your average consumer will ever need.
2 megapixels is a fine resolution for your average 4x6" print size. Maybe go to 6 or 8 for a
super high quality 10x13".
Digital camera manufacturers continue to make cameras with higher and higher resolutions because lots of consumers measure how "good" a camera is my the number of megapixels it takes (regardless of if they need them or not) and the size of the screen on the back. Instead of how well it takes photos at ______ ISO setting and how easy it is to navigate the menus, etc.
This is exactly the same thing as "megahertz myth" in personal computer processors we all remember from the G4 days. The pushing of a metric that doesn't give a complete picture of the abilities of a product by manufactures to exploit what consumers mistakenly thinks they should be looking at.
The reason most mobile phones take bad pictures is the sensors are low quality, the reason they take noisy photos is technology for sensors that small is just now reaching levels were it can take photos at a decent resolution and quality at the same time (the pixel packing thing, phone cams have
tiny sensors). The reason they take blurry photos is the lenses are low quality plastic ones generally. They also get dirty and scratched easily because they are completely exposed to what's in the owners pocket quite often. But manufactures don't add lens caps (generally, there are a couple) is because it would add to the device's thickness and they would rather you have a reason to replace your phone in a year or two anyway.
To address the last point, the "darkness and blurriness" on the edge of some cell phone pics is the camera taking a picture of the edges of it's own lens hole. Lenses are recessed in camera cases to try and protect them from scratches, but this also means it's more possible to have the corners of camera's view obstructed by the case edge. It's like when you stack too many filters onto the end of a SLR's lens or use a wide angle lens with a lens hood.
. So I guess that's true.
no!!!!!!!!no!!!!!!no!!!!! I don't want this for my new college semester, mama help me out!!!! Bono ,Jesus , Steve, Bill, help me out!!!!!!!! At least WiFi, 16G, 32h battery life, and 33% price down for 9th September
