MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,519
15,249


While sensor-shift optical image stabilization is currently limited to the iPhone 12 Pro Max, the feature will be expanded to all iPhone 13 models later this year, according to Taiwanese supply chain publication DigiTimes.

iPhone-OIS-Feature2.5.jpg

From the report, with emphasis added:
The VCM makers mainly deliver shipments for Android handsets in the first half of the year, but such shipments are expected to be surpassed by those for iPhones in the second half, given that all new iPhones will feature the sensor-shift OIS (optical image stabilization) function, the sources said, adding that the makers have been told to raise capacity by 30-40% to meet strong demand for iPhones.
DigiTimes already floated this rumor in January, but today's report provides further assurance as iPhone 13 models move towards mass production.

Apple first introduced sensor-shift stabilization on the Wide lens of the iPhone 12 Pro Max. The technology stabilizes the camera's sensor instead of the lens for even greater image stabilization and improved photo quality.

"Until now, sensor‑shift stabilization was only on DSLR cameras," explains Apple's website. "This is the first time it's been adapted for iPhone. Whether you're shooting video of your kids as you chase them around the park or holding your iPhone out the window on a bumpy road, you'll get more precise stabilization than ever."

iPhone 13 models are expected to have slightly larger rear camera bumps, likely to accommodate larger sensors and other camera improvements.

Article Link: Sensor-Shift Camera Stabilization Expected on All iPhone 13 Models
 
Last edited:

Sasparilla

macrumors 68000
Jul 6, 2012
1,656
2,752
This is nice to see. Another way to make pictures betters for iPhone users as this should handle small shakes better than doing it electronically. The 13 or 12s or whatever its going to be called is going to be a very nice iPhone, I cannot wait for it.

Would it be asking too much for some proof ?

Also, are there ANY drawbacks (vs. the previous approach) ?

You could certainly search to find this out - your proof is out there. This stabilization was a big deal, some years ago in the DSLR area where you had physically stabilized sensors on the nicer cameras and the cheaper solution being done electronically. At least at the time, the results of the physical sensor stabilization of the sensor was normally always superior with the electronic version being better than no stabilization.

Drawbacks, used to be the non physical approach would often result in a loss of a bit of the edge of the picture to give the system slack to move things around in. Don't know if that is still true. Going to physical would allow the full sensor picture to be used. So only upsides as far as I can see.

If Apple is going with physical stabilization of the sensors, its a good thing.
 
Last edited:

AirunJae

macrumors 6502
Apr 14, 2008
250
351
Indianapolis, IN
Good to see this rolling out to the entire line-up. I wonder if the Pro Max will have any features the smaller pro doesn't get, or if it will go back to just being 2 sizes of the same device?
 

maerz001

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2010
1,782
1,461
This is nice to see. Another way to make pictures betters for iPhone users as this should handle small shakes better than doing it electronically. The 13 or 12s or whatever its going to be called is going to be a very nice iPhone, I cannot wait for it.



You could certainly search to find this out - your proof is out there. This stabilization was a big deal, some years ago in the DSLR area where you had physically stabilized sensors on the nicer cameras and the cheaper solution being done electronically. At least at the time, the results of the physical sensor stabilization of the sensor was normally always superior with the electronic version being better than no stabilization.

Drawbacks, used to be the non physical approach would often result in a loss of a bit of the edge of the picture to give the system slack to move things around in. Don't know if that is still true. Going to physical would allow the full sensor picture to be used. So only upsides as far as I can see.

If Apple is going with physical stabilization of the sensors, its a good thing.
The question is the advantages of sensor over lens OIS.
not electronically. And yes this is still done when doing video on the iPhone. Thats why there is some crop/ not as wide as the still pics.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,388
4,836
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
How discernible is this for the average user?
If your average user drinks a lot of coffee, they'll notice the difference.😅

My experience have all been with lenses OS, not sensor. I prefer OS in my lenses, since I keep them longer (decades) than I keep my camera. I do see the benefit of sensor OS though. Every single lenses you slap on becomes an IS lense.:)
Would it be asking too much for some proof ?

Also, are there ANY drawbacks (vs. the previous approach) ?
I'm guessing with a phone it's the cost and size consideration. Seems cheaper to build OS into the teeny, tiny sensor than the teeny, tiny lense.

Edit: With sensor IS, you don't have to compromise the quality of the lense. I've got a 70-200 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 IS. If you peep the pixel and look hard enough, you can notice that the non-IS variant is a bit sharper. For most people, they never notice the difference.
 
Last edited:

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502
Mar 20, 2009
292
273
The benefit of good sensor shift stabilisation is that it can help with movement around the optical axis which lens based ois simply cannot do. It depends on the situation how much extra benefit this brings.
Also, not all implementations of these features perform equally well even in cameras. We’ll simply have to wait for a wide range of real world tests to evaluate the benefits.
 

ddtmm

macrumors regular
Jul 12, 2010
130
303
I'm pretty amazed at how they've been able to improve on camera quality year after year. I thought the 12 is pretty amazing. I'm happy to see this, as I will be upgrading my iPhone 7 this fall, and the photography side of things is important to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Populus

Souponastick270

macrumors regular
Mar 21, 2016
216
212
Citadel Island
This, 120hz display, Touch ID in the lock button (like whichever iPad has it), good battery size and a proper gloss black like Jet Black would be the perfect upgrade from my 7 Plus 🤞🏻🤞🏻
 

MrCrowbar

macrumors 68020
Jan 12, 2006
2,107
302
Sensor stabilisation is good. Uses less energy, less space and generally can handle stronger shakes.
Hope they can improve on the lens flare, even if it's just removed on the fly via processing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: valleian

Cosmosent

macrumors 68000
Apr 20, 2016
1,908
2,083
La Jolla, CA
My preliminary investigation tells me that this could be another Bentley Al Piston analogy.

Specifically, that sensor-based is a lighter solution than lens-based, & as such, could offer higher performance (i.e., changes would occur faster, & potentially at a faster Max rate).

But of course, it ALL depends-upon the particular implementation.

Proof is definitely needed !

Otherwise, could simply be Smoke & Mirrors / Dog & Pony show, which Cook has mastered !

As a reminder, OR for those who are UN-aware, when Walter Own Bentley crafted his 88% Aluminum 12% Copper Piston just before WW1, he changed Engine design forever ! ... & helped the Allies win the battle in the Air a few years later !

The gist, lighter is better !
 

_Refurbished_

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2007
2,241
2,830
I was on my iMac the other day looking at pictures. I’m still amazed at how good some of them look that were shot on my aging XS Max. I’m probably going to skip the 13 and see what the 14 brings. The 13 is looking to be a stellar device, though.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,170
2,993
Would it be asking too much for some proof ?

Also, are there ANY drawbacks (vs. the previous approach) ?

For standalone cameras, the Japanese Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) has developed a standard by which a camera + lens is placed on a vibrating platform and it is tested by how many stops the image stabilisation (IS) systems reduce the motion blur created by the camera moving on that platform (where one stop means it halves the motion blur, two stops mean a halving again, ie, down to 1/4, and so on). That system isn’t perfect as there are different kinds of camera shake (normal human handshake, shake created by a moving platform like a boat or helicopter, shake induced by stabbing the shutter button, etc.) but it enables an easily comparable performance yardstick. Apple doesn’t use this standard but they surely have their own internal testing procedure. People also hold phones differently than cameras and stabbing the shutter button on phone creates a different shake than than doing so on a camera.

On standalone cameras, optical image stabilisation (OIS) normally means moving a single (small) lens element somewhere in the centre of the lens in at least two directions (up/down and left/right), possibly also tilting it in two dimensions, compensating for camera movement. Camera movement can be split up into linear movement (up/down, left/right, forward/backwards) and rotational movement, tilting up/down, left/right, but also around the optical axis. OIS cannot compensate for that last kind of movement direction.

Lenses in smartphones are so small and so tightly packed that moving individual lens elements isn’t really possible. OIS is thus implemented via the complete lens assembly moving. Whether only linear movements or tilting or even both might vary, this article describes (small) tilting movements. With tilting, the whole lens+sensor package might tilt as described here.

In standalone cameras with interchangeable lenses the clear trend has been to move from OIS to sensor-based image stabilisation (usually referred to as in-body-image-stabilisation, IBIS, as being in the camera body not the individual lenses), except for longer tele lenses. This has a number of advantages, not all applying to phones. For once, this requires only one stabilisation unit inside the camera instead of having one in every individual lens. Not only does this save money and weight, OIS based on moving individual lens elements also requires a more complex lens design such that there is small enough lens element whose movement can achieve this task (small because moving a large element would add size and most importantly would require very powerful actuators to move quickly enough, additionally, whatever you move should be only a small fraction of the weight of the total camera+lens unit), and moving the lens element should not affect the optical performance too much (which also works better with a centrally-located lens element).

Except for longer tele lenses, IBIS has proven to provide a better stabilisation performance and also enables the compensation of rotation around the optical axis. Given the more simplistic OIS in smartphones, I am not surprised that sensor-based IS can achieve better results here as well (on top of adding optical axis rotation correction). Moving only the sensor is also certainly easier than moving sensor plus lens and probably requires less space to move things back and forth (as you are moving something smaller, maybe also lighter).

One last point, the requirements for stabilisation with still image photography and video are somewhat different. For the former you just need to correct for camera movement for the time the ‘shutter is open’ during the exposure (but that exposure time might be relatively long). With video, you also want to achieve small and smooth movements of the camera from video frame to video frame (while the exposure time will always be as short or shorter than the frame rate). With OIS in standalone cameras, you’d want the corrective lens element to move such that it compensates the camera movement but at same time do so while as close as possible to its neutral position (as the optical design is based on all lens elements being lined up perfectly). When shooting video the additional corrective action for camera movement from frame to frame makes that pretty difficult. Here, sensor-based stabilisation avoids that issue but also appears to perform better in general in achieving smooth video.
 
Last edited:

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,170
2,993
If the stabilization is on the sensor (IBS - In Body Stabilizer) and not in the optics (OIS - Optical Image Stabilization), then it's not optical and shouldn't be marketed as such.
Yeah, the proper distinction would probably better be between ‘mechanical’ image stabilisation and digital image stabilisation (the latter was originally only applied to video, even during post processing on a computer, with ‘Night mode’ also to still photography), where mechanical could apply either to the lens (or part of it) or the sensor moving (or both together when thinking of gimbals). But sensor-based stabilisation still works by changing the optical path relative to the sensor but that might be nit-picking.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.