Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sensor-Shift Technology Could Bring Image Stabilization to Ultra-Wide Lens on 2020 iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The wide angle lens is actually really good in bright light, but suffers greatly in low light to where it’s unusable. So this is much welcome news.
Understand what you mean.
I’m saying its difficult to justify the high cost, if upgrading from last years model, based solely on the value of 1 year‘s iPhone improvements, which has usually (but not always) been relatively modest.
Expectations for improvement will need to lowered somewhat...compared to majority of people, who hold onto their phones significantly longer.
The 2021 iPhone will be everything the 2020 iPhone should have been.
sure, but in reality we're talking about a two year period, as the x has the same notch, camera etc. as the xs. so when they're dropping a model that is supposed to be an iphone 11, not an xss, it would be nice if it didn't resemble it in so many ways. this is why i think the iphone 8 was the biggest fail for apple - it was a 7 with a glass back, and although there was no 7s then had the guts to call it the 8. ok, i'm done
Yep. Came here to say this. The diminishing returns of stabilizing an ultra wide lens makes this rumor very questionable. There’s a reason ultra wide stabilized lenses are very sparse in the DSLR ranges.
If Apple does introduce this and makes it a headline feature, I’ll know that they’re grasping at straws. Not that I would mind having it but the use cases for this are way less than 0.25% of all shots.
If they do it, only advantage I can think of is pixel shifting to simulate higher resolution.
"While details are slim, sensor-shift technology could bring image stabilization to the ultra-wide lens on high-end 2020 iPhones."
holding an iPhone steady works just as good. (and cheaper)
I hate simulations... Companies do it because they can't do it for real at reasonable price for the consumer.. The only advantage would be its all in software, so an "update" can easily fix something, a hardware "costly" ? must otherwise be done.
I wold prefer real resolutions, rather than a fake what it can provide.
holding an iPhone steady works just as good. (and cheaper)
I hate simulations... Companies do it because they can't do it for real at reasonable price for the consumer.. The only advantage would be its all in software, so an "update" can easily fix something, a hardware "costly" ? must otherwise be done.
I wold prefer real resolutions, rather than a fake what it can provide.
This seems to makes much more sense than pure stabilization: https://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-sensor-shift-technology-high-resolution-images
Keep in mind that when you use sensor shifting to increase resolution it isn’t a simulation. It really does capture more pixel data than it otherwise could. The downside is that your subject could be moving, in which case software would have to compensate."While details are slim, sensor-shift technology could bring image stabilization to the ultra-wide lens on high-end 2020 iPhones."
holding an iPhone steady works just as good. (and cheaper)
I hate simulations... Companies do it because they can't do it for real at reasonable price for the consumer.. The only advantage would be its all in software, so an "update" can easily fix something, a hardware "costly" ? must otherwise be done.
I wold prefer real resolutions, rather than a fake what it can provide.
iPhone rumors for the next one have been slim - I have a feeling we are just going to get some more camera upgrades before the 2021 flagship with 5G, USB C, Bi literal wireless charging, etc..
Are you joking? There have been a TON of rumors. New grooved metal frame. New sizes. 5g. New camera features including time of flight. ProMotion. Etc.
Huh what? Most people hate? All phones are big as that’s what sells...more want bigger phones than smaller due to reduced bezels making it more manageable
For a given lighting level, wide-angle shots do need less stabilization as the rule of thumb is that one needs a shutter speed of 1/focal length in FF equiv. (eg, 60 mm FF equiv. -> 1/60 s) to keep camera shake from affecting sharpness (as the resolution of image sensors has increased, that rule of thumb needed adjustment towards 2/focal length or even 3/focal length).
But that naturally simply means that wide-angle shots benefit from image stabilization at lower light levels than tele shots. Additionally, IS can only combat camera shake, not subject movement thus further reducing the number of situations where a wide-angle camera benefits from stabilization. But that's it, it is not that camera shake doesn't impact image quality with wide-angle lenses, just that there probably fewer occasions where it would benefit.
Regarding OS vs sensor-based stabilization, for wide-angle lenses, sensor-based stabilization tends to more effective and for tele lenses, optical stabilization is more effective (with this distinction becoming more important the more extreme the (equiv.) focal length is). That is to some degree due to the fact that OS cannot correct for rotational movement but sensor-based stabilisation can.
Fast primes below 200 mm very rarely have OIS, not least because it adds a complication to already complex designs (Panasonic has two exceptions). In regard to slower primes, not a lot of them (below 200 mm) have been released in the last two decades, the main exception being macro lenses (many of the newer ones come with OIS) and other specialty lenses like tilt/shift or fully manual ones. But there are a couple of newer, slower (wide-angle) primes with OIS (Canon's 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses).
Among wide-angle zooms, there are a fair share of stabilised lenses, not coincidentally for those mounts that do not have any (or almost any) IBIS cameras (Nikon FX & DX, Canon EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF, Sony E, Fuji X) with as expected the more extreme designs (very wide, fisheye, fast) tending to come without OIS. On systems with widespread IBIS (m43, Sony FE, Nikon Z FF) OIS non-tele lenses are rare as IBIS is as good (if not better) there (Pansonic still has a lot of older ones as it started out without IBIS, as does Sony whose first generation FE cameras also came without IBIS).
You guys claiming ultra wide not needing IS probably don't drink 50 cups of coffee before a photo shoot.
If you're drinking 50+ cups of coffee, you don't need IS. You need a catheter.
All I really want is a grooved metal frame (or something like the iPhone 5’s frame). I’ve hated the soft rounded edges and resulting slippery handling that the iPhone 6 introduced... not to mention, notch aside, every iPhone has looked the same since 2015? The hyper-feminizing of design is getting a little tiresome. Not that I’m against the (supposed) ideals implicit within it, or women—nor do I think hyper masculine design looks universally great either. And, fourth caveat, most companies have shifted in this way, so this isn’t an “Apple-only thing.” Automobiles provide the most glaring and obvious examples (visually/monetarily). The Range Rover Evoke or current Pathfinder are perfect examples.
Apple iterates. If they had waited to ship the iPhone until many of the first-generation concerns were addressed — no copy & paste, no multitasking, etc. — they might as well have packed up and canceled the product.
They're already conceptualizing iPhone 12, 13, 14 and possibly 15 today. (We know for a fact that their chips have a three-year pipeline. So, they're working on the iPhone 14's A16 CPU.) And part of doing so is deciding which features don't quite make the cut yet.
sure, but in the world of constant technological growth and competition, it would be nice if they picked up the pace just wee bit.
Perhaps a little troll fodder here, but it is the holidays:
One has the choice to purchase a non-Apple phone that they feel does not hold back essential features and makes larger changes with each model. Then your issue disappears.
Following that logic the issue would lie with the consumer making the choice and not the company making the phone.
One has the choice to purchase a non-Apple phone that they feel does not hold back essential features and makes larger changes with each model. Then your issue disappears.
Following that logic the issue would lie with the consumer making the choice and not the company making the phone.
Apple has got to increase the 12MP sensors in its iPhone cameras. The new optical zoom camera is very nice, but the brilliant photos the latest iPhone models produce "go South" pretty readily if, during shooting, you slide or reverse-pinch to digitally zoom—in both still photos and video. Any way you slice it, a very-wide-angle photo shot on an iPhone 11 is still a 12MP photo.
Digitally zoomed picture quality and especially video quality can show pixelation, blur and graininess that can sometimes resemble photos and video shot on old flip phone cameras. And using even the most advanced software apps to crop an existing photo that was shot on even the most high-end iPhone model can result in immediate degradation. (Cropping one person in a group photo is almost out of the question.)
I do realize Apple has spent years perfecting the multi-element lens system (six elements in the most recent iPhones) in its cameras—all perfected specifically for a 12MP sensor, I assume, but even going up to a mere 14MP sensor would yield high dividends in photo and video quality.
IOW, I realize that increasing the sensor from 12MP might require Apple to "go back to the drawing board" and start all over with developing the (up to) six-element lenses the focus light properly onto a new higher-than-12MP sensor, but it will be well worth it given the photo and video improvements that would be realized from this bump up in pixels.
The new 48MP sensors in phones from OnePlus, Honor, Huawei, Motorola and others is ridiculous AND often results in lower quality photos and video than phones with lower megapixel sensors. I chalk it up to the "more is better, looks good on a spec sheet" marketing approach that Apple rejects in favor of real-world outcomes.
MacRumors poster “BootsWalking” alluded to this, and I can't find it now, but I remember reading that Sony had a technology where two image sensors could be used simultaneously when taking still photos or shooting video, and the result would be higher megapixel photos and videos than the sensors are capable of individually. (Twice the megapixels?…IDK.)
If this exists but is not a Sony patented hardware and software technology, or if it requires a license from Sony (that is reasonable), Apple could have two identical 12 MP sensors and lens systems that would be used simultaneously when snapping a photo or shooting video that would yield higher-than-12MP results.
I don't know if the technology described falls under "Sensor Shift Technology," but it would be one way Apple could increase the resolution of photos without "starting all over again" with the total redesign of the six-element lens system it's perfected specifically for 12MP sensors. (Two identical cameras in a future iPhone would mean a total of four cameras.)
The presently described Sensor Shift Technology is the latest in a continued effort to increase stabilization for sharper video and photos and much-improved low-light photos and video, but unless Apple moves to new sensors in the next iPhones, photos are still 12MP only…
A DigiTimes-sourced, September 5, 2017 MacRumors article, “Apple Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras” did not come to pass (or has yet to, anyway).
Apple has been using 12MP rear-facing camera sensors ever since the iPhone 6s was introduced back in 2015. And it's starting to remind me of the (RISC) PowerPC “Megahertz Myth” and the architecture and added SIMD instruction set extensions that Apple insisted made up for raw clock speed after (CISC) Intel CPU speeds outpaced PowerPC clock speeds. Apple stuck to this argument long after the argument eventually lost its merit, when the “brute force” of higher clock speeds proved decidedly faster in real-world comparisons between Intel and PowerPC CPUs.
*The “Megahertz Myth” still has merit as newer CPUs that have not seen grossly higher clock speeds now have multiple cores per die (plus parallel/multi-core processing), handle larger “chunks” of data (64-bit) and hand some instructions off to powerful GPUs, compared to less-capable CPUs that run at higher clock speeds.
Digitally zoomed picture quality and especially video quality can show pixelation, blur and graininess that can sometimes resemble photos and video shot on old flip phone cameras. And using even the most advanced software apps to crop an existing photo that was shot on even the most high-end iPhone model can result in immediate degradation. (Cropping one person in a group photo is almost out of the question.)
I do realize Apple has spent years perfecting the multi-element lens system (six elements in the most recent iPhones) in its cameras—all perfected specifically for a 12MP sensor, I assume, but even going up to a mere 14MP sensor would yield high dividends in photo and video quality.
IOW, I realize that increasing the sensor from 12MP might require Apple to "go back to the drawing board" and start all over with developing the (up to) six-element lenses the focus light properly onto a new higher-than-12MP sensor, but it will be well worth it given the photo and video improvements that would be realized from this bump up in pixels.
The new 48MP sensors in phones from OnePlus, Honor, Huawei, Motorola and others is ridiculous AND often results in lower quality photos and video than phones with lower megapixel sensors. I chalk it up to the "more is better, looks good on a spec sheet" marketing approach that Apple rejects in favor of real-world outcomes.
MacRumors poster “BootsWalking” alluded to this, and I can't find it now, but I remember reading that Sony had a technology where two image sensors could be used simultaneously when taking still photos or shooting video, and the result would be higher megapixel photos and videos than the sensors are capable of individually. (Twice the megapixels?…IDK.)
If this exists but is not a Sony patented hardware and software technology, or if it requires a license from Sony (that is reasonable), Apple could have two identical 12 MP sensors and lens systems that would be used simultaneously when snapping a photo or shooting video that would yield higher-than-12MP results.
I don't know if the technology described falls under "Sensor Shift Technology," but it would be one way Apple could increase the resolution of photos without "starting all over again" with the total redesign of the six-element lens system it's perfected specifically for 12MP sensors. (Two identical cameras in a future iPhone would mean a total of four cameras.)
The presently described Sensor Shift Technology is the latest in a continued effort to increase stabilization for sharper video and photos and much-improved low-light photos and video, but unless Apple moves to new sensors in the next iPhones, photos are still 12MP only…
A DigiTimes-sourced, September 5, 2017 MacRumors article, “Apple Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras” did not come to pass (or has yet to, anyway).
Apple has been using 12MP rear-facing camera sensors ever since the iPhone 6s was introduced back in 2015. And it's starting to remind me of the (RISC) PowerPC “Megahertz Myth” and the architecture and added SIMD instruction set extensions that Apple insisted made up for raw clock speed after (CISC) Intel CPU speeds outpaced PowerPC clock speeds. Apple stuck to this argument long after the argument eventually lost its merit, when the “brute force” of higher clock speeds proved decidedly faster in real-world comparisons between Intel and PowerPC CPUs.
*The “Megahertz Myth” still has merit as newer CPUs that have not seen grossly higher clock speeds now have multiple cores per die (plus parallel/multi-core processing), handle larger “chunks” of data (64-bit) and hand some instructions off to powerful GPUs, compared to less-capable CPUs that run at higher clock speeds.
ADDENDUM:
This article from March 2015 about the Olympus E-M5 Mark II Digital SLR camera discusses what I’m describing. This camera uses a 16MP sensor to achieve 40MP photos using Sensor Shift technology to shift the sensor in 1/2 pixel increments for a total of 8 shots—which it then assembles into a final true 40 Megapixel image. I’d bet Apple’s next iteration of its proprietary A[#] SoC processor will be up to the task!
*But I have no idea how this would work for video, or whether it needs to—unless Apple wants to offer 8K video on an iPhone(!) like the Red® Monstro V V — which requires a 35.4 megapixel sensor! (I'd settle for 6K! —if for no other reason than "future-proofing" my video footage for posterity.)