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.
iPod touch Touch 4G - 0.7 megapixel camera??
- Thread starter pizz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No I get your point, and to a degree I'm with you. But here's a little thought experiment. Is Steve real proud of his .7 mp camera's performance and quality of the small images it creates? He didn't even bother to mention the iPod takes still photos....
How can a 0.6/0.7 MP lens produce a 720p HD video? if that's indeed accurate then people will be videoing instead of taking a pic since the video would be better than the still??
megapixels has nothing to do with the lens. 720p is 1280x720, which is 0.91 megapixels.
"high definition" video really isn't that amazing of a technology
the camera's sensor is probably exactly 1280x720 pixels, but for stills it crops in a bit so that it produces a standard still photo aspect ratio.
It's still a backside illuminated sensor, so I'm expecting decent quality. Pixel count isn't everything. I have an S90 and 30D for my serious shots...
Heck maybe the new iPod touches 0.7MP camera is low res, but maybe it takes pretty good pictures. Who knows?
And every cell phone on the market now and over the last few years is over 1 MP.It would be nice considering the price it would've had a decent camera though.
In any event, i need a decent portable wifi device so I'll be getting the iTouch. i guess i'll be using the video mode instead of the camera mode.
it won't. For the same sensor size, the 90MP sensor will be horrifically noisy unless cooled by liquid helium
As stated before, pixels DO NOT dictate quality, merely image size. However, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the number of pixels and the image quality (more pixels on an otherwise identical sensor generally means lower image quality)
Steve doesn't care. In fact, Apple as a whole doesn't care. They're all about profit margins. They wouldn't even have put a camera in if not for the fact that the media would have had a field day with it and it would have hurt their stock price and margins.
Everyone expected an iPod with a camera last year but they didn't do it.
I'm not defending Apple's move. I'm just here because so many people are obsessed with the Megapixel Myth.
Profit margins. As I said, I'm not defending their choice. I'm just here because people are obsessed with the Megapixel Myth and are saying the pictures will be bad simply because its "low MP" and no other reason.
How so? They could shove the touch's cam into the iPhone, save money in the process, and still not lose any sales. People would still buy the iPhone and still pay the same price for it.
it won't. For the same sensor size, the 90MP sensor will be horrifically noisy unless cooled by liquid helium
As stated before, pixels DO NOT dictate quality, merely image size. However, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the number of pixels and the image quality (more pixels on an otherwise identical sensor generally means lower image quality)
Here's a question, say I was going to post a picture on a forum or attach one to an email, taken with an iPod Touch 4. How big would it be before it started to lose quality? 960 X 720? Because I usually resize my Pic's to 800 X 600 and that's pretty good size.
It is an iPod - Not a DSLR
Seems like some of you would be happier if there was no camera there at all instead.
Also, megapixels don't mean anything after 1 or 2. If you disagree, I will send you some photos taken on my DSLR at 4MP (it has settings) and compare them to a gazillion megapixel P&S.
Seems like some of you would be happier if there was no camera there at all instead.
Also, megapixels don't mean anything after 1 or 2. If you disagree, I will send you some photos taken on my DSLR at 4MP (it has settings) and compare them to a gazillion megapixel P&S.
Given the one they shoved in; yes, they should've left it out. What was wrong with using the same one they put in the iPhone 4?
I think you missed all of the previous posts about how the camera would have to be a lot bigger.
I missed nothing. Why did Apple have to make the new touch thinner? What's wrong with the iPhone 4's dimensions?
Here are two 640 x 480 pics that I took a few minutes ago with my two cameras. Both on the lowest setting, 640 x 480, and both with flash off.
Polaroid i1037
FujiFilm 2650
These two cameras are not high quality. Ofcourse they take much better pictures in perfect light out doors.
I don't know what to expect with the iPod camera but I hope the pictures that it takes are closer to the quality of the previous posted ones and not mine.
PS. Yeah, I know the resolution is lower in my pics. It is as close as I could get. If it's no help.
Polaroid i1037
FujiFilm 2650
These two cameras are not high quality. Ofcourse they take much better pictures in perfect light out doors.
I don't know what to expect with the iPod camera but I hope the pictures that it takes are closer to the quality of the previous posted ones and not mine.
PS. Yeah, I know the resolution is lower in my pics. It is as close as I could get. If it's no help.
Yeah, but we're talking about an iPod, not a cellphone
I'm just saying that for most people it'll be redundant anyway. If it can take really good 0.7 megapixel photos, that will be worth something... I do wish the camera was better than 0.7 megapixels - there's only so much detail you can capture with so few pixels - but whatever, it's something, right? ...combined camera devices usually aren't that good... I wish they had put 3G into the touch instead of these cameras... I'll use my Canon TX-1 when I need a compact P&S camera to take good distance shots...
The size of the true optical lens makes good pictures, not mega pixel count
The size of the true optical lens makes good pictures, not mega pixel count
...combined camera devices usually aren't that good... I wish they had put 3G into the touch instead of these cameras... I'll use my Canon TX-1 when I need a compact P&S camera to take good distance shots...
The size of the true optical lens makes good pictures, not mega pixel count
I don't think it's the size as much as the optical properties of the lens that make good pictures