Bille
Well-known
I have seen two of these today and I was impressed by the quality obtainable from a silly camera phone.
More here:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...ampaign-goes-global-with-billboards-ad-spaces
http://www.apple.com/de/iphone/world-gallery/
More here:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...ampaign-goes-global-with-billboards-ad-spaces
http://www.apple.com/de/iphone/world-gallery/
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Im not surprised really. I just got a spec sheet for a digital ad board we will be designing for in the future and its resolution is 1.5 ppi.
When its that far back a lot of the crap and softness goes away.
When its that far back a lot of the crap and softness goes away.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
I walked up close to a B&W iPhone 6 ad, one of a horse by Mass Ave and Newbury street in Boston, MA. Driving by it would look sharp, but standing 20 feet away it began to look like a low-res, web-sized, image blown up to 400% on a large monitor, soft and full of JPEG compression artifacts. The short focal length of the lens is obvious because everything was in depth of field. No opportunity for creative use of selective focus. OK for snapshots and the web but not good enough for me. These are just the Instamatic or Polaroid cameras of now, and while someone else could make art with them, I would not want to.
I mainly use my iPod Touch 5's camera for submitting reports to the City of Boston's app for reporting problems like unshoveled sidewalks, potholes, out streetlights etc. Good enough for that.
I mainly use my iPod Touch 5's camera for submitting reports to the City of Boston's app for reporting problems like unshoveled sidewalks, potholes, out streetlights etc. Good enough for that.
rscheffler
Well-known
There's definitely the aspect of viewing distance relative to camera resolution. Billboards are not highly demanding.
Anyway, I think the only thing silly is not taking phone cameras seriously. They can do a decent job, technically, and it remains, for now, very much the human behind the device responsible for the artistic merit of the images.
As we've seen over the past decade+ on the ’net, there are a lot of talented 'non-pro' photographers in the world producing stunning working with 'sub-par' equipment. In this case, while not all of the images may be literally stunning, Apple is fully taking advantage of their huge user base by plucking a number of very nice images that theoretically, anyone could make. I've seen discussions about how Apple could dominate the camera world if they produced a dedicated camera system. Why would they when they already sell the most popular camera in the form of the iPhone?
Maybe the phone cameras don't live up to the technical demands of many enthusiast photographers, but IMO, it's pretty irrelevant when the majority of casual photographers look at images completely differently from technically inclined photographers. Content/emotions/feelings evoked by the images are more important.
It's also interesting to see... Apple's previous big ad campaign around their 30th(?) anniversary of the Mac(?) video was shot mostly on the iPhone, but was all done by professional cinematographers. Taking it further this time, Apple is showcasing how the 'average' photographer can produce stunning results with little concern for the technical mumbo jumbo many of us here get wrapped up in.
Very cleverly, it can’t be argued that it took a team of top pros to create the visuals this time. Meanwhile, the current campaign must have saved Apple a huge pile of cash in much lower production costs and usage rates (assuming they even paid a going rate). I suspect the return on the campaign will be huge.
Another example of how crowdsourcing can be hugely advantageous to the entity pulling the strings...
Anyway, I think the only thing silly is not taking phone cameras seriously. They can do a decent job, technically, and it remains, for now, very much the human behind the device responsible for the artistic merit of the images.
As we've seen over the past decade+ on the ’net, there are a lot of talented 'non-pro' photographers in the world producing stunning working with 'sub-par' equipment. In this case, while not all of the images may be literally stunning, Apple is fully taking advantage of their huge user base by plucking a number of very nice images that theoretically, anyone could make. I've seen discussions about how Apple could dominate the camera world if they produced a dedicated camera system. Why would they when they already sell the most popular camera in the form of the iPhone?
Maybe the phone cameras don't live up to the technical demands of many enthusiast photographers, but IMO, it's pretty irrelevant when the majority of casual photographers look at images completely differently from technically inclined photographers. Content/emotions/feelings evoked by the images are more important.
It's also interesting to see... Apple's previous big ad campaign around their 30th(?) anniversary of the Mac(?) video was shot mostly on the iPhone, but was all done by professional cinematographers. Taking it further this time, Apple is showcasing how the 'average' photographer can produce stunning results with little concern for the technical mumbo jumbo many of us here get wrapped up in.
Very cleverly, it can’t be argued that it took a team of top pros to create the visuals this time. Meanwhile, the current campaign must have saved Apple a huge pile of cash in much lower production costs and usage rates (assuming they even paid a going rate). I suspect the return on the campaign will be huge.
Another example of how crowdsourcing can be hugely advantageous to the entity pulling the strings...
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Like any camera, there's things an iPhone can do well and things it's not well suited to...it's up to the user to discern the difference.
I look at it as an addition to whatever tools we have, and therefore it's a good thing. I'm a die-hard film fan but I love using my 5s to make entirely different kinds of images -- more of a good thing, IMHO.
I look at it as an addition to whatever tools we have, and therefore it's a good thing. I'm a die-hard film fan but I love using my 5s to make entirely different kinds of images -- more of a good thing, IMHO.
Fadedsun
Established
I've seen the ads around Boston and thought they were interesting, though I never looked at them up close. For me, I primarily use my film camera, but also my Iphone 4S. I accept the limitations of using my Iphone to take photos (can be slow, no shutter speed or aperture adjustments, etc.), but the editing process after taking a photo is quick, painless and I don't have to sit in front of my computer to do so. It can be a lot of fun and I've gotten a lot of nice comments about my digital phone photos. I also follow professional photographers on Instagram that like to use their phones for photos, and they seem to enjoy the limitations and challenge of it.
Like a previous poster has said, the average person is looking at these photos quite differently (more from an emotional, rather than technical perspective) and that's perfectly fine. I like if my photos can evoke a response no matter what device they were taken with.
Like a previous poster has said, the average person is looking at these photos quite differently (more from an emotional, rather than technical perspective) and that's perfectly fine. I like if my photos can evoke a response no matter what device they were taken with.
leicapixie
Well-known
The photos on bus shelters are great!
The users on other blogs had me fooled as to what camera!
One photographer who post hundreds of images on blogs uses an i-phone.
i thought it was Leica-M and a 28mm lens..
Sure close up..not so good.
Truth tell my scanned images not so good either.
The users on other blogs had me fooled as to what camera!
One photographer who post hundreds of images on blogs uses an i-phone.
i thought it was Leica-M and a 28mm lens..
Sure close up..not so good.
Truth tell my scanned images not so good either.
thereabouts
Established
I've seen a few of these around and they look decent enough. But a few technical issues should probably be raised, if we are going to compare the images on these posters and billboards to those of other cameras.
Firstly, the resolution of an iPhone, (8 Megapixels I believe), is no different to any other camera which has an 8MP resolution - for example my Canon EOS 350. In fact, even the Leica 8 at 10MP, isnt significantly better. So, in that regards, resolution has no more or less bearing on the print quality of the image.
In relation to this, billboards are printed with an extremely course halftone screen - that's the large dots that you can see when you are up close to them.
This page (about a third of the way down) lists some viewing distances and relative halftone Line Screen resolution requirements (not to be confused with dots per inch, or pixels per inch – which is what we mean when we talk about camera megapixels).
At those low line screen requirements, 8 megapixels might well be plenty for a poster or billboard (depending on the size), designed to be viewed at a distance. In fact, because the quality of a halftone printed image only increases up to a maximum of 2.5 times the halftone Line Screen, there may be no resolution advantage in using a 50MP dSLR over an iPhone, in many cases.
As for JPEG artefacts. Again, the iPhone JPEGs should not be significantly different in quality to those of any other 'out of camera' JPEGs. And there are several Apps that allow you to shoot uncompressed images on an iPhone.
Obviously, the iPhone cannot compare in many other areas. You can only do so much with a lens in a device that thin. Similarly, with the sensor size, dynamic range (which is where I would say I, subjectively, noticed quality issues) and so on.
As I said, the above relates to this disussion regarding commercially printed billboards. There may be some different factors involved in prints from inkjet printers, or whatever.
Firstly, the resolution of an iPhone, (8 Megapixels I believe), is no different to any other camera which has an 8MP resolution - for example my Canon EOS 350. In fact, even the Leica 8 at 10MP, isnt significantly better. So, in that regards, resolution has no more or less bearing on the print quality of the image.
In relation to this, billboards are printed with an extremely course halftone screen - that's the large dots that you can see when you are up close to them.
This page (about a third of the way down) lists some viewing distances and relative halftone Line Screen resolution requirements (not to be confused with dots per inch, or pixels per inch – which is what we mean when we talk about camera megapixels).
At those low line screen requirements, 8 megapixels might well be plenty for a poster or billboard (depending on the size), designed to be viewed at a distance. In fact, because the quality of a halftone printed image only increases up to a maximum of 2.5 times the halftone Line Screen, there may be no resolution advantage in using a 50MP dSLR over an iPhone, in many cases.
As for JPEG artefacts. Again, the iPhone JPEGs should not be significantly different in quality to those of any other 'out of camera' JPEGs. And there are several Apps that allow you to shoot uncompressed images on an iPhone.
Obviously, the iPhone cannot compare in many other areas. You can only do so much with a lens in a device that thin. Similarly, with the sensor size, dynamic range (which is where I would say I, subjectively, noticed quality issues) and so on.
As I said, the above relates to this disussion regarding commercially printed billboards. There may be some different factors involved in prints from inkjet printers, or whatever.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
the bus stop posters look ok from 10 feet away, but the detail is complete mush when you get close up. does anyone know what a small 5x7-ish print looks like?
also, the dynamic range is not bad in some of these photos. being able to control exposure separately from focus and to trip the shutter with the volume up button are even more useful improvements.
also, the dynamic range is not bad in some of these photos. being able to control exposure separately from focus and to trip the shutter with the volume up button are even more useful improvements.
Prest_400
Multiformat
Nice timing
I've got a 6, and infact I printed a couple of files to 8x10 which look good at the right distance. Look closer and there was some mush in the fine detail, but in general very good.
Infact, that couple of prints I submitted to a university competition.
It has become my snapshooting camera. Given that nowadays I don't print that much, and not further than 8x10, it is fine with good light.
In low light, it can hold itself together decently. No FF DSLR high ISO, but the algorithms give a fairly decent image and despite having no OIS it is rare to have motion (fairly steady holding). The video stabilizer is great.
Depending on the scene, things look more or less mushy. It tends to go for the lowest ISO possible (32-80).
Contrasty outdoors of a sunny day is the perfect condition for it.
Yesterday I received a magazine I'm subscribed to and at the back there was an ad with a photo taken with the iPhone 6. about 7x11 or so. Looked quite nice, but it's a photo of blue sky with a cloud and that isn't a very busy scene.
I've got a 6, and infact I printed a couple of files to 8x10 which look good at the right distance. Look closer and there was some mush in the fine detail, but in general very good.
Infact, that couple of prints I submitted to a university competition.
It has become my snapshooting camera. Given that nowadays I don't print that much, and not further than 8x10, it is fine with good light.
In low light, it can hold itself together decently. No FF DSLR high ISO, but the algorithms give a fairly decent image and despite having no OIS it is rare to have motion (fairly steady holding). The video stabilizer is great.
Depending on the scene, things look more or less mushy. It tends to go for the lowest ISO possible (32-80).
Contrasty outdoors of a sunny day is the perfect condition for it.