New Yorker: "With the iPhone 7, apple changed the camera industry forever"

[Pioneer]

I'm still waiting for a response to my carrier pigeon that I sent to you.

You have so far ignored:

1/ the message in the bottle
2/ note wrapped around a rock
3/ note attached to an arrow
4/ smoke signals
5/ and now Cecil

Obviously I spend a ridiculous amount of time on this forum so a private message would have eventually reached me.

🙂

In an attempt to be more polite though less coherent, I am not in Apple's demographic.

As for the future of Apple, life is a bit like a pendulum. What swings for you will eventually swing against you. There is a vast history of companies who started as disruptors and became the disrupted.

 

[helen.HH]

I'm still waiting for a response to my carrier pigeon that I sent to you.

You have so far ignored:

1/ the message in the bottle
2/ note wrapped around a rock
3/ note attached to an arrow
4/ smoke signals
5/ and now Cecil

Ahhh, the Good Old Days when 'Man' had more Time... 😱

 

[Godfrey]

...In an attempt to be more polite though less coherent, I am not in Apple's demographic. ...

Now that's interesting. What is your perception of "Apple's demographic"?

G

 

[Godfrey]

Ahhh, the Good Old Days when 'Man' had more Time... 😱

We can have all the time we want. Just ignore all the silly phone calls and forum discussions. It's up to us. 🙂

G

 

[mwoenv]

Yes, it's something that has changed the camera industry forever.

But it's just one of many significant changes over time that has changed the camera industry forever, like celluloid film, roll film, instant film and cameras, cartridge film and Instamatic cameras, 35mm film format, automatic and TTL exposure control, electronic shutters, autofocus, digital capture, etc.

Fortunately, all these changes have given us a nice variety of tools to make images with.

 

[fireblade]

Ahhh, the Good Old Days when 'Man' had more Time... 😱

Is that when 'woman' cooked and cleaned? 😀

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Now that's interesting. What is your perception of "Apple's demographic"?

G

Men aged 65 and older spent more on Apple devices than any other demographic group in the United States last year, according to Slice Intelligence, which tracks online shopping data.

That group, though not even one-quarter of all Apple customers, spent $976 online on average per person on iGadgets.

They outspent the young female demographic by more than $400. (Women 25 to 34 spent the least out of all the age groups. See correction below.)
Men far outspent women in every age category by about $200 to $300.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/29/technology/apple-customers/

 

[williaty]

The more interesting question is whether the women or men, and young or old, bought more units. It's definitely more likely that the old dude has the big iPad pro with cell data and the most storage vs the teenage girl that has a bottom of the line last-year's-model iPhone so the gross sales add up quick. However, I see 5 kids under 25 running around with iDevices for every one old dude with one.

 

[michaelwj]

The more interesting question is whether the women or men, and young or old, bought more units. It's definitely more likely that the old dude has the big iPad pro with cell data and the most storage vs the teenage girl that has a bottom of the line last-year's-model iPhone so the gross sales add up quick. However, I see 5 kids under 25 running around with iDevices for every one old dude with one.

Add a few Mac Pro's and a few MacBook Pro's into the mix and the number of dollars spent vs number of devices blows out pretty quickly.

 

[:: Mark]

The background blur is from one lens while the subject is taken with the other lens. Of course, software is what combines it all together, but it isn't fake bokeh.

I am not so sure - these are f1.8 lenses, but the sensor and focal length are so short that the degree of blurring in the sample photographs is likely not from the "telephoto" lens directly.

What I think they do is build a crude depth map of the scene and then use this to selectively blur image areas. It is analogous to an automated form of Photoshop.

Maybe they should have asked Steve McCurry to endorse it 🙂

 

[Richard G]

Struggling (not much) with the 6S at the moment. Couldn't fit a 7 Plus in my pocket. But I agree with KM-25 and the other enthusiasts here. I actually miss the 3GS iPhone. Loved the character of those photos.

 

[johnf04]

I don't wear my reading glasses when I'm out and about.
This makes using screens for composing and focussing awkward.
My Canon G12 has a viewfinder, with dioptre adjustment.
Who needs a smartphone for photography?

 

[williaty]

As far as I know, the DOF in Portrait mode supposedly utilizes the dual lenses in the iPhone 7+, which is why it'll only be available for the 7+. The background blur is from one lens while the subject is taken with the other lens. Of course, software is what combines it all together, but it isn't fake bokeh.

This is incorrect. The camera is, in fact, actually faking bokeh.

The degree of out of focus blurring depends on the actual diameter of the aperture not the focal ratio. So even though these are f/1.8 lenses, the actual aperture diameters are still incredibly tiny and thus produce little to no blur at typical distances. What's happening here is that the software looks at both lenses at the same time and calculates the distance to various elements using the parallax between the two views. It then combines this distance data with face detection algorithms to produce a map of what it believes you'd like to have in focus vs blurred. It then applies various blurring techniques to different parts of the scene and the result is a picture that, at first glance, mimics the out of focus characteristics of a fast prime 35mm or larger film. Look at it a little harder and you can see some tells if you know what it really should look like. One of Apple's press releases gives you enough information to figure out how they're pulling this off if you already have some familiarity with this kind of processing.

 

[Peter Jennings]

This is incorrect. The camera is, in fact, actually faking bokeh.

The degree of out of focus blurring depends on the actual diameter of the aperture not the focal ratio. So even though these are f/1.8 lenses, the actual aperture diameters are still incredibly tiny and thus produce little to no blur at typical distances. What's happening here is that the software looks at both lenses at the same time and calculates the distance to various elements using the parallax between the two views. It then combines this distance data with face detection algorithms to produce a map of what it believes you'd like to have in focus vs blurred. It then applies various blurring techniques to different parts of the scene and the result is a picture that, at first glance, mimics the out of focus characteristics of a fast prime 35mm or larger film. Look at it a little harder and you can see some tells if you know what it really should look like. One of Apple's press releases gives you enough information to figure out how they're pulling this off if you already have some familiarity with this kind of processing.

The description on Apple's website is pretty vague about how they go about it. I assumed they were using lens physics. But with such small lenses, your explanation makes more sense.

 

[sevo]

This is incorrect. The camera is, in fact, actually faking bokeh.

The degree of out of focus blurring depends on the actual diameter of the aperture

IF we would look at the resulting image at sensor size. Which we don't do. If we consider results at identical print size, OOF blur obeys to the same linear/area rule relation as focal lengths and lens speed. Besides, they might put the lens to some focus distance (like 1mm or way past infinity) where there can be no doubt it is OOF.

The different methods have different flaws, so it will be possible to recognise them once people post samples of test subjects that strain the respective algorithms.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

The use of the past tense "...changed the camera industry forever." is somewhat presumptuous given it has just been announced. Maybe. Get back to me in six months about that please. It's a real turn off, for me. Smacks of click-bait journalism.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

This is incorrect. The camera is, in fact, actually faking bokeh.

One could make the argument that most photos are simulacra (fake?), in that there no longer an original.

"Bokeh" is the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image.

How those out of focus areas are produced is not relevant, software or lens, out of focus is out of focus. Bokeh is either pleasing or unpleasing, not digital or analog.

Which is not to say that the Apple digital Bokeh is pleasing, since the software has not reached GM, no one really can say.

 

[sevo]

However, I see 5 kids under 25 running around with iDevices for every one old dude with one.

That might be particular to the US. Hereabouts, recent iDevices (that is, anything younger than a iPhone 5) are exclusively available through the most conservatively marketed carrier and tied to buying a two year contract. Money and provider brand image aside few kids under 25 buy into these contracts as they include phone and SMS flatrates barely used by the young any more, while the internet contingents in these contracts tend to be very much below par (like 2GB at 50€/month where prepaid will buy you 5GB for 12€).

If any, some among the students I know use a refurbished iPhone 4.

 

[Huss]

Who needs a smartphone for photography?

About a billion people. Literally.

I think you are outnumbered.
😉

 

[rscheffler]

The writer seems to think that Apple is innovative and lack of money stifles innovation. I disagree with both points.

I also disagree that camera companies are doomed. Who would have thought that film would still be in use in 2016?

I'm sure the new phone's camera will be the best that Apple had put out there. But would you expect anything less? While phones are convenient, I also agree they are not enjoyable to use as a camera.

Yes, camera companies are doomed in the context of creating the imaging devices the mass consumer market wants to buy and therefore generating the revenue required to maintain their current sizes (consider some of these companies employ 10s of thousands worldwide). As already mentioned by a couple others, if they will survive in photography, it will be as much smaller, increasingly niche players serving extremely narrow, specific markets. Like Leica. But they will be a fraction of their former selves, in size and power in the market. With lower revenue, they will have fewer resources to dedicate to innovation. Not that it will be impossible, rather, they will probably be focused on continuing to refine what they currently know how to do best (treading water), rather than looking farther forward in other, riskier directions. As a result, their situation/existence will be much more precarious. A couple market mis-steps and things could quickly go south. Canon recently announced they will for the first time ever sell their CMOS sensors to third parties. Until now those were only used in their own products. An example of them realizing they need to branch out in order to sustain their existing manufacturing capabilities.

None of the major camera brands still in existence make film models, at least in respect to comprising anything other than an extremely minuscule percentage of their overall sales. Yes, film is still around, but none of those companies, including niche player Leica, could survive (in current form) on film alone. I wonder, how many shoot film with cameras they bought new in the past year or so (other than single-use cameras)? Likewise, 'advanced' DSLR/mirrorless/ILCs will stick around, too, in some form, but manufacturers will be fighting against their own products' lifespan and existence in the used market.

------

This year I shot a lot of weddings where most in attendance carry and use a smartphone. Some observations from these:

1) Most people are absolutely unaware of quality of light. This is probably the primary hurdle preventing them from improving the aesthetic of their images.

2) Some people are aware of the 'bokeh' look of subject isolation with fast lenses and how it has until now been impossible to achieve in a phone camera... Many wedding clients have stated it's an aspect they like when viewing 'professional photographer' portfolios.

3) There is very little comprehension of the benefits of off-camera lighting.


In recent smartphone imaging developments, software improvements such as HDR have helped improve results in situation #1, as far as it can likely go without better user comprehension about quality of light.

The new Apple phone (and the inevitable models from competitors) will address #2, to a sufficient extent for most.

#3, as hinted by Mike, will probably be the biggest hurdle, at least for someone like me who relies on off-camera supplemental lighting (flash) in many client applications... but it's a niche, though I could see the smartphone platform allowing for some innovative solutions.

I suppose all of this is just another step towards computational photography, where if I've understood it correctly, hardware will become even less relevant. In other words, companies that rely on selling hardware are likely to become increasingly less relevant...