The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry • Hacker News Board

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#31

Post by xyzzy_plugh » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 3:57 AM UTC

asciident wrote: post #27

starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

Camera companies are user hostile and the people buy them are used to it. Terribly menus and interfaces, and they don't even care. Even their key features, like video recording are reduced to a 29 minute limit due to an old expired regulation (hello Sony A7iii). USB-C ports for data transfer that can't be used for charging. The list goes on.

> Even their key features, like video recording are reduced to a 29 minute limit due to an old expired regulation

That's not entirely true. The usual excuse is that transcoding generates significant heat and without sufficient cooling the cameras will be damaged. To some extent this is true.

It tends to depend on the bitrate; 4k will get hotter faster than 1080, and 480 will go for long enough to not be a problem generally.

If you stream to an external transcoder/recorder, you can typically record indefinitely with most modern bodies.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#32

Post by jrockway » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:00 AM UTC

tjr225 wrote: post #24

And yet the photos I take on my 7 year old mirror-less camera look eons better than anything I take on my iPhone?

I feel the same way. I keep seeing these amazing iPhone pictures in giant subway ads and on blogs like this... but never get similar results myself.

To some extent, I fear that "the eye" of the public has simply forgotten what sort of photographs are possible, and are happy with snapshots taken in perfect conditions, which do look OK on phone cameras.

Remember the old architectural style with tilt-shift lenses, where tall things would imposingly loom over you with perfectly parallel lines? You can remove the "distortion" from tiling your camera up in software, but it tends to look pretty terrible compared to a camera on a tripod that is perfectly level and is just taking the image from the bottom of the image circle.

Remember how it's nighttime half the time, but you never see good pictures taken at night? Stars exist, waves bend into glass, and the moon can glow over your mountains and valleys. But not if you're holding your camera in your hand and have a fingerprint on the lens. So we don't see those pictures anymore.

Even product photos in ads look pretty bad a lot of the time. You can get a white table and take a snapshot with your cell phone, but it looks like you did. Maybe it doesn't matter, though.

Ultimately, the problem the camera industry has is that very few people need to take perfect pictures in tough conditions. Fine art, wildlife, sports... phone cameras just don't yield as good of results as a larger camera. But not many people are taking that kind of picture. They just want to say "hey friends, I went to this place, look at it" or "look at my friend here". And a phone camera is great for that. It's the perfect balance; it takes up 0 space (since you were carrying a phone anyway), and the image quality is good enough. Smaller dedicated cameras (like an RX100) just don't provide much of a leap in quality.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#33

Post by lrajlich » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

This author made a small amount of fame a few years back (2012) claiming the dx format is dead. He was obviously wrong about that. He’s wrong about this, too.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#34

Post by jrockway » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

tjr225 wrote: post #24

And yet the photos I take on my 7 year old mirror-less camera look eons better than anything I take on my iPhone?

The best camera is the one you have with you, and everyone usually has their smartphone with them.

That is an expression, but there have been a lot of good photographs I've seen where I only have my phone. I take it and think "this does not do the scene justice, it looks like crap."

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#35

Post by Terretta » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

The photos in the article illustrate two things at once:

- How amazing the iPhone XS Max cameras already are

- How far there is to go before they feel as “photographic” as something shot with a big lens big sensor DSLR.

The curve moved a lot with the iPhone 11 and the latest Android devices, but if you shoot thousands of iPhone photos and then pick back up your full frame Nikon D4 or Sony A9 with some big glass (say, an 85mm 1.2 or a 24mm 1.2), you’ll realize something was missing.

This generation of smart phone pictures are a little like listening to music from speakers by Bose. All the fancy duct work sounds like a pretty good simulation of real drivers, but there’s just less there there.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#36

Post by i_am_proteus » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #10

bigdubs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they're getting really close simulating shallow depth of field with depth sensors and computational photography, but in the same way there is no replacement resolution-wise for 8x10 and other large formats, its better just to use the real thing

If people demand it they may simulate medium format. But yeah seeing large prints from LF or MF cameras the whole image looks very different, more immersive of the scene.

The available resolution of LF, even from "only" 4x5, beats full-frame digital handily. It's also simultaneously cheaper (dollars) and more expensive (time).

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#37

Post by Swizec » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:09 AM UTC

CarVac wrote: post #29

starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

I think the problem is that there are two nearly polar opposite desires for UI and processing, that require totally different approaches to a camera. One is the smartphone user who desires good quality for whatever the situation, who just wants a photo uploaded to Instagram or whatever, NOW. They don't want to learn how to adjust exposure compensation to expose-to-the-right for optimal raw image quality. This user wa…

As a semi-enthusiast I really really like the photos my Canon takes. It would be beyond amazing if I could get them on my phone immediately without having to faff around with a weird wifi tether or waiting until I'm at a computer to mess about with SD Card transfers.

edit: Yes even when I just post to instagram you can immediately tell the difference between a DSLR photo and a phone photo. Even with all the computational power of an iPhone X, the DSLR's optics and bigger sensor win hands down despite being a 2015 model. (Rebel T6i)

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#38

Post by macintux » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #32

tjr225 wrote: post #24

And yet the photos I take on my 7 year old mirror-less camera look eons better than anything I take on my iPhone?

I feel the same way. I keep seeing these amazing iPhone pictures in giant subway ads and on blogs like this... but never get similar results myself. To some extent, I fear that "the eye" of the public has simply forgotten what sort of photographs are possible, and are happy with snapshots taken in perfect conditions, which do look OK on phone cameras. Remember the old architectural style with tilt-shift lenses, where…

> ...So we don't see those pictures anymore.

I think you’re mistaken.

The people who would take stunning photographs with any equipment available to them, still do so.

It’s just that there are nearly infinitely more photographs floating around because the tools have been democratized, and thus it’s harder to find the spectacular ones.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#39

Post by pcunite » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #28

starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

Ran into this problem pretty recently actually. We've got a machine that was set up 10 years ago to use a canon DSLR camera to take scaled images we can use to program with. After ten years the body and lens are dying. We replaced the lens about a month ago after it refused to take pictures due to focussing issues. We wasted half a day recalibrating the grid used to scale the image. It worked well until last week whe…

Interesting. Any budget to build something new? Give me shout.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#40

Post by i_am_proteus » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

CarVac wrote: post #29

starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

I think the problem is that there are two nearly polar opposite desires for UI and processing, that require totally different approaches to a camera. One is the smartphone user who desires good quality for whatever the situation, who just wants a photo uploaded to Instagram or whatever, NOW. They don't want to learn how to adjust exposure compensation to expose-to-the-right for optimal raw image quality. This user wa…

The camera makers would be wise to just implement an API over Bluetooth or adhoc WiFi to pair with phones/tablets/laptops and offload RAWs and JPEGs.

Lightroom mobile, etc., could then have the images swiftly processed and uploaded, and could probably be implemented with minimal changes to the newest models of camera.