Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

candid9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#301

Post by ubercow13 »

Ancapistani wrote: post #295
ubercow13 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and those are two things you give up[0] shooting JPEG No you don't? Good in camera JPEGs will utilise push-pull processing, exposing for maximal dynamic range all for you. You don't lose the advantages of the better optics and sensor just because the JPEG is produced in camera.

How would the camera know if you're exposing two stops below your intended EV because you plan to push it in post or if that _is_ your intended EV? Furthermore, JPEG supports ~8 stops of dynamic range while my X-Pro3's raw files support ~14 stops. You lose almost half your total DR when you shoot JPEG (with that camera).

Because some will choose the exposure and decide when to underexpose and push for you, eg fuji DR feature. You choose your intended EV for the image and it chooses whether to underexpose and push based on the dynamic range of the scene.

>You lose almost half your total DR when you shoot JPEG

No because the camera is applying a tone curve that compresses that DR when producing the JPEG. You lose precision, not DR, but if you don't intend to process the image further it doesn't matter much.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#302

Post by globular-toast »

ezst wrote: post #255

To me, the "hotdog skin complexion" aspect is a dead giveaway for when a photo was taken on an iPhone. It's so over the top and unrefined that I wonder how not only Apple let it happen, but seemingly entertain it/make it worse over generations of devices? Certainly such photos won't "age well"? And it's not like it has to be this way because of technological limitations, take Pixel photos, for instance, they get thei…

I would bet that they are user testing the processing algorithms and that people actually prefer the slightly more saturated picture.

It's similar to the loudness war in music. Slightly louder/more saturated looks subjectively better when compared side by side. Apply this slight increase over and over again and you get something that no longer reflects reality.

This is complicated with pictures of people because people want them to look "good", not accurate.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#303

Post by lifestyleguru »

StrLght wrote: post #65

Photos taken on an iPhone are good, unless you: * zoom in * print them * watch them on a bigger screen Sometimes I compare photos I've taken over 10 years ago with Sony NEX-5 with photos I take today with an iPhone. There's no competition, APS-C from 15 years ago is still solid. Anyway, the best camera is the one you have with you, so in that sense iPhone is great.

I have an opposite experience. Most old photos are made with cheap compact auto focus cameras and always somehow blurry and pale, at that time that was the camera "you have in your pocket". Photos with modern smartphone are always superior.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#304

Post by jajko »

muppetman wrote: post #300

I've seen plenty of smart phone photos on walls. Heaps. I get the author knows what he's talking about/looking at, but most of us don't. I couldn't tell you which of those was iPhone vs Expensive Camera if you didn't tell me. Maybe I could guess but I'd have to examine. This is the same as me being incredulous that the author has (made up example) a $20 cheap router his ISP gave him vs my lovingly handcrafted config…

Both work for you since you have no idea about actual photography. The second the article loaded on my small screen and I knew it was iphone vs real camera, without seeing description I knew photo on the left was from iphone.

Apple is 'famous' for at least a decade to (by default and basically nobody turns it off) overdo saturation towards red spectrum so that every single photo looks like its taken in golden hour (last hour before sunset). Every single one. Skin tones are affected correspondingly, looking artificial. You may not see it, its glaringly obvious to anybody who even scratched surface of photography (I never got deeper and still).

I get it, people like that 'instagram' look, but when its coming from all directions it loses all beauty and its just plasticky looking people.

Apple has some properly good hardware (and corresponding sw processing), they didn't have to resort to overdoing it so much (also very aggressively removing any skin blemishes and moles which all goes back to above). At the end, apple photos and people on them look too artificial. If you like it as such that's fine, but it doesn't represent reality, at least far less than other phones and proper camera photography.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#305

Post by ubercore »

dkga wrote: post #287
neya wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

I get the point… but I would counterargue, perhaps facetiously, that if one needs a professionally color calibrated screen to notice the difference, then it is really not something that would matter for mere mortals.

I don't think the point was to say you need the calibrated monitor to notice, rather that it's _even more stark_, and clearly points to the issues raised in the article.

And to be fair, the thrust of the article was "Why don't you see printed and frame iPhone photos", and these things that might be a bit subtle on an un-calibrated screen are going to be a big deal if you professionally print it.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#306

Post by nikhizzle »

sharpshadow wrote: post #299
neya wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

If anyone working on skin color representation try to emulate Agfa Precisa it has with the best skin colors in natural light.

Thanks for this, this is very useful for a related ai project I’m working on.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#307

Post by dnisbet »

FredPret wrote: post #91
eddd-ddde wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what camera model you have. I've been meaning to get into photography and I'm looking for a decent starter camera.

I bought a Canon RP which came with a 24-105mm zoom. I think it was CAD 1000 a couple of years ago, but it looks like that has inflated to around double now. I went with the recommendation of Ken Rockwell who is both experienced and opinionated, and said to buy that one at the time. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm He was right! - small, especially if you put a 50mm prime lens on it (which cos…

I have an RP and it's great, but I still reach for my M50 slightly more often, being a fair bit smaller with the 22mm ef-m on it and maybe more familiarity with it by me.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#308

Post by jajko »

teiferer wrote: post #232

My expectation is that in a few years from now, the raw photo taken by the mobile camera will merely serve as an input to some AI image generator which will then produce a top-quality pro photographer grade image at whatever resolution you like with whatever changes you command ("without all those 1000s of tourisms in front of the Louvre except my wife"). The photo will be fake but will capture the scene that you hav…

Samsung recently pushed Oneui (their skin over android) I think version 8 to my 3.5 years phone (s22 ultra). Menus and light design changes are barely noticeable, but - they also revamped photo app.

Now every single picture taken is much sharper and better looking, the darker it gets the bigger the difference. Also 10x physical zoom produces much better photos in all conditions. It feels like I just got a new phone with amazing new cameras, I'd say dxomark score should be revisited.

Now maybe they tackled some hardware reserves via better algorithms, its all possible. Or, slightly more probably, some tiny little AI is ironing out pictures on a level not detectable by mere viewing by eye. I don't complain, camera is #1 priority for me on phone as an amateur photo enthusiast, and basically I don't need to upgrade phone for quite a few years. The results are really really good and I haven't seen anything noticeable in few hundred snaps, often done after sunset.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#309

Post by josephg »

dkga wrote: post #287
neya wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

I get the point… but I would counterargue, perhaps facetiously, that if one needs a professionally color calibrated screen to notice the difference, then it is really not something that would matter for mere mortals.

Do those photos look similar to you? Those color differences are huge to me. And some of the stylistic choices the image processing has made make them look like photos of different people.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#310

Post by isodev »

dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

I think the physical parameters of the lenses are negligible compared to the distortions caused by "computational computing" and the colour changes iPhones tend to add to make photos more instagramable by default.
Post reply on HN