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

361–370 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#361

Post by Narew »

isodev wrote: post #310
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.

Some of the distortion shown in the article is call "Volume Anamorphosis". It's a distortion that strongly deform face and person. This deformation is really visible for short focal lens.

Disclaimer: I work for a photo processing software.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#362

Post by dusted »

I'm generally annoyed with the amount of processing going on in modern phone cameras, they often take pictures that "look fine" on the screen, until you zoom in to native resolution and discovered most of it is some fever-dream of approximations, it's amazing that we (people) are accepting this.. Lots of fine memories degraded by cheating cameras..

It's annoying especially because at a glance, the pictures taken by my S24+ look just fine, and it sometimes makes me not pull out the aging DSLR.. but then when I get the pictures onto my PC and want to actually look at them.. I always regret my mistake.. Even a 10 year old DSLR on automatic no-flash mode kicks its butt so bad it's not even a comparison..

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#363

Post by OldfieldFund »

dusted wrote: post #362

I'm generally annoyed with the amount of processing going on in modern phone cameras, they often take pictures that "look fine" on the screen, until you zoom in to native resolution and discovered most of it is some fever-dream of approximations, it's amazing that we (people) are accepting this.. Lots of fine memories degraded by cheating cameras.. It's annoying especially because at a glance, the pictures taken by m…

I believe the biggest problem here is that the author of the blog was using the ultra-wide-angle lens. I can tell by how the players are "leaning" and how the software is "fixing" the curvature of the photo. 90% sure of it. I always use the "regular" lens, and the pictures are much better.

You can also set styles in the camera settings to fix these problems: incorrect AI white balance and lighting.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#364

Post by mahmoudhossam »

dusted wrote: post #362

I'm generally annoyed with the amount of processing going on in modern phone cameras, they often take pictures that "look fine" on the screen, until you zoom in to native resolution and discovered most of it is some fever-dream of approximations, it's amazing that we (people) are accepting this.. Lots of fine memories degraded by cheating cameras.. It's annoying especially because at a glance, the pictures taken by m…

It's because the consumption side has completely changed. Most people now don't even own a PC so they're not likely to even notice this problem.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#365

Post by arghwhat »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #314
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely off base on the focal length argument. A traditional camera has the choice and can choose the most appropriate length; an Iphone is locked in to a fish-eye clearly put in there to overcome its inherent limitations. So it doesn't really matter "if it's fair" or not, because it's not about a fair comparison, it's a demonstration that a traditional camera is just better. Why should the traditional came…

I'm not sure I get your point. Most appropriate length for what? Some iPhones have multiple focal lengths, just like some "real camers" have fixed lenses with a fixed focal length (Fuxji x100 and the medium-format one whose model I can't remember, Leica something-or-other, Sony R1). Plus, for what is a traditional camera "just better"? It's highly usage dependent. I have both a bludgeon, which can be used as an inter…

> Most appropriate length for what? Some iPhones have multiple focal lengths, ...

Most appropriate length for portrait photography is well established to be somewhere between 50mm and 100mm (35mm equivalent). The lower end is often considered more "natural" for such photo type, while the longer focal lengths are considered more flattering.

An iPhone 16 Pro Max has three focal lengths, 12, 24 and 120 (35mm equivalent). The first two are much too short unless significantly cropped, and the last one is excessive and requires stepping way back and has the worst image sensor and likely worst compromise of a lens - a lot of lens chonk is elements to manage chromatic aberration and distortion, which smartphone lenses have no room for.

> ... just like some "real camers" have fixed lenses with a fixed focal length (Fuxji x100 and the medium-format one whose model I can't remember, Leica something-or-other, Sony R1).

People using fixed lenses do so because they prioritize a particular type of image or style, and decided to get an even better (and lighter) lens for that instead of carrying around a compromise they don't need.

> Plus, for what is a traditional camera "just better"?

When it comes to getting the best picture, a chonky camera always wins - although they have had some catch-up to do on the software side, physics and our current technical limitations do not care about pocketability.

But a less perfect picture is better than no picture because you left the "real camera" at home. The best camera is the one you have on you.

(Also note that this is not binary between a smarpthone and an Olympic DSLR setup. Good compact cameras with collapsing lenses and mirrorless with smaller lenses are a middleground.)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#366

Post by shmeeed »

mrob wrote: post #298

I prefer all the iPhone examples. The wider angle lens gives more of a 3D appearance, and the greater depth of field means I have greater choice in where to look instead of the photographer trying to force me to look where they want me to.

That's an interesting take that reflects how subjective viewing habits are. I definitely know what you mean, and there's a kind of (mostly casual or documentary) photograph where it makes sense to say that.

But in a more classical sense, directing the viewer's look is what composition in photography is all about.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#367

Post by shmeeed »

rjh29 wrote: post #130
sturza wrote: post #3

Computerized phone photography is not for desktop viewing, printing, etc. It appears to look "amazing" on phone displays - probably optimized for that.

And nowadays unless you professionally shooting photos for a billboard, bedroom poster or newspaper advert - that is clearly enough. 99%+ of photo viewing is done on a phone or tablet screen.

I have no idea why you're being downvoted. It's the simple truth.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#368

Post by sharpshadow »

dotancohen wrote: post #331
sharpshadow wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about other colours? Isn't that film famously under saturated for sky, water, vegetation, etc?

It very might be and it shouldn’t be easy to find good training pictures in the sea of amateur shoots online with different development techniques and light conditions, the last batch was also produced in 2005. Some previous generation of that film line might have similar skin tones. I would think that with modern techniques it isn’t necessary to apply the emulation to the whole image but to just the parts desired?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#369

Post by arghwhat »

josephg wrote: post #283
Twisell wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every hardware have it's limitations, my DSLR don't fit in my pocket for instance. But that wouldn't be a fair point when comparing photo quality against a smartphone. Comparing quality with non equivalent focal lengths is as pertinent as to mount a fisheye on the DSLR (because you can!) and then claim that the smartphone have less distortion.

> Comparing quality with non equivalent focal lengths is as pertinent as to mount a fisheye on the DSLR (because you can!) and then claim that the smartphone have less distortion. I was about to disagree with you - but I think you're right. The photographer clearly took a couple steps back when they took the DSLR photo. You can tell by looking at the trees in the background - they appear much bigger in the DSLR photo…

I'd agree if the phone had an appropriate focal length, but it doesn't. You can either go way too wide, or way too narrow (with a worse image sensor at that). Comparing the best the phone can sensibly do while handicapping the camera by intentionally doing the wrong thing for the situation makes no sense.

The only workaround for the phone would be to still step back and take the image with the 24mm equivalent, then crop the image a whole lot to get an appropriate and equivalent view.

> I think a DSLR would struggle with the same perspective distortion if you put an ultrawide lens on it.

Note that "proper" lenses have more room for corrective elements in their lens stacks, so decent quality setups should experience less distortion than the tiny smartphone pancakes.

An ultrawide will never be good though, it's a compromise for making things fit or making a specific aesthetic.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#370

Post by bombcar »

watwut wrote: post #276
amarshall wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway?

But if you snap that pic, but never use it for anything because it looks slightly weird ... then you as well might not have the camera.

I always take a few snaps at events like that - not to capture the picture, but to capture the moment in my “digital memory” - if I’m on the ball, I later get some of the “official photos” and add those; but the phone camera snaps remind me that I was there, which turns out to be surprisingly useful.
Post reply on HN