131–140 of 223 posts
Is there a way to disable this extra processing?
Shoot in RAW mode. Either with the various third party camera apps, or Apple’s built in “Pro RAW” mode in the iOS camera app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, sensors have the luxury of time that our eyes don’t have. See astrophotography for an example of “could barely see it but the sensor worked it out.”
Sensors may have the time, but our hands do not; they are unsteady in subtle ways. When making photos in low light, I always try to lean my phone against something (a bench, a lamppost, a tree, a building) to let the longer exposure be sharper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see any invented "new details" in the article's iPhone photos. Phones have small sensors and crap lenses, so they ramp up noise reduction and sharpness to make up for it. Turn up the ISO and max out the NR on the Fujifilm and the results would be nearly as bad.
I see invented texture and layering here: https://yager.io/comp/mi.jpeg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Real" cameras do a lot of postprocessing too, but it's generally oriented at producing faithful results. They might remove unambiguous and correctable issues such as vignetting or lens distortion, but they don't cross the line of inventing new details to make the photo look good. Computational photography techniques on smartphones, on the other hand, were always designed around squishy "user perception" goals to mak…
I didn't see any invented "new details" in the article's iPhone photos. Phones have small sensors and crap lenses, so they ramp up noise reduction and sharpness to make up for it. Turn up the ISO and max out the NR on the Fujifilm and the results would be nearly as bad.
I could import the X-T5 photo into lightroom or whatever and crank NR all the way up, and I don't think it would look anything like the iPhone image. Also, the less-processed image on the iPhone (which you see for a split second) looked fine, so there wasn't enough noise to justify this level of "correction".
My guess is the iPhone got confused by the texture of the anodized aluminum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trick is to not take 100s of shots per day, and failing that, filtered out 70-95% of what you shoot, before editing.
I find the best photo before editing is often different than the best photo after editing. Granted that’s probably a skill issue on my part.
The smartphone cameras have improved a lot in the recent years, but they cannot compete or match a full frame sensor provided the limitations. The size of the sensor and the optics play a major role in the final image quality and one can only do so much with the computational photography or whatever method. Especially the iPhone photography and videography is always overrated by the fanbois and some of the "professio…
> Raw pics from a full frame sensors hold the fort and will continue to hold for a longtime to come unless the phones match DSLR in terms of sensor size and optics size. "Full frame" cameras do not have the best image quality, and don't even have the best image quality for their price. (eg used medium format film cameras are cheaper.) They're just the best cameras people have heard of. If you're doing product photogr…
You'd be hard pressed to get better quality from a scanned medium format negative than from a modern 60MP full frame sensor. You might just get there if you use a drum scanner, but any faster and more practical scanning process won't get you there.
The smartphone cameras have improved a lot in the recent years, but they cannot compete or match a full frame sensor provided the limitations. The size of the sensor and the optics play a major role in the final image quality and one can only do so much with the computational photography or whatever method. Especially the iPhone photography and videography is always overrated by the fanbois and some of the "professio…
My $0.02 as some one with an expensive full-frame DSLR and and the latest iPhone Pro: There are entire categories of image quality that only Apple seems to bother even trying to improve — and then they leapt past everyone. A few years ago if you wanted to make a HDR, 4K, 60 fps Dolby Vision wide-gamut video… That would have cost you. Tens of thousands on cameras, displays, and software. It would have been a serious u…
However, as far as the iPhone producing HDR HEIF photos - as I recall from some brief reading, it seems like possibly an intentional choice from Apple to do this in an opaque, nonstandard way, so other image pipelines can't easily take advantage of it. I don't really want to give them credit for that.
> For example, by stitching together multiple dark images to try to make a brighter one. (Dedicated cameras tend to have better-quality but conceptually similar options like long exposures with physical IS.) However, we are starting to introduce the core sin of modern computational photography: imposing a prior on the image contents. In particular, when we do something like stitch multiple images together, we are mak…
A very long article but I’m slightly confused. Is he using proraw? Can you not get unprocessed images from proraw? I’m not sure what the pipeline looks but I thought this type of situation was where pro raw was supposed to be used?
Afaik proraw has the same computational reconstruction, but none of the baked-in contrast, lighting, or color tweaks. This gives you a clean low-noise image with editing flexibility but it does have the flaws of deconvolution and stacking and AI denoising. Actual raw from a cell phone is insanely noisy and hideously soft from diffraction in the best of cases.