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

iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

austinmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 153 posts

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#41

Post by spike021 »

zobzu wrote: post #12
jseliger wrote: post #2

In some ways, this feels like the reviews of the last couple of generations of iPhone: it can work really well in very good light and at typical web resolutions. The photo of the woman in the parka is very impressive as a technical demonstration but is also pretty blurry/smeared, to my eye. As an only camera, it's probably the best or near the best of the phones.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

It was a 3-second hand-held long exposure in apparently little to no light. I'd say the fact that her features are somewhat defined is pretty decent.

It seems the point of it in the first place was to see how well the night mode works in near pitch-darkness for portraits.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#42

Post by ssijak »

sudosysgen wrote: post #27
grecy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess close to 0% of people, IFF we're looking at the photos side by side on a phone screen, or maybe a crappy laptop screen. Put them both on a hi-res display, or HD TV or (even better) print them out in large format. Then there's no comparison. So it really comes down to how is the photo going to be used. And for 99% of photos taken these days, viewing it on a small screen is the purpose, so the phone camer…

For this picture specifically, which is the one OP was talking about: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... Yes, anyone could tell the difference between this taken on a dedicated camera and this taken on iPhone. Really, anyone. No matter the resolution. It really does just look like a blurry mess. A cheap 150$ DSLR with a bottom-bargain Chinese or very old lens (at say, F1.4 or lower) would…

I think that this was the image referenced with the "woman in a park" in the initial post https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a...

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#43

Post by mafuyu »

BigBubbleButt wrote: post #19

I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor? Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is…

The biggest issue for low light is sensor size. Smaller sensors means more noise, and that noise is smoothed out with computational photography. That's why most manufacturers are going for more discrete sensors with different lenses, instead. Samsung does have a "periscope" design for the super tele in their latest phone that mounts the sensor vertically. Lenses are more important than sensor for sharpness, and there's obviously not a ton of room in these phones to put big lenses. Camera bumps are already growing quite large.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#44

Post by vladvasiliu »

BigBubbleButt wrote: post #19

I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor? Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is…

What do you mean by "slightly superior sensor"? Do you assume that there exist (or someone could produce with today's technology) sensors that are "objectively" better that the current phone sensors?

In my opinion the limiting factor in phone cameras is the size. Of course, for a given size a cheap, crappy sensor will give crappy results. But I wouldn't be surprised that sensors used in flagship phones are actually pretty close to the state of the art.

The issue with the size is that if you increase it for the sensor, you're going to have to increase it for the optics. In an era where manufacturers are convinced we want paper-thin devices, they're going to have to choose the one over the other.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#45

Post by sudosysgen »

KineticLensman wrote: post #25
zobzu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

> I think the photo of the woman is terrible This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this. Th…

The blur is actually insane amounts of noise reduction, it's not an attempt at bokeh, I think! You can tell because all other shadows are just as blurred out.

I think that it doesn't look flat just because of the flash, but really as a mix of incredibly severe noise reduction as well as a ton of dynamic compression necessary to keep the background in roughly the same exposure.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#46

Post by vmception »

Just bought mine :)

I hope the Lidar can help portrait mode and other AI depth of field techniques work at further distances to a subject

If this becomes true I chuck all of my DSLR-form factor cameras immediately, its over.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#47

Post by inasio »

zobzu wrote: post #12
jseliger wrote: post #2

In some ways, this feels like the reviews of the last couple of generations of iPhone: it can work really well in very good light and at typical web resolutions. The photo of the woman in the parka is very impressive as a technical demonstration but is also pretty blurry/smeared, to my eye. As an only camera, it's probably the best or near the best of the phones.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

This is on a handheld three second exposure in the dark. Not sure you would do much better with an SLR. I have on Olympus OMD EM5 with great OIS and that shot would be pretty challenging

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#48

Post by sudosysgen »

ssijak wrote: post #42
sudosysgen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this picture specifically, which is the one OP was talking about: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... Yes, anyone could tell the difference between this taken on a dedicated camera and this taken on iPhone. Really, anyone. No matter the resolution. It really does just look like a blurry mess. A cheap 150$ DSLR with a bottom-bargain Chinese or very old lens (at say, F1.4 or lower) would…

I think that this was the image referenced with the "woman in a park" in the initial post https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a...

Oh, I read "woman in a parka" instead, and in combination with "blurry, smeared" I concluded that it was the image at night.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#49

Post by bradenb »

pgib wrote: post #15

I got the iPhone 12 Pro after using my iPhone X for the last three years. I was mostly excited about a big camera upgrade, and there are definitely some big improvements from what I have been using. But I'm not 100% sure if I'm going to keep it. I'm not sure I'm blown away enough for just shy of CDN $2,000. Even though it's almost the same size, it feels considerably bigger than my X, and I'm not a fan of the matte b…

I'm still rocking an X. I thought whatever the 12 was would end up being my replacement. But I am just not impressed enough and your summary makes me feel good about not jumping on it. The X is still going strong. I get > 1 day battery life (which is all I need) and although I do notice the occasional stutter, it is still very very good.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#50

Post by inasio »

KineticLensman wrote: post #25
zobzu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

> I think the photo of the woman is terrible This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this. Th…

I don't think there was flash involved in the shot, it says he held another phone on his left hand and used the light from the screen (not flash) as an indirect light source. The washed out look I think is from software averaging to correct motion blur from the 3 second exposure.
Post reply on HN