SuperSite Blog

"I use the iPhone regularly, and while the 3.0 software,"

Paul I remember in one of the Windows Weekly podcasts a few months ago you told Leo you were going to give up your iPhone and one of the reasons was that you used it very little. Did I hear incorrectly?

Great post.

It clearly requires religious fervor to buy into this whole idea.

They think their photos look better and note that time will tell if it's true.

You don't think your photos look better and note that the new firmware "certainly" hasn't resulted in better photos.

These guys definitely define Apple fanatics

while I'm not saying I actually believe this claim, I don't actually have any reason to dis-believe it either.

They might have updated an algorithm involved in the storing of photos, for example. This could produce small differences.

Curiously, a similar thing happened in OSX going from Tiger to Leopard. Audio sample rate conversion in many OSX apps was improved markedly, presumably because an underlying algorithm included with the OS itself, was updated.

This happened even if the exact same versions of the applications themselves were used.

soooo. all I'm saying is, it "is" feasible.

Well, Gizmodo is an Apple Fanboy website anyway.  So you have got to consider the source(s).  :)

Paul while you are correct in pointing out that you really do need better physical equipment underneath in order to make any marked improvement in picture quality, a lot can be said these days for the photo processing software.  It is quite possible that improvement in the software in fact improve the pictures.  Not to expect a night and day difference, but improvements are certainly possible.

Yeah, you guys are so right, there is NO WAY software can affect digital photographs.

Except for, you know, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, iPhoto, Windows Live Gallery, Picassa, or even MS Paint.

It's just ridiculous to unequivocally state that the software can have NO EFFECT whatsoever.

kent909, no you are correct; I'm getting a Windows Mobile phone and will use it as my primary phone. But I"m not dropping the iPhone entirely, and as I haven't found an acceptable WM phone yet, I'm still using the iPhone.

I first wrote about this here:

www.winsupersite.com/.../iphone_goodbye.asp

Just so we're clear. My post doesn't "prove" that the new iPhone firmware won't improve things. I guess what I'm trying to point out is just that people see what they want to see. I have as many blurry, delete-immediately shots now with the iPhone as ever. And while it's possible that software could improve things somewhat, this thing had a horrible camera when the first device debuted in 2007. That's going to be true until they replace it.

I don't have an iPhone but it is possible that they improved things like depth detection for an improved focus. Or an improved white balance algorithm to reproduce colors better.

I'm just saying...

Paul, no one can really argue that the iPhone camera hardware isn't, um [checking Apple fanboy thesaurus], 'lacking'. But we all know there is a chance software can fix some of its issues.

I've seen some truly amazing shot taken with an iPhone, and I just could not believe it, but mostly they are crap.

Are they gonna pull my fanboy card now?

yes, this is the snark I wanted for Microsoft's earnings report that Paul totally couldn't ignore fast enough.  Yep, WinSuperShill.

I say both shots have their pros and cons.

The shot on the right is bright (pro) but its color is isn't (con), and the one on the left is kind of dark (con) but the color is better (pro), especially the floor.

I'm going with the one on the right.

FWIW, I think the one on the left looks better.

not religious fervor...fanatical religious fervor. Tsk! Apple fanbois.

One simply cannot squeeze out of a 3.2mpx camera sensor a 3.5mpx picture, not by firmware or software.

"I guess what I'm trying to point out is just that people see what they want to see. "

There is a degree of irony here - this statement coming from a site which focuses on changes to and features in Windows. Arguably the reviews of user experiences (e.g. under Win7) could be driven by hype and a placebo effect, in the exact same way (due to the intangibility of minor UI fixes, when MS promises UI improvements, you could merely be "seeing what you want to see" when it comes to reviewing)

So Paul it sounds like you are in a tough spot. You don't like the iPhone and want to go to WM but that does not exist yet. This is not all because the iPhone makes for a lousy camera. I guess I would have to say that my cell phone works just fine as a phone and my camera works just fine as a camera.

In the above example, it looks like it's picking up glare, so the white balance is being affected.

Aside from the foggy haze caused by the glare (you can see it coming from the lights in the upper right), I'd say the left pic actually looks a bit better since it has better colour saturation.  The right one looks too green, as do most of the 30+ day old pics on your Twitter page.  If you compare the bottom half of each pic in your example above, the left one looks better.

The glare could be blamed on something as simple as greasy finger smudges on the lens cover caused by those chili cheese dogs and spilt beer.  

In any case, your white balance is being thrown off.  Does the iPhone have manual white balance?  (I honestly don't know - not that I care much)

"and as I haven't found an acceptable WM phone yet, I'm still using the iPhone."

I have searched the earth and moon, one does not exist.  I curese my work provided Treo 800W Daily, when taking out the battery to un-freeze it.

Seriously I would say 90%? of all cell phone cameras are total garbage.

Although the camera is probably one of the weakest iPhone features, I find it pretty darn good. But most of us didn't buy it for the camera. The 3.0 software is still beta, but JD Powers still shows that iPhone is at the top of customer satisfaction with the current 2.21 firmware, and they send out random mailings. Our 73 yr old chairman just bought one, replacing his constantly failing Blackberry [Storm was replaced 3 times]. But you must know that we use Exchange, making our iPhones have more utility than the average user for work. But I bet the average user uses more of the iPod feature than us. I like it, especially more than my Treo.

Now you can store and view any Office document and more with several apps, and Documents To Go for iPhone is coming. I won't be switching and may buy one for the wife, when she's ready. I wish that they made a mini.

When you're dealing with near-microscopic optics and a $2 sensor, you can't expect much.

@Paul:

Do you have the originals in a larger size?

It would seem that the left pic, the banner lights look to be filling the auditorium with more red light (noticeable on the court), which would be easier to throw off the white balance, as well as provide an image that's more difficult to compress (red is harder to compress).  This is causing the audience to look like random pixels.  The pic on the right has more green tones, which is allowed to have more bits, hence the audience is sharper.

Part of that may be because of the lighting at the time, some may be because of the software.  It's hard to tell unless it was the exact same content.

There's been 4 betas not 3. The one of the left is much better quality than the one taken with the old. Go Orlando!

Personally ditching the iPhone before a newer model comes out is dumb but to each his own.

Please take a moment to look through Chase Jarvis's iPhone photographs:

www.chasejarvis.com/index.php

Paul, if you "have as many blurry, delete-immediately shots now with the iPhone as ever," it probably means you're not a good photographer. And if you're seeing a difference between two photographs of different subjects taken at different times in different lighting conditions and blaming it on the iPhone firmware, then you are absolutely seeing what you want to see.

"Part of that may be because of the lighting at the time, some may be because of the software.  It's hard to tell unless it was the exact same content."

Exactly.

A real test would be to have to iPhones, one with the latest beta firmware and one with the current shipping firmware.

Next take a picture of some static object, a vase full of colorful flowers or something in a very well lit room or out side on a bright day, to make up for the phones horrible camera.  Take the pictures at the same level and distance.  Then compare them.  This will give you a much better chance of seeing any possible change.

Comparing 2 photos from a crap camera with different beta versions on different days with lots of different stuff, in poor lighting is a joke.  Then again anything you can do to dig an Apple product is your calling.  Its a perfect example of a straw-man argument.

Still, it's hard to imagine much difference in firmware, from the same hardware. Again, a camera phone is a nice feature, but I gotta agree with Slim, most cameras in phone are junky. I didn't buy the phone because a superior camera. But did I buy it or lease it [2 yr contract]? ;)

Oh, come on.

The story refers to "anecdotal evidence", and says, "Time will tell if these results are duplicated elsewhere".

And you use this as evidence of religious fervor? That's a stretch, Paul, even for you.

You're right about one point, though. The iPhone camera is completely sub-par, especially given the quality of the rest of the thing.

@Paul,

Since you're apparently looking at comments on this blog, let me make a procedural suggestion. If you'd like a better tone, more on topic responses, fewer trolls, less rancor, then cut this shiit out:

"Recent reports of a magic IE 8 performance boost make me smile because this kind of thing is simply human. We all see what we want to see, what we expect to see. It's just part of our DNA. It explains UFO and Bigfoot sightings. And, apparently, it explains Apple fanatics. Because these guys believe."

Apple FANATICS. Always Apple FANATICS. The reports of the "magic IE8 performance boost" are not WINDOWS fanatics, just, I suppose, a little misguided indulgence in wishful thinking, eh?

Call both, or neither of these groups fanatics. My suggestion would be neither, because it makes you look, oh, a little more like a grown up?

FWIW, I like the picture on the right.

"2 photos from a crap camera with different beta versions on different days with lots of different stuff, in poor lighting is a joke.  Then again anything you can do to dig an Apple product is your calling.  Its a perfect example of a straw-man argument."

So I don't get it.  Are you defending Apple in that statement or what?

@drwam there is no question the camera is shat, like most phone cameras.  But since its digital, there is a possibility that it could be made better, which implies that this current firmware is not using the hardware correctly or to its fullest ability.

Certainly you could easily jack it up worse with just a few bits of code, so its easily possible to go the other way.

"So I don't get it.  Are you defending Apple in that statement or what?"

Not at all.  The firmware could still not help out.  I am saying that Paul is trying to say "NO it does not help" by providing examples that are almost worst case examples.  I think the motive for the poor example is obsession for taking down all things Apple.  Or if you read "Roughly Drafted" his attempt to take down Apple for the death of the Amiga:)

"Or if you read "Roughly Drafted" his attempt to take down Apple for the death of the Amiga"

Amiga failed because of Commodore.  Now Commodore makes pretty sweet-looking gaming systems (if a bit overpriced).  Go figure.

I think mt old Treo 650 has a 0.3MP camera. Still, the iPhone pics aren't bad for close range. But You all and Paul is correct, the next gen iPhone should have a better camera, to stay competitive. I was told that the Bold just passed it up in sales this quarter.

I've taken pictures of different Celtics games over time, from the same location in the stadium."

Sure sounds like"religious fervor" to me.  :)

@chuckb84 - "Apple FANATICS. Always Apple FANATICS."

Wrong...sometimes it iCabal!

--tayme

The magic of wishful thinking is something Windows users live with everyday of their lives. That the inferior products that they now are muddled in using, day after day, will one day be worth the trouble and time.

The Microsoft tax is such a massive burden.

Touché tayme!

@Doc - Isn't that word German or something?

--tayme

No you doofus, it's obviously Spanish!

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking … This time in the Apple camp … | Magic of Making Up

@slim: "A real test would be to have to iPhones, one with the latest beta firmware and one with the current shipping firmware."

Actually, for a test to be done properly, it should be using the *same* phone with the 2 different firmwares, and have the phone mounted with consistent lighting.

Of course, you can always get the result you want from a test if you set the scope correctly (e.g. the new firmware might deal with a certain light level better than the old, so use that light level and you have a better picture).  Companies do this all the time.  You're seeing a lot of it between VMWare and Microsoft at the moment.

Fully back on topic though, if they can make a demonstrable difference between 2 different firmwares while using the same hardware, then it tells me that they did a pretty crappy job the first time around.  I'd take a stab that the camera functionality wasn't one of the high priority items.  Obviously making it further up the list though, maybe because there is better camera hardware coming as well ...

@trufoo0 ummmm I said the same thing.  2 iphones, one with the firmware that comes with one you buy today from the store, 2.12 or whatever my wife's is.  One with the latest beta of 3.0

Take a photo of the same exact thing, with the same lighting distance etc.  Take the photo in an environment that favors that cheap camera with little to no flash (well lit area).

Doing those steps removes almost all variables and focuses on the quality difference of the photo when shot in the best environment for that hardware.  Then if there is a difference, it will stand out.

Paul,

This story should have waited until you had the iPhone 3.0 Software update, two iPhones, and several different photographic situations. As someone who dabbles in photography, no two photo situations are ever truely alike. You can be in the same spot taking photographs and get quite a number of different photographs because of the number of variables at any given time. While I disagree with with both chuckb84 and tayme on calling out Apple fanaticism, you really do need strong fact based arguments with evidence to really call it without looking like setting up a straw argument. However, the disagreement is another argument for another time.

Photography isn't rocket science but its a bit trickier than the average person gives it credit. It really takes a lot of good practice and experience to really get consistent results.

Now, I honestly don't expect the iPhone camera to work miracles, considering that most mobile phone devices phones are pretty crappy in general. However, considering what the iPhone excells in, something had to be sacrifised to keep the cost within the realm of marketability. Eventually, the 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation iPhone will probably have a really good camera.

Part of this lies with just a lack of good technology education in our school systems. Something I hope gets addressed in the near term.

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking … This time in the Apple camp … | myiphones.co.cc

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking … This time in the Apple camp … | myiphones.co.cc

It's hard to say which one of Paul's originals is sharper or less grainy as they've been resized so small. The newer pic seems to be less neutral in color but that might be because there's lights on at the stadium which weren't on in the older one. They've also produced some flares on the pic and that might cause the slightly redder tone of the shadows. The reason for flaring might also be fingerprints or scratches on the lens. The exposure seems to be a lot better in the new picture as the players as well as the screens above seem a lot less burnt out, but this might be because the new pic evidently has more lighting.

All in all, if I had to retouch a magazine cover out of these two pics (heh), the newer one would be my choice because the exposure is so much better. But this is hardly a good test of the camera quality.

A couple points...

- The megapixel count only has so much to do with image quality, even though that's what people who know nothing about photography stare at. Numbers are measurable, but the perception of quality is not. A grainy, blurry, red-tinted, unsaturated 10mp photo will produce worse prints than a sharp, smooth 2mp photo with vivid colors.

- Software affects image quality in countless ways, as the raw data from the censor is just that: raw data. The reason iPhone's camera quality gets praised so often by regular users is the iPhone's bright, vivid screen and neutral colors of the photos, even compared to my other cameras (new and old, amateur & pro). Anyway, any professional will tell you that hardware is just one part of it.

I know the effect though: one software developer pointed out he receives a bunch of "feels a lot snappier!" emails after every point update, even if it was just typos in the french localization the update fixed.

No comments on whether there's any difference between the iPhone 2.1 and 3.0 OS's in this regard but saying the only way to improve a camera's output is to replace the hardware is just wrong, sorry. It's almost like saying the only way for a developer to improve the speed of software is to replace the hardware.

@doc:

It's in many languages.

In French, it means "to be affected by", as in "robertsjoe has been touched by juvenile inanity".

"A grainy, blurry, red-tinted, unsaturated 10mp photo will produce worse prints than a sharp, smooth 2mp photo with vivid colors."

It all depends on what size of print stock you use though.  On a typical 4x6" print, the extra detail in a 10mp image won't be noticeable.  Likewise, if you print a 2mp image on an 8x10, you'll really notice the resampling.

Generally speaking, a newer 10mp camera will likely have better optics than an old 2mp one though.

Also, some photographers don't like heavily-saturated images.  Sometimes you want a less-saturated feel to your photographs.  Working within the limitations of the hardware can be it's own artform.  Look at musicians that still use analog synths.  It's more popular now than ever, and artists like Jean Michel Jarre pioneered it like 30 years ago.