Apple patent aims to improve iPhone camera without bumping megapixel count

[captaincranky]

....[ ]....Although my Lumia 1520 does support RAW/DNG, I haven't had the chance to try it out yet. But considering the superior imaging quality (compared to competition), I'd not be surprised if it does alright in that area as well.

I use 3 of Adobe's products, PSE-5 & 7, PSCS-4, & Lightroom. I always buy a camera body, only if I can find it on the list of "Camera_RAW", plugins for my software versions. Adobe uses the RAW plugin to blackmail its users into upgrading to a later version of the software itself. They go so far with a plugin update, but no further.

In any case, since I don't have a phone that takes pictures, phone support is pretty much moot to me. I know they support a sh!t load of point & shoot model digicams, and pretty low end models at that.

However DNG is a patent waste of time. It was/is an attempt on Adobe's part, to trick, (literally), its customers into using a proprietary format. The DNG plugin, never supports more cameras than its RAW file counterpart.

Nikon for example, publishes software in support of its own RAW format, but if you want editing capability, not simply reading ability, you pay through the nose. And it is of course, brand specific.

The trick between a phone, and a DSLR, is rather obviously the optics. PSCS, & Lightroom, both have lens model, focal length, and brand specific correction factors, for such things as vignetting, light fall off in wide angle lenses, along with calibrated corrections for pincushion or barrel distortion, color fringing, etc. My point being, it isn't simply the file format in use, it's the post processing that RAW allows, which actually determines the format's end result, or "the photograph's fate". if you will..

 

[Emexrulsier]

I JUST had a room full of iPhone users glaring over my S4 (Not even the S5, mind you) looking at a photo I took whilst inside my car (With the window up, mind you) and talking about how the photo looks so "real". They can't seem to figure out why the phones they paid $200+ for look horrible in comparison to the phone that I paid $20 for (Verizon - Radio Shack).

One guy yells "Yea but my phones twice as good"...that is all.

Check out some camera comparisons online like this one: http://goo.gl/DsYeGJ. IMO the iPhone looks the best. The S5 makes the photos look too bright and the iPhone makes them look just right (not too saturated). Yes, the S5 has almost, if not, twice as many megapixels. Go figure.

To me this sounds like an iphone user's comment . In an ideal world if you want the best photos of various objects in different lighting conditions you need a plethora of devices. At the moment no one camera on a phone outshines the rest. I have access to an iphone 4s, 5s, Galaxy S5 and S2 D) and tbh I don't think any of them are very good in low light unless you play around with shutter speeds and ISO and even then it can be pretty poor. I have to say in perfect light conditions the galaxy s5 outshines all the current phones and the HDR though not perfect does give pleasing results. In less natural light though I find the 5s just beats others hands down but you won't notice this looking at you taken image on the phone screens. The galaxy s5 screen is much better than the iphone and can give misleading results so to be truely accurate take a pic on both phones then view them on a pc (ideally a pc with ips) then you can really compare. In the end you will notice there really isn't much in it both have pros and cons. I can say though that anything iphone older than a 5 just sucks at every photo you take unless it's absolutely perfect natural light and the object stays still for 30 mins.

 

[Jad Chaar]

To me this sounds like an iphone user's comment . In an ideal world if you want the best photos of various objects in different lighting conditions you need a plethora of devices. At the moment no one camera on a phone outshines the rest. I have access to an iphone 4s, 5s, Galaxy S5 and S2 D) and tbh I don't think any of them are very good in low light unless you play around with shutter speeds and ISO and even then it can be pretty poor. I have to say in perfect light conditions the galaxy s5 outshines all the current phones and the HDR though not perfect does give pleasing results. In less natural light though I find the 5s just beats others hands down but you won't notice this looking at you taken image on the phone screens. The galaxy s5 screen is much better than the iphone and can give misleading results so to be truely accurate take a pic on both phones then view them on a pc (ideally a pc with ips) then you can really compare. In the end you will notice there really isn't much in it both have pros and cons. I can say though that anything iphone older than a 5 just sucks at every photo you take unless it's absolutely perfect natural light and the object stays still for 30 mins.

I am an iPhone user, so yeah . Eh, personal preference.

 

[Railman]

I can say though that anything iphone older than a 5 just sucks at every photo you take unless it's absolutely perfect natural light and the object stays still for 30 mins.

Smart-phones are just hopeless when taking photos of moving objects. I often use my phone when an unusual train passes but if the train is moving the front of the train looks as if it slopes. I suspect this is caused by the way the picture is scanned. It is also annoying that you cannot do any effective zoom shots.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ].... It is also annoying that you cannot do any effective zoom shots.

I wonder why that is.....

 

[Railman]

...[ ].... It is also annoying that you cannot do any effective zoom shots.

I wonder why that is.....

Now that is a proper lens. If only my wife let me spend some money on myself!

 

[Emexrulsier]

I am an iPhone user, so yeah . Eh, personal preference.

Nothing wrong with them you could just see you had pretty biased comments.