At this point, I don't think lens design is the limiting factor in phone-camera quality. There are physical limits to how much light you can collect with x size lens and sensor.
The key is to confront those limits, and break them.
Obs, as a professional or student, what is it exactly that you practice/study? I don't want to drag this so offtopic, but you say these things and I'd like to know where they're coming from.
The only occupation I can think of that would confront limits and break them (in their mind, anyway) is a consultant.. Not any particular type, just consultants in general.
The only way I can think of that they could really keep their form factor and introduce a larger camera sensor/lens would be if they lengthened the device. Put some space between the screen and controls, or put some extra space on either side so it would be empty and they could fill it with the lens and sensor. Even then, with the width of the device, it wouldn't be much larger. Just looking at the thickness of the Touch and the iPhone reveals how much extra space some of the extra components take up.
Obs is a machine that just thinks up the most ridiculous thing possible and then copy and paste's to these forums.
As for the updates, apple released another small update to those of us having problems config/syncing our iphone to itunes. So now that I am here, how does one manage their apps through itunes? I see where I can sync them and what not, but I was under the impression that you could actually arrange the layout of your apps through itunes.
So the nano has a 640 x 480 resolution at 30 frames per second. So at that resolution the size of the lens and sensor is actually about right. The only thing i can see these Nano's having (and not having in future due to size) is really a flash or an optical zoom.
The main point im trying to get across is that unless the sensor is huge, there is little need for larger sized lenses. Otherwise you end up with the Pentax 110 Auto problem of a powerful SLR thats limited to a poor quality film.
At this point, I don't think lens design is the limiting factor in phone-camera quality. There are physical limits to how much light you can collect with x size lens and sensor.
The key is to confront those limits, and break them.
Obs, as a professional or student, what is it exactly that you practice/study? I don't want to drag this so offtopic, but you say these things and I'd like to know where they're coming from.
Obs works in software. I forget what exactly he does. I imagine that he does it very well, but doesn't do much else in his life. That is the kind of guy I picture from the way he talks.
So the nano has a 640 x 480 resolution at 30 frames per second. So at that resolution the size of the lens and sensor is actually about right. The only thing i can see these Nano's having (and not having in future due to size) is really a flash or an optical zoom.
The main point im trying to get across is that unless the sensor is huge, there is little need for larger sized lenses. Otherwise you end up with the Pentax 110 Auto problem of a powerful SLR thats limited to a poor quality film.
the point of the Auto 110 was to use 110 film in the first place. Pentax offered SLRs for other film sizes, if you wanted different film. This is Apple's one offering.
The only thing i can see these Nano's having (and not having in future due to size) is really a flash or an optical zoom.
You don't need flash. Most of the time it just makes pictures look really really shitty. If it's not the kind of flash you can swivel and bounce off of walls and stuff there's no point in using it. And an optical zoom is not necessary because at times it's better to get closer to the subject than actually zoom in, or you lose some perspective. Otherwise if you really need to zoom in really close you might as well just get a DSLR for macro or telephoto type stuff.
You don't need flash. Most of the time it just makes pictures look really really shitty. If it's not the kind of flash you can swivel and bounce off of walls and stuff there's no point in using it. And an optical zoom is not necessary because at times it's better to get closer to the subject than actually zoom in, or you lose some perspective.
Both of those are issues with the photographer, not the equipment.
You don't need flash. Most of the time it just makes pictures look really really shitty. If it's not the kind of flash you can swivel and bounce off of walls and stuff there's no point in using it. And an optical zoom is not necessary because at times it's better to get closer to the subject than actually zoom in, or you lose some perspective.
Both of those are issues with the photographer, not the equipment.
Learn how to use your shit.
If by shit you mean the crappy fixed flash that comes on a lot of point and shoots, yes. Turn that shit the fuck off.
Breaking physical limits? Why didn't the Apple engineers think of that?
Maybe because they're engineers instead of wizards.
what if they're BOTH?!
"Captahn, Ah cannae du et! Et's impossible, ser!"
"Engineer Scotty, make more light hit that lens, but keep the lens the same size!"
"But Captahn, she's takin' all th' light she ken hahndel, ser! Yeh cannae force more light onta the lens, et's phyisicalae impossible, ser!"
"Damnit Scotty, do something with the dylithium crystals! Bend the light so it focuses more on the lens!"
"Captahn, that's just addin' a bigger lens, cannae ye see that?!"
"JUST DO IT!"
The only good thing about the new nanos is that they made the old ones cheaper. A screen taking up half the device is just asking to get broken and the camera is a waste of space. If it could take stills I'd care a little more.
Also, speaking aesthetically, the redesigned iTunes interface in 9 is a step backwards from 8.
So the nano has a 640 x 480 resolution at 30 frames per second. So at that resolution the size of the lens and sensor is actually about right. The only thing i can see these Nano's having (and not having in future due to size) is really a flash or an optical zoom.
The main point im trying to get across is that unless the sensor is huge, there is little need for larger sized lenses. Otherwise you end up with the Pentax 110 Auto problem of a powerful SLR thats limited to a poor quality film.
the point of the Auto 110 was to use 110 film in the first place. Pentax offered SLRs for other film sizes, if you wanted different film. This is Apple's one offering.
The reason I mentioned the Pentax 110 is that it shows the problems all smaller devices are having with cameras such as mobile phones, Ive seen mobile phones with really good lenses but because they have such a shit sensor designed for it, you get poor quality photos. In the Nano's case if the sensor is small then the lens doesn't need to be big to produce a required image.
So the nano has a 640 x 480 resolution at 30 frames per second. So at that resolution the size of the lens and sensor is actually about right. The only thing i can see these Nano's having (and not having in future due to size) is really a flash or an optical zoom.
The main point im trying to get across is that unless the sensor is huge, there is little need for larger sized lenses. Otherwise you end up with the Pentax 110 Auto problem of a powerful SLR thats limited to a poor quality film.
the point of the Auto 110 was to use 110 film in the first place. Pentax offered SLRs for other film sizes, if you wanted different film. This is Apple's one offering.
The reason I mentioned the Pentax 110 is that it shows the problems all smaller devices are having with cameras such as mobile phones, Ive seen mobile phones with really good lenses but because they have such a shit sensor designed for it, you get poor quality photos. In the Nano's case if the sensor is small then the lens doesn't need to be big to produce a required image.
and the difference is that the entire nano wasn't designed around that sensor.
film standards are a different beast that have no relationship to the topic at hand. the 110 standard wasn't that great, but there were other small film standards that were fine.
The thing about subscription music service is that it's pretty much a bet. The company is betting that you won't download 15 songs (in the case of Zune) a month. If you don't, then they make money. Apple apparently feels that more people would download more than 15 songs, so they'd lose money.
Ghostly Clockwork on
FTC: honk.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
The only thing I see in this announcement is the same thing I see in every Apple announcement: No subscription music service.
I love my Zune Pass.
Until your subscription ends.
Then all your music is gone forever down the fucking tubes.
except for the 10 songs a month you get to keep, which would cost 13.00 a month from iTunes.
So you are paying 2 bucks a month for a subscription service, and spending 13 bucks a month in music you get to keep.
I have a 3GS, and I plan on keeping it, but Apple finding some way to make this model work as well would be fucking great.
10 songs a month doesn't even begin to cover people's music collections.
... so buy more songs? The core difference (that I see at least) with the zune pass versus how apple does it, is that you can test drive entire band anthologies for groups you are uncertain of, grab music outside of your standard genres of choice, and really experiment for a really small flat rate. You can keep 10 of these songs a month, in your collection, forever... and you can also buy hundreds of songs each month if you wanted to, after giving them a week on your player and deciding you like them.
There is no rational argument against a system like this. Apple really should have one. With iTunes in the position of marketshare strength that they have, they can EASILY negotiate the terms.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The only thing I see in this announcement is the same thing I see in every Apple announcement: No subscription music service.
I love my Zune Pass.
Until your subscription ends.
Then all your music is gone forever down the fucking tubes.
except for the 10 songs a month you get to keep, which would cost 13.00 a month from iTunes.
So you are paying 2 bucks a month for a subscription service, and spending 13 bucks a month in music you get to keep.
I have a 3GS, and I plan on keeping it, but Apple finding some way to make this model work as well would be fucking great.
10 songs a month doesn't even begin to cover people's music collections.
... so buy more songs? The core difference (that I see at least) with the zune pass versus how apple does it, is that you can test drive entire band anthologies for groups you are uncertain of, grab music outside of your standard genres of choice, and really experiment for a really small flat rate. You can keep 10 of these songs a month, in your collection, forever... and you can also buy hundreds of songs each month if you wanted to, after giving them a week on your player and deciding you like them.
There is no rational argument against a system like this. Apple really should have one. With iTunes in the position of marketshare strength that they have, they can EASILY negotiate the terms.
Why should they?
iTunes is making them a shitload of money now. It's not broken, so why fix it? Don't think like a customer.
This is like people saying "They should lower the prices of their macbooks!"
Why? Macbooks are selling very well right now at their price points. No need to drop.
Obs on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited September 2009
I could have sworn that iPods were making them a shitload of money, and iTunes music is only mildly profitable... that Apple's business model was making iTunes very attractive so people would buy-in to their hardware ecosystem.
To that end, any new potential customer benefit should always be explored.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Personally I'd never use a subscription service - I only buy a couple songs a month, if that. I could see the value in adding it as an option (costs of fighting labels over the rights to subscription-based music sales notwithstanding).
Actually, scratch the "I'd never use it." If they offered a free trial month or two I'd try it out - maybe I'd download more under that system, who knows.
Because they, like Microsoft, Costco and Sam's Club, and unlike you, might understand the concepts of economies of scale, and high volume sales?
iTunes is making them a shitload of money now. It's not broken, so why fix it? Don't think like a customer.
Neither was the old iPod Nano, I don't see you arguing against the new one.
Since when was more money and more sales a bad thing?
This is like people saying "They should lower the prices of their macbooks!"
They should if a 5% reduction of prices results in a 10% increase in sales, a concept which any other sane, remotely business-savvy individual or company is aware of and uses on a daily basis.
You don't think Apple themselves just lowered the prices of the iTouch for kicks, do you?
But that 5% reduction in price and subsequent commoditization of Apple hardware will dilute the brand, make it less exclusive, and erode Apple's essential community base! Your suggestion is PROOF that you know squat about why Apple is the greatest company in the world and other companies struggle to be just like Apple. Praise Jobs.
(I will now deliberately ignore the second half of your post until I can come up with a reason why commoditization is ok sometimes and not other times. These mental gymnastics have me exhausted at the end of every day.)
Christ. Is Apple even capable of releasing a new version of iTunes that isn't a broken, buggy piece of shit?
Every computer I install this thing on, it just won't fucking work. Videos won't play, libraries won't load. And that's if I even get it to start without freezing the fuck up. I just spent 5 minutes waiting for it to load. When it finally did, I clicked once on it so I could move it to my other monitor, which resulted in it maximizing, and freezing, so now I have to wait for it to unfreeze again.
It happened the last time they released a new version too; it was unusable until the next update.
Posts
Just... wow.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Obs, as a professional or student, what is it exactly that you practice/study? I don't want to drag this so offtopic, but you say these things and I'd like to know where they're coming from.
The only way I can think of that they could really keep their form factor and introduce a larger camera sensor/lens would be if they lengthened the device. Put some space between the screen and controls, or put some extra space on either side so it would be empty and they could fill it with the lens and sensor. Even then, with the width of the device, it wouldn't be much larger. Just looking at the thickness of the Touch and the iPhone reveals how much extra space some of the extra components take up.
As for the updates, apple released another small update to those of us having problems config/syncing our iphone to itunes. So now that I am here, how does one manage their apps through itunes? I see where I can sync them and what not, but I was under the impression that you could actually arrange the layout of your apps through itunes.
The main point im trying to get across is that unless the sensor is huge, there is little need for larger sized lenses. Otherwise you end up with the Pentax 110 Auto problem of a powerful SLR thats limited to a poor quality film.
Obs works in software. I forget what exactly he does. I imagine that he does it very well, but doesn't do much else in his life. That is the kind of guy I picture from the way he talks.
the point of the Auto 110 was to use 110 film in the first place. Pentax offered SLRs for other film sizes, if you wanted different film. This is Apple's one offering.
You don't need flash. Most of the time it just makes pictures look really really shitty. If it's not the kind of flash you can swivel and bounce off of walls and stuff there's no point in using it. And an optical zoom is not necessary because at times it's better to get closer to the subject than actually zoom in, or you lose some perspective. Otherwise if you really need to zoom in really close you might as well just get a DSLR for macro or telephoto type stuff.
PhD, or were you lying when you told me you did software?
Both of those are issues with the photographer, not the equipment.
Learn how to use your shit.
I was lying son. I've never even touched software.
If by shit you mean the crappy fixed flash that comes on a lot of point and shoots, yes. Turn that shit the fuck off.
Then why should I believe you're a doctor?
Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're 14 at this point. You talk like a middle schooler.
You speak from experience?
I WAS at one time a 14 year old boy, ten years ago, so sure.
There are other forumers who can vouch for my age and station in life, though, if you want references.
Why would I want references? So I could ruin my perception of who you really are?
Sometimes I really wish you were gds. at least that would be fun to see him back.
You're like some kind of low-rent wannabe. You're not even good at trolling.
You're right, because I'm not even a troll in the first place. Christ.
Let's talk about Apple. Who is getting one of these nanos?
lying about your profession in order to attempt an argument from authority says otherwise
As for these ipods, I think that adding in FM radio is an interesting choice.
what if they're BOTH?!
"Captahn, Ah cannae du et! Et's impossible, ser!"
"Engineer Scotty, make more light hit that lens, but keep the lens the same size!"
"But Captahn, she's takin' all th' light she ken hahndel, ser! Yeh cannae force more light onta the lens, et's phyisicalae impossible, ser!"
"Damnit Scotty, do something with the dylithium crystals! Bend the light so it focuses more on the lens!"
"Captahn, that's just addin' a bigger lens, cannae ye see that?!"
"JUST DO IT!"
anyone have first hand experience with one
Also, speaking aesthetically, the redesigned iTunes interface in 9 is a step backwards from 8.
The reason I mentioned the Pentax 110 is that it shows the problems all smaller devices are having with cameras such as mobile phones, Ive seen mobile phones with really good lenses but because they have such a shit sensor designed for it, you get poor quality photos. In the Nano's case if the sensor is small then the lens doesn't need to be big to produce a required image.
and the difference is that the entire nano wasn't designed around that sensor.
film standards are a different beast that have no relationship to the topic at hand. the 110 standard wasn't that great, but there were other small film standards that were fine.
I love my Zune Pass.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
Until your subscription ends.
Then all your music is gone forever down the fucking tubes.
So you are paying 2 bucks a month for a subscription service, and spending 13 bucks a month in music you get to keep.
I have a 3GS, and I plan on keeping it, but Apple finding some way to make this model work as well would be fucking great.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
10 songs a month doesn't even begin to cover people's music collections.
There is no rational argument against a system like this. Apple really should have one. With iTunes in the position of marketshare strength that they have, they can EASILY negotiate the terms.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You might as well argue against cable TV with this argument.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Why should they?
iTunes is making them a shitload of money now. It's not broken, so why fix it? Don't think like a customer.
This is like people saying "They should lower the prices of their macbooks!"
Why? Macbooks are selling very well right now at their price points. No need to drop.
To that end, any new potential customer benefit should always be explored.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Actually, scratch the "I'd never use it." If they offered a free trial month or two I'd try it out - maybe I'd download more under that system, who knows.
Even with the Zune it's an option.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Because they, like Microsoft, Costco and Sam's Club, and unlike you, might understand the concepts of economies of scale, and high volume sales?
Neither was the old iPod Nano, I don't see you arguing against the new one.
Since when was more money and more sales a bad thing?
They should if a 5% reduction of prices results in a 10% increase in sales, a concept which any other sane, remotely business-savvy individual or company is aware of and uses on a daily basis.
You don't think Apple themselves just lowered the prices of the iTouch for kicks, do you?
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Every computer I install this thing on, it just won't fucking work. Videos won't play, libraries won't load. And that's if I even get it to start without freezing the fuck up. I just spent 5 minutes waiting for it to load. When it finally did, I clicked once on it so I could move it to my other monitor, which resulted in it maximizing, and freezing, so now I have to wait for it to unfreeze again.
It happened the last time they released a new version too; it was unusable until the next update.