3 ms·

The f stop of the new iphone is 1.8, compared to 2.2 on the iphone 6. Both are capable of shallow depth of field, the 7 is just slightly more shallow.

dpark 10y ago
F/1.8 on a tiny sensor still doesn't give you shallow depth of field. The sensor is just too small. What 20yrs_no_equity is referring to is the software-generated shallow depth field that the iPhone 7 Plus promises.
- ska 10y ago
  Of course it does (give shallow depth of field). You just have to be vert close to the subject. I'm being a bit pedantic, but these conversations are mostly missing the third important variable. You need to know aperature, sensor/film size, and distance.
  - dpark 10y ago
    If you frame a person to fill the shot on an iPhone 7 plus, the background will not have the "destroyed" quality you'd get from an f/1.8 lens on a full frame. Yes, if you fill the frame with someone's fingertip, you'll get that look, but you will not get the look for typical scenarios. Your pedantry is extremely misleading. For any subject with any framing, an f/1.8 on a tiny sensor will deliver far, far less background blur than an f/1.8 on a full frame. Probably less than even an f/5.6 on a full frame. A big issue being glossed over is that depth of field and background blur are not actually the same thing. Focal length makes a big difference in how blurred the background looks but little difference in actual depth of field. When people talk about wanting shallow depth of field for portraiture or sports photography, they largely want heavy background blur.
    - ska 10y ago
      About 5.6 is probably right (on full frame). My point was that you can't really talk about bokeh without considering subject distance relative to effective length. That shouldn't be controversial. You're right that background blur and DOF but even that is an oversimplification (circle of confusion comes in here, "sensor size" is a proxy for this but flawed). This wasn't intended to be misleading, just pointing out that the conversation was too superficial. It's true (and I didn't deny it) that a phone sensor won't do this for typical portraiture. It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling. Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane. The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > My point was that you can't really talk about bokeh without considering subject distance relative to effective length. Sure. But that's frankly overcomplicating things. The people considering the iPhone 7 [Plus] as their camera don't need a detailed discussion of the factors that affect depth of field. Hell, Apple was calling this Bokeh. What the typical consumer needs to understand is that a large aperture on their phone won't make it take pictures that look like a DSLR. > It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling. Yeah, I don't have high hopes for this either. > Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane I'm not sure what mean here. I'm not aware of anyone doing lots of portraiture that involves any motion at all. And sports photography is typically shot with a fast enough shutter to largely freeze any action. The obliterated backgrounds in portraiture and sports photography is mostly achieved by using long lenses wide open. > The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems. I agree, though I think more people are conscious of the blur than the perspective difference.
hantusk 10y ago
The depth of field is also dependent of the lens diameter. The small lens diameter in mobile phones yields larger depth of fields than DSLRs with large lenses, so the drop to 1.8 might be more than just "slightly more shallow" (haven't done calculations, if somebody has a link, it would be appreciated). Using 2 cameras, the new iphone still relies on simulating shallow depth of field by blurring the background from the calculated depth information and fakes the bokeh with blur. The result could be a differentiator for the new iphone, or it could not be. Looks a bit too fake for my taste in some situations.

dpark 10y ago

F/1.8 on a tiny sensor still doesn't give you shallow depth of field. The sensor is just too small. What 20yrs_no_equity is referring to is the software-generated shallow depth field that the iPhone 7 Plus promises.

ska 10y ago
Of course it does (give shallow depth of field). You just have to be vert close to the subject. I'm being a bit pedantic, but these conversations are mostly missing the third important variable. You need to know aperature, sensor/film size, and distance.
- dpark 10y ago
  If you frame a person to fill the shot on an iPhone 7 plus, the background will not have the "destroyed" quality you'd get from an f/1.8 lens on a full frame. Yes, if you fill the frame with someone's fingertip, you'll get that look, but you will not get the look for typical scenarios. Your pedantry is extremely misleading. For any subject with any framing, an f/1.8 on a tiny sensor will deliver far, far less background blur than an f/1.8 on a full frame. Probably less than even an f/5.6 on a full frame. A big issue being glossed over is that depth of field and background blur are not actually the same thing. Focal length makes a big difference in how blurred the background looks but little difference in actual depth of field. When people talk about wanting shallow depth of field for portraiture or sports photography, they largely want heavy background blur.
  - ska 10y ago
    About 5.6 is probably right (on full frame). My point was that you can't really talk about bokeh without considering subject distance relative to effective length. That shouldn't be controversial. You're right that background blur and DOF but even that is an oversimplification (circle of confusion comes in here, "sensor size" is a proxy for this but flawed). This wasn't intended to be misleading, just pointing out that the conversation was too superficial. It's true (and I didn't deny it) that a phone sensor won't do this for typical portraiture. It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling. Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane. The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > My point was that you can't really talk about bokeh without considering subject distance relative to effective length. Sure. But that's frankly overcomplicating things. The people considering the iPhone 7 [Plus] as their camera don't need a detailed discussion of the factors that affect depth of field. Hell, Apple was calling this Bokeh. What the typical consumer needs to understand is that a large aperture on their phone won't make it take pictures that look like a DSLR. > It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling. Yeah, I don't have high hopes for this either. > Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane I'm not sure what mean here. I'm not aware of anyone doing lots of portraiture that involves any motion at all. And sports photography is typically shot with a fast enough shutter to largely freeze any action. The obliterated backgrounds in portraiture and sports photography is mostly achieved by using long lenses wide open. > The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems. I agree, though I think more people are conscious of the blur than the perspective difference.

hantusk 10y ago

The depth of field is also dependent of the lens diameter. The small lens diameter in mobile phones yields larger depth of fields than DSLRs with large lenses, so the drop to 1.8 might be more than just "slightly more shallow" (haven't done calculations, if somebody has a link, it would be appreciated). Using 2 cameras, the new iphone still relies on simulating shallow depth of field by blurring the background from the calculated depth information and fakes the bokeh with blur. The result could be a differentiator for the new iphone, or it could not be. Looks a bit too fake for my taste in some situations.