3 ms·

There is some good cheap glass, but I am not aware of any good $100 glass. I also assume that 6mpix camera has to be quite old, and that means that computation

by rimliu 5y ago

There is some good cheap glass, but I am not aware of any good $100 glass. I also assume that 6mpix camera has to be quite old, and that means that computational photography in iPhone 12 wrt dynamic range will be vastly superior. In any case "infinitely better" sounds like a big stretch. Can you share some examples?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nucleardog 5y ago
> Can you share some examples? The main issue, as far as I understand it, is that the tiny sensor and tiny lens at some point just end up limiting the effective resolution. You can capture more pixels, but you never really increase the actual effective resolution of the end product. At that point you're not accomplishing much more than scaling up a lower resolution picture. The "computational photography" usually ends up just vastly over-doing the sharpening and creating artifacts, and leaving weirdly smooth gaps where there was nothing to sharpen but the camera completely failed to pick up detail. Just a couple random photos I grabbed from a day I took my kid to the park, but not necessarily like... scientific-paper worthy examples: https://imgur.com/a/7bn8W5S https://imgur.com/a/7bn8W5S One's taken with my iPhone 12 Pro, one with a Nikon D70. Mainly, though, I base this off of trying to print any of the photos I've taken, and maybe someone else can hop in and explain this for me. I could be way off base here. Printing photos from my iPhone at 4x6 they all look like someone took a really soft or slightly out-of-focus photo, applied way too much sharpening, and printed it. Printing a photo from my D70 generally still looks crisp and natural. Even if I blow it up beyond the actual resolution, it looks pixelated... not soft and then sharpened. This is even though the iPhone has twice the resolution of the D70.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Maybe we should measure resolution in TV lines per image height instead of pixels. It sounds like an archaic measurement but then all the clever processing tricks and dodgy pixel counting wouldn't hide the true resolution.
tonyhb 5y ago
Lumix 25mm f/1.7 is "good" $147 glass - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic_h_h025k_25mm_f_1_7_lens_for.html/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic.... For it's price it is pretty unbeatable, if you're in the MFT ecosystem.

by rimliu 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nucleardog 5y ago

> Can you share some examples? The main issue, as far as I understand it, is that the tiny sensor and tiny lens at some point just end up limiting the effective resolution. You can capture more pixels, but you never really increase the actual effective resolution of the end product. At that point you're not accomplishing much more than scaling up a lower resolution picture. The "computational photography" usually ends up just vastly over-doing the sharpening and creating artifacts, and leaving weirdly smooth gaps where there was nothing to sharpen but the camera completely failed to pick up detail. Just a couple random photos I grabbed from a day I took my kid to the park, but not necessarily like... scientific-paper worthy examples: https://imgur.com/a/7bn8W5S https://imgur.com/a/7bn8W5S One's taken with my iPhone 12 Pro, one with a Nikon D70. Mainly, though, I base this off of trying to print any of the photos I've taken, and maybe someone else can hop in and explain this for me. I could be way off base here. Printing photos from my iPhone at 4x6 they all look like someone took a really soft or slightly out-of-focus photo, applied way too much sharpening, and printed it. Printing a photo from my D70 generally still looks crisp and natural. Even if I blow it up beyond the actual resolution, it looks pixelated... not soft and then sharpened. This is even though the iPhone has twice the resolution of the D70.

exporectomy 5y ago
Maybe we should measure resolution in TV lines per image height instead of pixels. It sounds like an archaic measurement but then all the clever processing tricks and dodgy pixel counting wouldn't hide the true resolution.

tonyhb 5y ago

Lumix 25mm f/1.7 is "good" $147 glass - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic_h_h025k_25mm_f_1_7_lens_for.html/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic.... For it's price it is pretty unbeatable, if you're in the MFT ecosystem.