Switched On: An 'i' for imaging
By Ross Rubin 
posted June 12th 2010 8:00PM
posted June 12th 2010 8:00PM
Each week Ross Rubin contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.
That's changed with iPhone 4. While its five-megapixel camera lags behind the eight-megapixel cameras on devices such as the Droid Incredible and HTC EVO 4G in terms of raw resolution, and it includes just one LED flash bulb as opposed to two on the EVO 4G, Apple's inclusion of a backlit sensor has aided the product's low-light capture, and the included software makes use of the cameras in innovative ways.
But as is often the case with Apple, the hardware is only part of the story. iMovie and FaceTime show that Cupertino seeks to push the envelope of what can be done in real-time using the iPhone's cameras, as well as what can be done with video after it's been captured. Using iMovie for iPhone, one will be able to create a reasonably polished multimedia memento that wraps HD video, five-megapixel stills and a soundtrack in high-quality titles and transitions. You'll be able to finish the vacation video before the vacation is even over.
The iPhone is expanding far beyond content consumption -- a role into which many have been tempted to pigeonhole smartphones and slate devices in general. |
During his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs said it took 18 months to develop iMovie for iPhone. That Apple is now lavishing attention on video functionality it practically ignored before shows that the iPhone is expanding far beyond the content consumption role -- a role many have been tempted to pigeonhole smartphones and slate devices in general. It also fans the flames of opinion that Apple is turning iOS into an eventual replacement for Mac OS. iMovie was the first of the iLife applications, and of course the iWork suite has already been ported to iOS. Apple's imaging moves also show some of the strength that Apple is building in its iCosystem. It would be trivial to create a version of iMovie optimized for the iPad, and getting videos from the iPhone to iPad is a simple exercise with the (currently rare) iPad camera connector. The next step is a simpler path to the television that may be facilitated by a future version of Apple TV.
Of course, these video vindications are currently limited to the iPhone. The next test of Apple's commitment to developing its handheld platforms into robust digital imaging devices will likely happen this fall as Apple refreshes the iPod touch. Many have long speculated that that device -- previously described as not needing "new stuff" by Jobs -- was destined to include a camera. But now the indications are stronger than ever that Apple will imbue its music player-turned-mobile platform into a carrier-free vehicle for bridging the space of face-to-face communications and the time between capturing video and editing it.
Ross Rubin is executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
How is this innovative? The N95 from 2007 had a 5mp camera, LED flash, a lens cover and VIDEO EDITING!
Granted, it's great that the iPhone 4 will have all of that (save for the lens cover, but it's "bulky" so whatever), but start seeing this as it really is: catching up. Nokia is playing catch up on the UI front while Apple is doing that on the functionality front. And both are right to do so, but stop labeling it as innovation.
@Parody
Hahaha no. Apple isn't trying to catch up to Nokia. The only thing they're catching up in is the camera department. Tell me how awesome those pictures looked on that awesome N95 screen? Honestly in the United States Nokia is a joke.
@trey992
When did I say that Apple is trying to catch up to Nokia? I was giving a pararel example. Learn how to read.
The iPhone has a lot more to catch up in than just its camera, in fact if you did some searching you'd know that it's missing around 70+ features that other smartphones have, almost all of which (actually I think all of them) the iPhone 4 has added. It did not add anything new, how is that not catching up? Or innovating?
Also, in Europe, the iPhone is a joke. This fourth generation might change that, but it should not be getting brownie points for finally being on the same level as everyone else.
Still no lockscreen after 4 years. LOL.
For those who doubt it, Apple is putting almost all their focus on IOS. Their computers are nothing more now than peripherals you buy to support your iphone/ipod's. Sure there will still be development on the desktop OSX but for all intents and purposes, it's nothing more than an expensive peripheral now.
As for the article, Mr. Rubin, it was very good. However, you made a point that I feel the need to comment on:
---"The iPhone is expanding far beyond content consumption -- a role into which many have been tempted to pigeonhole smartphones and slate devices in general"---
Let's be clear that only Apple/iphone/iPad Mac users and journalists who cover Apple extensively were inclined to pigeonhole smartphones & tablets as largely consumption devices. That's due to the limited nature of their devices and what Steve Jobs allows/disallows on their devices. It's also due to what he tells you that you can do with HIS device.
For the majority of the market, smartphones have ALWAYS been both consumption and creation devices in equal measure long before the iPhone. That was one of the reason why the biggest smartphone maker (Nokia) has had such a hard time leaving their touchscreen(s) choice behind for capacitive.
Now, we may hear all kinds of fanbois come out and say that their iDevices are creation tools, but it's no more a creation tool than a rock is. The tech choices (capacitive) display is a big hinderance to this so while you can create some things with it, the device design is obviously for consumption above all else. You can use a fork to scoop and eat rice but it doesn't make the fork a spoon, see what I'm saying?
The smartphone and tablet market in general hasn't moved away from the creation ideals. It's still there and one of the core tenets. It's Apple that is playing catch up and it's disingenuous to suggest (at least I inferred it from the article) that it'll be Apple pushing this limit and giving us a new era for how we use our smartphones/tablets. That's just not true at all.
If there has ever been a mark against the iPhone and the iPad is that they are pure consumption devices; which fits Apple's business so much more than creating capable creation devices (seeing as how Apple is also a large content distribution company). Allowing in-phone editing and putting document support in doesn't change the landscape. It only changes Apple users' landscape, which only really make up a minority of the market.
Of course, I expect to see journalists and tech guru go on and on about how Apple has revolutionised the smartphone landscape yet again. Par for the course.
Sweet! Another worthless feature!
@iPhonemyphone I sold my 3gs for $465 on eBay. I'm happy with that. I'll just be without an iPhone for 2 weeks :(
I see a lot of interesting comments, and I am sure in a thread this long I must be repeating what someone else has said but here goes:
I am both impressed and not impressed by megapixel ratings on phones. I agree somewhat the the apple philosophy of the product fitting into your life or it isn't worth having. Not that I can commend apple on getting phone cameras right, they have been the worst offender in this area. I truly believe that a great camera and by extension great still picture output from phones is very, very important. If we are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on phones (if you don't yor carrier certainly does on your behalf), phones that we will carry with us everywhere we go every day, phones that we will take care to always keep charged, then that should be what you use to take all of your pictures. And if that is what you take your pictures with then by golly it should take good pictures, not fuzzy ones, and should take them in almost any light, not just outdoors on a sunny day.
I hope for all of our sakes that the iphone4 has a killer backend image processing pipeline, through the firmware and right into the software output (i.e. noise suppression without crushing all detail). It can be done. Others have done it before on less smart operating systems. A really great performance by iphone would force all of its competitors to quite being so sloppy in their image processing on smart phones. However, Apple does not exactly have a great track record on the past iphones and the photos prove it. A new sensor is not a silver bullet. With iOS4 apple has an opportunity to put a solid foundation into their image processing pipeline somewhat permanently. Take a cue from DSLR manufactures and work on your image processing engine as seriously as you do your sensor apple and the industry will benefit. What follows is a look back into history when phones that predated the iphone actually had far superior camera to anything that the App Centric OS's of today are selling.
Why have a great camera on a phone, why not? Then what is a great camera by phone stadards? It is anything as good or better than the best that has already been built into other less expensive phones. It is true in almost any conversation about phones to say that everything changed the day that the iphone hit the market. In the case of cameras in expensive high end phones, everything changed for the worse! Phone cameras took a giant slide backward when the original iphone and android hit the market. Steve Jobs is right, megapixels are not so important, but image quality is. Although many of the best and most expensive smartphones that predated the iphone were not imported and sold in the US, as a guy living in Asia, I can tell you that until iphone the biggest names in phones were battling each other on the grounds of camera and very few other features (because those symbian phones had few other features). I have 8x10" prints of pictures I took on my 5MP Nokia N82 on vacation in Japan (THREE YEARS AGO) that will put those demo photos taken with the new iphone 4 into perspective. And the Samsung Pixon 12 pushed that N82's camera into antiquity before the iphone 3GS was even launched.
Now people will say, yes some of those feature phones had great pictures but who in the world wants to carry a symbian OS phone after you've owned an iphone(or andorid). And those people are right. Going back is not the answer. However, what made those older phones great as cameras (when they were great, which many were not, there are many rotten 8MP cameras on symbian phones from all of the major companies), when any of those cameras were great it was because the manufacturers were competing for sales on the basis of how well they wrote their firmware and image presessing engines and camera interface software, and the the quality of the camera sensors they chose to put in their high end models.
That is what neither apple nor the android builders have done yet. And on Android phones in particular the change is telling because with the exception of HTC which was never a player in the feature phone camera arms race, the rest of the players (hello Samsung, Sony, LG) are the same companies who built and programmed most of the best camera phones ever made. Why did their standards fall so very far when they transitioned to making expensive Andorid phones instead of expensive Symbian phones as they had in the past. Their inability to provide any differentiation among their cameras and the others guys in android has me seriously worried. What about these app centric OS's makes it so difficult for Samsung to write deeply to the camera firmware and image processing engines the way that they have in symbian?
Maybe more important is the question why, as a market segment, are App Phone buyers not demanding even a shadow of the photo quality that other smartphones (or by comparison semi-smart phones) absolutely have to provide as bona-fides to rate as high end (ie high price). Why is it that the video solutions on iphone and android are not now out of date but the still photos are floundering in the past in terms of what is acceptable quality photo output. Only on the basis of taking a clear, properly exposed still photos do the App centric phones hit a brick wall. I mean seriously, 1Ghz processors with 3D GPU available and noone can manage to take picture at dusk that isn't soft. Come on.
I have to think that part of the problem is the ability to update the OS. Iphone iOS4 and Andriod 2.2 are shocking in that they are just now leaving their oldest hardware out of compatibility during upgrades. On Symbian by comparison my old Nokia N82 shipped with Symbian S60 3rd Edition, and there it will stay for ever. Every high end symbian phone that Samsung or Nokia or Sony ever shipped recieved a software update at some point. But those updates were to re-writes of the same OS and firmware image. Nokia may rewrite an N97 mini five times in the three years it is sold on the market. But all of those updates will still be of S60 5th Edition, the N97 mini will never move up to the newwer version of symbian that ships next month on the Nokia N8.
As I understand it, the only phone that strattles this divide, the Sony Experia X10 on android (with an 8MP camera that does not take fuzzy pink tinted photos), had to write all of their software as apps and in the case of the camera app, remove the android stock app permanently to fit their imaging pipeline in its place. Anyone at Sony Ericcson reading this please comment if I am wrong. I also wonder if this does not go some way to explaining why Sony put so much effort into securing the phone from being rooted. I believe that even after almost two months on the market and hundreds of units in owners hands, it is the only android phone to avoid being rooted. The security is something else entirely compared to any other android. Maybe Sony is anxious to keep the the sodtware the way it is for a reason.
Having the Sony Camera app in place is possibly key to getting decent stills out of the phone; as opposed to the poorly exposed fussy photos that some other manufacturers have managed to squeeze out of 5 and 8MP sensors. Samsung, I am looking at you now, I am looking directly at you and I am thinking about the Galaxy S. Still looking at you Samsung. How did the company that made the U900 Soul non-smartphone in 2008 with 5MP photos that were actually better than the output of other manufactures smart phones of the day. How did a company capable of doing that in 2008 manage to get completely worse results in your very top of the line phone in 2010. The Galaxy S is no $200 budget phone either, the Galaxy S is the best most expensive phone samsung is building in all of 2010 and the pictures are softer and less well exposed than what was put out by U900 Soul almost three years ago. Shame on you Samsung. You know you can do better, if you put in the effort, which obviously you didn't.
A little background on how I got this way. I live in asia and have for about five years now. When I came here from the states I used a nokia phone from at&t that I thought was pretty great because it had a color screen. Aside from that I owned a nice 5MP sony compact camera which I also was content with. I had my priorities rearranged for me quickly on arrival in asia. Although the japanese are absolutley hypnotized by their cryptic proprietary operating systems that complete on how many emoticons can be crammed into each menu; the REST of asia actually seems to use their phones, and therefore convenience is king. It is more common for people here to go out in large groups and to make time to do things together. Large dinners out with extended groups of friends and or family are common, and when I would be invited out I was the only one in the group who did not have a camera in my phone which raised a few eyebrows (everyone got a group picture to take home with them but me). Although at that time phone camers were not that great, it was the camera which you would always have with you and it would always have a charge. In the five years since, many of those friends have replaced their phones everytime a better camera phone generation came along, from 2MP up through 3MP to 5 or 8MP now. Their are many 12MP phones on the market here and few people buy iphones or androids still. But most users seem to have stopped upgrading when they got either an exceptionally good 5MP that takes good low light exposures or they kept upgrading until they found a decent 8MP. Alot of the decision making seems to do with which models take good exposures in poor lighting because 90% of all shots are portraits of groups of people indoors after dark, such as to commemorate a dinner out a restaurant when some friend gets a promotion at work or some relative wins some competition at school. I said they carry 5or 8MP camera phones and iphone4 and most androids this year have either a 5 or 8MP camera so the App Phones have caught up, Right? No, not even close. Grainy soft faces in a sea of multicolored croma noise where a shadow should be does not make for a good memory captured. So how are their camera phones better and why. Some of it is hardware but more so it is the firmware and software. Image processing software can not be under appreciated in this regard.
Almost none of the camera phones out there have mechanical shutters and even fewer have variable apertures so proper exposure is more an art of using ISO gain, and doing it better than your competitor's phone. Then there is the issue of not overdoing the noise suppression to the point that the detail gets softened out of existance. While apple's suggestion that megapixel resolution is not guarantee of sharp photos is dead on, it would rank as a miracle if apple were to see that line of reasoning through and actually make decent photos themselves in anything but ideal lighting conditions. In ideal lighting almost any camera can get usable results but when will you take pictures? Will you actually take even 20% of the pictures that you want while standing outside early mourning on a clear day? It is more important that you don't miss a picture because the lighting is off and you know from experience that indoor pictures in mediocre light will make soft grayish toned pictures that you will not want once you have taken them. I give apple about a snow balls's chance of taking a halfway sharp photo under street lighting at night or with the subject backlight on a bright afternoon, and I haven't even seen the new phone.
I can not more say that the iphone 4 will be a most of the time failure as a still camera than the fan boys can say that it will produce better photos than the Evo which also has a backlit sensor but does not advertise the fact. We will not of us know until we see the results of what the processing engine can do with that backlit sensor. Which raises another point, that although hardware is not a guarantee of quality output, it is part of the path to improving output. Several of the best camera phones that were built on symbian, did get great results by including mechanical shutters and variable apertures to improve the exposures that the sensor had to work with (lets do the list: Nokia N73, N82, N86, Samsung i8910 and Pixon 12). Most of those phones also have Xenon flashes which really extends your ability to take decent photo after sunset, but there are even more great camera phones exist that will pull good sharp naturally colored results in 70% of the cases where a xenon flash camera could suceed. High resolution sensors need not be made fun of by apple. Any day apple wants to compare output from the iphone4 and the upcoming Nokia N8 that Damian Dinning helped design or even the Samsung Pixon 12 from last year, “in anything less than ideal lighting” it would probably be better for apple to just stay silent. I hope for all of our sakes that the iphone4 has a killer backend image processing pipeline, through the firmware and right into the software output (i.e. noise suppression without crushing all detail) others have done it before on less smart operating systems and really great performance by iphone would force all of its competitors to quite being so sloppy in their image processing on smart phones. However, Apple does not exactly have a great track record on the past iphones and the photos prove it. A new sensor is not a silver bullet. With iOS4 apple has an opportunity to put a solid foundation into their image processing pipeline somewhat permanently. Take a cue from DSLR manufactures and work on your image processing engine as seriously as you do your sensor.
@trevorj Dude, I'm not gonna read all that. It's Sunday.
...
Regarding the article, I can only say that this column has never made me so embarassed on the behalf of Engadget. I mean come on.. I don't even know where to start. Is it with the fact that video editing and high quality cameras have both been available on OTHER PHONES for several years? Or is it...nevermind -.-
@trevorj
Jesus are you trying to kill me with text?!
@trevorj I have to disagree with what you say- I have yet to use any cameraphone and been blown away with the pictures they've taken. I find it funny people arguing how good the camera is in their iPhone compared to the latest Nokia or Sony Ericsson phones. Cameraphones are convenient because you almost always have them with you, but they are not a replacement for a proper camera. All cameraphones have shitty sized sensors and tiny lenses. If people cared so much about the pictures they took , about capturing those special moments in life to look back on, then they should invest in a decent DSLR and proper lenses. Yes the camera and lenses aren't pocketable but they're not as cumbersome as people make out. It's clear, however, that people love taking pictures with their cellphones and posting them to Facebook. And the pictures they take 99% of the time are uninspired. Their Facebook galleries are usually as narcissistic as their constant status updates and wall posts. How many times do you need to upload 50 pictures of your Friday night out with the girls? And half the poorly lit, grainy photos, look the same as the ones you posted in last week's gallery of your night out. Or we're treated to yet more pictures of your kids that you think are cute and funny, but truth be told are merely ordinary. And because you are too cheap to invest in a DSLR, half the pictures of your kids running about are blurry or out of focus because the shitty sensor in your cameraphone can't capture the action quick enough. Getting kids to stand still for any length of time is nigh on impossible, so stop taking pictures with your cellphone which clearly isn't up to the task. And I wish people would think for a second of the stuff they upload to their Facebook galleries. Discriminate! Yes your memory card is capable of holding hundreds of images- you don't have to upload every fucking photo you took. And for the love of God, you don't have to photograph every aspect of your mundane life and feel the need to share it with the world. If I go to a party nowadays it feels as if everyone is taking pictures to document their night so they can upload them to Facebook to show their friends how good the party was. I feel like shouting "put the camera away and enjoy the fucking party!" It's the same when I go to a concert. Thousands of people too busy snapping photos or shooting video instead of just enjoying the concert, just so they can show on Facebook that they were there and what a great time they had- despite the fact that most of the pics and videos are shit.
Sorry, not getting one. And why a 5 MP Cam?
If you went to a camera shop and asked "how many mega pixels do I need" they would say anything over 5 is a waste unless you are using a large lensed SLR. I know this because I bought a camera for my holiday a few months back. So we are at a point where quality is the only issue for a potential buyer of electronic goods......... Unless you want to fit a fookin big zoom on your Sprint Evo 4g.
@AthenHound imho, anything over 5 is an enormous waste on a phone, Your pictures won't look any better, but you'll have bigger files. I'm perfectly happy with my Canon 30d DSLR that only has eight.
The only reason that you need more megapixels is for landscape photography, with a tripod.
I hope the software isn't used much. There's already enough cheesy video with transitions and canned music out there.
The biggest problem I have with my iPhone is the lack of a camera button. It's really hard to take good pictures when you have to touch the screen in some situations.
Why do Apple always use such creepy-looking, all-American, "multicultural", airbrushed people in their screen mock-ups?
@jwoods "multicultural" is actually one of your complaints?
Well remember in Steve's keynote addess he said they plan to ship 10's of millions of "Facetime" devices in 2010 - he didn't say iphones, he specifically said "Facetime" devices. Obviously there are some other devices that will be carrying the technology (and pertinent cameras) this year.
The only problem is WMM isn't good at editing video at all :/
Before moving to Mac I used premier to edit video. Mainly because it was easier to use than WMM. Yes, a professional piece of software easier to use than one supposedly made for the lamen. WMM has always produced lame out comes. Once I moved to Mac I bought final cut thinking iMovie will be the same as WMM - a dumbed down and lame little brother of the big boy software. I was wrong. iMovie is a great app for quickly making a movie with great titles, transitions and themes. You can nock out a professional looking video in no time at all. Not like WMM which I think was designed wpby a 3 yr old for other 3 yr olds. I personally can't wait fo this on the iPhone. Editing and uploading a video whilst at the beach or a theme park or sky diving sounds pretty good to me.
everyone seems to be forgetting an important part of the presentation where it was pointed out that megapixels weren't always the most important thing for good photos. For example, they said while a lot of people shrink their pixels they kept theirs the same size, it's weird to have a tech blog ignore elements of the presentation.