[Studor13]

The iPhone 7 plus came with a pseudo bokeh effect and now the iPhone X has gone one better with a total blackout effect. 

 

So, is it possible to say make a Nikon 105mm f1.4 background signature, which a future iPhone could use? That is, you would just take a shot and then select which lens you want as your background.

 

This new feature must surely be a final nail in the point & shoot cameras as it is bound to spread into every other phone maker?

[mike]

I'm not quite following you. So you're saying you want an algorithm that knows how far the subject is from the camera and applies a bokeh accordingly and based on a particular aperture. Within this feature would be select-able  presets. These presets could be built to emulate certain lenses. Why not add a few sliders for customization? I doubt Apple, or any manufacturer doing this (except an OEM like Nikon) would call it a Nikon xxx preset. I do not see why not?

 

But I don't understand the reasoning of it being a final nail in the P&S camera market? Why couldn't any camera OEM add a similar feature (there may even be one).  Also, a dedicated camera will always outperform a cell phone, built in gimicks/apps aside. However, these can be applied later in the slew of software out there.

 

IMO, as a recent thread just talked about, point and shoots are pretty much dead, or back to pre digital sales, in lieu of smart phones. Most people are happy to take a pic, using a filter of sorts or applying canned post processing. You know, add ears, noses, bokeh, whatever the latest app does, and post the picture on Snapchat, Instagram, FB, etc...

[Studor13]

I'm not quite following you. 

 

 

One of the few things left that compact cameras (up to 1") can do better than a phone is to give better background blur (AKA bokeh).

 

But since the iPhone 7+ with its dual cam giving it an effective zoom of around 28-120mm and the ability to blur backgrounds, it would seem that compacts will be a thing of the past.

 

And now we see that not only can a phone blur the background it can actually remove it - totally!

 

Now, imagine Apple buys the top 85 and 105mm f1.4 lenses and builds 10,000 stock images, and instead of blacking out the background the phone gives you a choice of backgrounds that match the colors of your original image. You now have the face of the iPhone shot combined with a background lens of your choice.

 

“Why couldn't any camera OEM add a similar feature?”

 

Well, that's what I want to know. I'm not sure if the processing powers in a compact camera can do what the iPhone X can do. Also, the iPhone can jump into the Cloud and grab a background from the thousands (millions) of images it will have available. There is no way that a camera - any camera, can do this since it has no cellular connection.

 

Also, the phone doesn't just blur out the background it gives you a choice of lighting effects of the face before you take the shot. Again, I don't know if a camera could offer such a thing.

[stoppingdown]

I think it's possible and probably it makes sense from a marketing point of view. It's part of the process of destroying photography that we were talking about the past month.

[Studor13]

 

It's part of the process of destroying photography that we were talking about the past month.

 

I would have thought that getting more people to take photos would actually help in the enjoyment of photography, however you wish to define what a photograph is.

[JJ_SO]

First, the result is no big deal - even if the computing is awesome and most miraculous, but the result remains on beancounter's art level - which is what Apple became today. Says me, the Apple user.

 

It's no big deal to me because a face and black background need to have another reason than just being kind of a filter like toy camera, softener or whatever - it will get boring pretty soon because it's lame and it doesn't work well in bright sunlight. Or ist it also softening down harsh shadows?

 

Given the price of this "phone", I'm very tempted to ask "and that's all it can do? No more bells and whistles?" But then, there are coffee machines which cost much more than that and only brew coffee.

 

Don't get me wrong, Studor13: I haven't read much about this new function and I will keep it that way, as I will never buy an iPhone this expensive - so it would be a waste of time. This post is not because I like to put things in perspective. It can have all possible filters, functions and what else, but it still is a phone with all the limits of the screen and lens design and all the freedom coming with taking pictures without carrying a ton of gear.

 

I'm looking at the result and it doesn't convince me. Even if Apple bought the most expensive lenses and makes 150.000 pictures with blurred background to offer you a (basically) wallpaper for download from the cloud. That's totally lame and will usually nor fit in the situation - these highly expensive lenses do not only have great bokeh, but also sharpness - it's the effect of both, not only an exchanged background. which will lack the transition to the subject and I'm not even talking about foreground.

 

Forget that crap. 

[Studor13]

 

Forget that crap. 

 

 

It's crap to people who have serious equipment and are comparing to results from Full-Frame cameras. But for the millions of mums and kids who just want to have fun I think it's a killer feature.

 

I think that there are things that we tend to dismiss as useless until we actually try them.

 

For example, the wife got me an Apple Watch Series II (yes, she paid full price just a few days before the Series 3 was announced and the Series 3 is $70 cheaper), and guess what?

 

This fitness app thing that I thought was “crap” is actually really amazing. But it is only when I used it that I saw the light, so to speak.

 

Maybe you should try the iPhone 8+ or X first before deciding that it's not worthwhile?

[stoppingdown]

I would have thought that getting more people to take photos would actually help in the enjoyment of photography, however you wish to define what a photograph is.

 

 

 

Making more people shooting a trigger doesn't mean that they enjoy "photography": means only they enjoy shooting a trigger. All the technology we're talking about is basically an evolution of point-and-shoot: make me shoot more photos, more quickly, without thinking of it too much; this goes to the direction of mass-made products, not artistic products. We'll see floods of selfies, with the same backgrounds, filling the socials and being quickly forgotten, because more selfies will flood. The opposite of an artistic photography, that will stand by the time.

 

The problem of "democratisation of art" is known, and it has already turned into mass-made product music, for instance. The good way of educating people to an art doesn't totally focus on making people more or less capable to "produce" art objects, but first of all learning from masters. Easening the "production" of objects will make more and more people less willingly to study, and focusing all their enthusiasm on the latest iPhone model rather than opening a book of Ansel Adams or such.

[JJ_SO]

It's crap to people who have serious equipment and are comparing to results from Full-Frame cameras. But for the millions of mums and kids who just want to have fun I think it's a killer feature.

 

I think that there are things that we tend to dismiss as useless until we actually try them.

 

For example, the wife got me an Apple Watch Series II (yes, she paid full price just a few days before the Series 3 was announced and the Series 3 is $70 cheaper), and guess what?

 

This fitness app thing that I thought was “crap” is actually really amazing. But it is only when I used it that I saw the light, so to speak.

 

Maybe you should try the iPhone 8+ or X first before deciding that it's not worthwhile?

 

Nope. My normal cliché answer to smartphones applies here as well: I don't like phones smarter than me, over time they do make me even dumber than I already am.

 

It's like giving a real fast car to someone who uses to practice running - now he will loosing some running skills because it's tempting to use the car.

 

Studor13, there are tons of things I could do with an iPod or iPad as well - I don't, because these devices basically are time-suckers and I feel they keep me away from more essential things. 

 

Trying an iPhone to do things I already can do with a camera which cannot even send SMS - I don't see the point. I take it my judgement is the one of an ignorant, I can live with that. I also can perfectly live without being on Facebook, Twitter, whatsapp, tinder or whatever. I see the Smombies, they are not in particualr attracting me. And I paid loads of money to things to use with an iPod or iPad, adapters, microphones, covers, card-readers, headphones, docking stations, mixer consoles, drawers are flooded with this crap. I keep them to remind me that each couple of months Apple drives a new "dernier cri"-pig through the alleys of the digital village. Happy consuming, just without me.

 

Then Smartwatch didn't teach you better?  Alright, not my prob. Hell, the new iPhone is worth a pretty cool drone - which has more use to me than a cellphone.

 

Oh, and I doubt that mummsies will find this feature sooo great. If they find it at all...

[mst]

I have not used the iphone 7/8 Plus or the iPhone X (obviously), but have seen the bokeh effect the camera can create and to be honest: I'm quite impressed (given these are images coming from a tiny sensor smart phone).

After seeing the keynote, I was less impressed by the artificial lighting effects, though. To me, it looked just like that: artificial.

Now, to answer the question why it just can't be entered into common P&S cameras: it requires two cameras to create a depth map (sort of a "Lytro light"). You could of course do that in a P&S camera, too, but given most of them use fairly big lenses and sensors (compared to smartphone camera modules), the result would probably be quite bulky.

Regarding the watch, I am actually considering getting one, too, for the exactly same reason. Since the inital Apple watch was introduced, I did not really see any use case for one (for myself), but can imagine now that this one application (monitor activity and fitness) might justify getting one.