I guess the hand/arm is not real, but a part of the support of the top guy? Maybe even the carpet (at least for the guy in the other shot).
mr moonlight: At least someone isn't caught up in the micro sensor mega pixel war. 8MP is too much as it is. I'd much rather have better quality images and better low light performance. If I need high resolution pics, I pull out my regular camera.
Yes, but unless your friends/viewers have a 4K monitor, sharing 8mpix images means you have to resize them, so they might as well have put a 2mpix camera in there which is enough to fill a full HD display.
David Hurt: iPhones do NOT interest me. I am Samsung All the way!!
Then what are doing reading an article about iPhones?
Seriously dpreview, you say "a fairly underwhelming spec of 8 megapixels". C'mon guys, you know better than that. I don't care about the iPhone, but 8 megapixels in these tiny sensors is already ridiculous. The HTC one is boasting "ultra-pixels" and still doesn't match a decent camera in image quality. Why do you have to perpetuate the nonsense by implying that the 21 and 40 megapixel phone cameras are better.
You should check out "Enfuse". It is an open source program that does the exposure stacking for you and it is super easy to use. Even if it does not reach your desired result, it will certainly give you a better starting point the the original images.Great shot, by the way.
This is Schrodinger's cat, it's in a superposition with itself! :-)
I withdrew my entry because it didn't abide by the "single person" rule.
Nice shot, and interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.
I wonder if you could hold a clear (sacrificial) piece of glass, or clear plastic, in front of your lens while composing/focusing/metering, to catch all the water drops, and pull it just before taking the shot. Wouldn't that save you from some trouble?
harrygilbert: What I'd like to see is a 3D printer with the ability to input a holographic image, and create a tangible output. Then every home and museum could have inexpensive copies of the finest sculpture from throughout history.
Yeah, it'd be wonderful to have a "David" made of plastic resin in the middle of your living room!
ConanFuji: Yet to see a phone with manual mode for photography
rocklobster:I'm assuming that the specs are in resulting pixels, not in photosites, so when they say 4MP, you get 4MP of full color, no matter how many actual photosites the phone needed to create that.
GURL:I couldn't agree more with you. I think there is a simple test. Take a picture of something with lines and start downscaling the picture using a Lanczos, or Catrom interpolation filter until you can count less lines than in the original picture. The smallest picture where you can count the max number of lines tells your what your real resolution is.
"4MP is probably a bit too low for many people"??? Why, because all the other phone makers tell you that you need 13-41?
I would say that for a picture taken with a cellphone, 1MP is low, 2MP is about right and 4MP is too much. Most of these shots will be viewed on a screen (so 1920x1080=2MP is enough), or will be printed 6x4 or 7x5 (and with 2MP you get 270dpi and 216dpi respectively).
I really wonder what use calls for more than 4MP on a cellphone.
Am I crazy, or are there Latin letters on the stone just under the one he's standing on? Look at the top picture, center bottom. There is something like "CRAYENL" written (or rather chiseled) on it.
These pyramids have taken some 4500 years of extreme heat and sandstorms, they can take the wear caused by the occasional climber. The problem is not the climber/photographer, the problem is the idiot who feels the need to chisel his/her name on the monument, or take a piece back home to put on the pile of "I don't know what to do with this crap" souvenir.
George Veltchev: Wonderful images ... but, that effect can be achieved easily in post processing those days!
Art? Most photographers do weddings to pay the bills, not to do art.
Clyde Thomas: I love sci-fi that breaks all the rules of known physics.
You must have never watched "Core", "Armageddon", ... or most sci-fi films made by hollywood for that matter.
Vetteran: Many, many photographers never intervene when any "normal" person would think that they should. Photographers who do not intervene or act think they have a higher calling to "bear witness" and spread the truth; which is B.S. I've seen it for myself at car accidents, a drowning, and at other situations where any person would feel morally and ethically compelled to do something. Instead the "photographer" just takes pictures instead of helping.
Owning a camera does not obviate the responsibility to do the right thing at the right time. Photographers are not exempt or special, although, in many cases, they think they are. A disgrace; really.
While I am a person with a history of intervening to help/save people in trouble, I will have to disagree with you.
I do not know if you are aware of the "Bloody Saturday" picture, but it's an extreme case that demonstrates the point. Any normal person thinks "why on earth was he taking pictures instead of helping this baby?" However, documenting the atrocities of war resulted in the West providing significant aid to China.
I personally would have put my camera down and run for the child, because I don't have the heart to do otherwise, but I'm not sure it really is the better choice in the long run.
Guys stop trying to imaging what this will do to your DSLR photography. This is aimed at cellphone cameras. It's for teenagers taking shots of their buddies LOLing and wanting to capture some of the background too. The colors being muted, or badly tonemapped is irrelevant here.
I know this guy, he is from Nantucket :-)
HaiderAfridi: I'm sure many on these forums will be disappointed that no photos were taken of a cat.
But there be no cats on Mars.
There are also gorillas on Mars. Don't take my word, search on youtube :-)
NJani: Dear Author,Sorry to say but your article in some points is not correct. To put things into perspective let's talk about what the magnification ratio means. The magnification ratio is not depends on sensor/film size. It depends only on how the lens magnifies the subject. The ratio stands between the subjects real size (lifesize) and between the subjects projected size what you will get on sensor/film. The magnification ratio 1:1 (AKA lifesize) means that the subject will occupy the same physical size on the sensor/film as it's on size. If the subject is 1cm x 1cm size, it will occupy on sensor/film 1cm x 1cm territory if the magnification ratio of the lens is 1:1. No matter how big is the sensor/film. If you use smaller sensors/films and will make prints with the same size (for eg. A3), of course you will get virtually bigger enlargements of the same subject but it is only because the smaller sensor/film does cropping. But the subject on all sensors/films will occupy the same size.
Why would he read the article before responding? this is the internet.