>To me, this looks like what my eyes would see when in the room vs what the camera itself would show which would either be blown out views outside the windows or the room too dark.
Honestly it's hard to tell without a reference picture. Looking at the first picture, it seems reasonable that the living room would be well lit because of huge windows. However, the section with the tall houseplants look nearly as bright as the open living room area, which seems doubtful.
Yes, all cameras look good with great natural light. That's not particularly interesting or useful, because we're not always in perfect lighting to compensate for mediocre cameras that've stagnated for 10 years.
>Why spent time worrying about what a cell phone camera can achieve in poor or uneven lighting if a bog-standard webcam can do a really good job if you just fix the damned lighting?
You are just being purposefully an ass. What about on a cloudly day, how does your sun help you then? What about at night? Not to mention most people don't have the luxury to arrange their home to optimize for picture quality on a fucking Zoom call.
Yes, you can help a shitty camera with lights, but we could just have good cameras. You can still fiddle with your lights until heat death of universe, but rest of us just want cameras that work even if we have to pay a little bit more.
> So yes, all things being equal, better lighting helps
$63 on a C920, add one window (typically ships free with your house/apartment) plus access to one truly special light source which although it's 93 million miles away you were lucky enough to get a free lifetime subscription to when you arrived on this planet.
Why spent time worrying about what a cell phone camera can achieve if a bog-standard webcam can do a really good job if you just fix the damned lighting?
> So in short: I dispute the idea that cameras don’t have the acuity of the human visual system, nowadays. I’d like to know in which aspects you believe human eyes to still be superior, from an optical point of view.
Dynamic range. Your eyes can pick up subtle details in a scene with very bright lights, and very dark shadows.
No video camera currently exists that can take a good video from inside a city, at night, with a starry night sky. Either the stars, or the lights, or the shadows are going to look like crap. Your eyes can trivially handle such a problem.
> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. And that’s a pretty old smartphone!
I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, but it’s just so easy to mess some setting up and end up with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging conditions, and I’m no beginner when it comes to dslrs.
> Take a look at some youtube videos of a Nikon P1000 at maximum zoom looking through ordinary atmosphere at some distance away for an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQlwKX3LQA
> How often are you looking directly at your camera?
On my Mac, I find the LED very noticeable when it comes on unexpectedly! It's bright and green and not part of my screen. And yes, this has actually happened to me!
> Even if you are, once the camera comes on unexpectedly, it's too late.
Nah, they saw a few frames—they're very unlikely to be useful. What's more important is knowledge.
I agree we could have both, but each of these features does have a financial cost. I consider the LED significantly more important.
> How do they account for the differences between what the sensor sees, what our eyes see, and what our screens show?
I mean, obviously they don't; that would be next to impossible, particularly with a phone camera. It's an approximation, but that doesn't make it useless.
> Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
If your photos are:
1. 3D movies
2. viewed in a collaborative setting instead of trying to show your stupid phone to everyone at the table, one at a time
(context: high end tilt-shift lenses are used for architecture photos to make buildings and complexes look all square everywhere and not tapered skywards due to perspective effect. The stakes are higher and spending more effort than snapping and editing on an iPhone is justified)
Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text.
> A phone light may not be healthy
The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best.
You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work.
> pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on.
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks.
I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it.
BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.
>Random example: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/1319-Harvard-St-90404...
Honestly it's hard to tell without a reference picture. Looking at the first picture, it seems reasonable that the living room would be well lit because of huge windows. However, the section with the tall houseplants look nearly as bright as the open living room area, which seems doubtful.
reply