Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
72 Inch IPhone Photo
May 8, 2023 09:35:06   #
Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky
 
I agree, the technology is only going to get better and better.
Glen Dewis talks about creating a 72 in image from an IPhone 14.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAze0NoeuOI

Reply
May 8, 2023 10:47:46   #
Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI
 
Even, I, the skeptic about iPhones taking great photos, have become a believer. I guess I was just waiting for iPhones to catch up. Now, I always have a camera with me every day. Not planning to ever print anything that large, but to have the capability is just amazing.

Reply
May 8, 2023 11:09:01   #
Hip Coyote
 
I am a huge fan of the iPhone, but......

One could have taken a 72 or a 1172 inch photo with an iPhone years ago. What seems to confound people is the relationship of viewing distance and resolution of the print. For example, a billboard may be printed using dots that are a 1/2 inch. Up close it looks like dots, but from the freeway at 200 feet, it looks like a painting or nice graphic.

This is why pixel peepers, who obsessively look at their photos from 4 inches when it the print is going to be a large one to be viewed at 6 feet away, really do not understand this concept.

The importance of viewing distance and density was understood by people for centuries. One need only look at frescoes in Europe which look like paintings until one gets close. Or, something more relevant near me, in the Ronald Reagan Library there is a large portrait of Pres. Reagan. From afar, it looks like a somewhat modernistic portrait. Up close, it becomes apparent that it was a mosaic made with jellybeans. Its all about viewing distance.

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2023 11:12:50   #
Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky
 
Hip Coyote wrote:
I am a huge fan of the iPhone, but......

One could have taken a 72 or a 1172 inch photo with an iPhone years ago. What seems to confound people is the relationship of viewing distance and resolution of the print. For example, a billboard may be printed using dots that are a 1/2 inch. Up close it looks like dots, but from the freeway at 200 feet, it looks like a painting or nice graphic.

This is why pixel peepers, who obsessively look at their photos from 4 inches when it the print is going to be a large one to be viewed at 6 feet away, really do not understand this concept.

The importance of viewing distance and density was understood by people for centuries. One need only look at frescoes in Europe which look like paintings until one gets close. Or, something more relevant near me, in the Ronald Reagan Library there is a large portrait of Pres. Reagan. From afar, it looks like a somewhat modernistic portrait. Up close, it becomes apparent that it was a mosaic made with jellybeans. Its all about viewing distance.
I am a huge fan of the iPhone, but...... br br On... (show quote)


Totally agree, I have 3 16x24 prints hanging on the wall side by side. 2 of them are IPhone images, 1 is a DSLR. You can't tell the difference. They all look great from a normal viewing distance.

Reply
May 8, 2023 13:37:12   #
bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri
 
Pretty impressive results for a dinky little sensor less than 1/4” across. Of course the final product needed an auxiliary lens, Superman style processing and Godzilla type printing. I wonder what the final $ cost was? As Hip Coyote mentioned, a nice image can be made out of jelly beans. It all depends upon how much work and expense you want to put into it. Without a doubt an image of equal size and quality could have been made using a DSLR or mirrorless camera, only with a lot less input of time, work and money.

I know I sound like sour grapes, but the old saying, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” applies here. There’s are times when physics simply can’t be ignored. And no modern technology can overcome those physics limitations. You might be able to sidestep those limitations to some extent, but always at the expense of something else. I won’t go into tedious detail, but anyone knowledgeable about reciprocating engines knows that horsepower always comes at an expense, physical or monetary. Like a teeter totter, for every up there’s a down. As cell phone cameras get better and better, there will be some things that are lost. Money, durability, flexibility, something.

Reply
May 9, 2023 06:18:02   #
dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida
 
Beware of DSLR going the way of ICE, gasoline cars. The camera phone revolution has begun and will continue to improve.

Reply
May 9, 2023 08:26:08   #
agillot
 
Was at an ROTC event in a high school auditorium . Cant use a flash .Dont waste your time with a dslr , the i phone or tablets takes bright pictures or videos of the event .Cant do that with a d7100 .Was shooting at 1/90 sec hand held, 2000 iso , wide open f 3.5 .

Reply
 
 
May 9, 2023 08:33:25   #
Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky
 
agillot wrote:
Was at an ROTC event in a high school auditorium . Cant use a flash .Dont waste your time with a dslr , the i phone or tablets takes bright pictures or videos of the event .Cant do that with a d7100 .Was shooting at 1/90 sec hand held, 2000 iso , wide open f 3.5 .



Reply
May 9, 2023 16:23:49   #
bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri
 
The one thing that can’t be overlooked is the physical size. Remember the little calculator/wrist watch combos from way back when? What could be more handy than having a calculator with you at all times that is less than 1/10th the size of the average cell phone? Yet you never see them anymore. The reason? Electronics are capable of being made far smaller than the average person’s finger and even though the calcu-watch was really cool, most people’s fingers were too big to hit just one button at a time. I’m sure the time will come when cell cameras are much smaller than they are now. Unless some revolutionary technology is developed, the battery is what will determine how small a cell phone can be. When it comes to long telephoto shots, size and weight works in your favor, especially under windy conditions. Just wait for the time you are on top of Pikes Peak in 40 mph winds and whip out your credit card sized cell phone, zoom it in to a 2,000 mm effective focal length and try to get a clear shot, even with the super stabilization on.

As I mentioned before, you can’t change physics. Ride a 300 pound and an 800 pound motorcycle in strong sidewinds and see which is more stable. It doesn’t matter how aerodynamic and how much horsepower the little bike has, the big bike is more stable, easier to control and ultimately safer to ride. Any biker can vouch for that. Technology cannot trump physics.
Just that simple.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.