Apple 13 Series SUFFER NEW lens flaring / ghosting

[demoboy]

I was so optimistic, but at the same time naive.... until Apple PARTNERS with a proper Lens Manufacturer it isn't suitable for all range shooting. the detail from the new sensor captures the reflections from the lens even more prominently.

I think the only phone that can compete is Sony's Xperia 1 III which they PARTICULARLY market flare removal with their T Coating Patents. Sucks because Dolby Vision looks great, but niche filmmakers using flagship phones have to watch out for particular light passing through the lens.

The solution is simple. Apple should bite the bullet and partner and contract with an elite or rogue lens team to tell them what's needed. The cost is worth it.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Making the aperture larger may help in low light but all of us that sometimes comes at a price. Plus not to mention each new iPhone needs t crank the shutter speed even more to expose outdoors in sunlight. ND filtering is going to have to keep getting stronger. Plus where does Apple go from a f1.6 lens? Should they keep opening that up and potentially run into other issues? At some point they are going to need better sensor technology and some form of electronic ND filtering or a super tiny aperture.

 

[demoboy]

Making the aperture larger may help in low light but all of us that sometimes comes at a price. Plus not to mention each new iPhone needs t crank the shutter speed even more to expose outdoors in sunlight. ND filtering is going to have to keep getting stronger. Plus where does Apple go from a f1.6 lens? Should they keep opening that up and potentially run into other issues? At some point they are going to need better sensor technology and some form of electronic ND filtering or a super tiny aperture.

I'm trying to understand the dual lens reflection from those stills.

 

[demoboy]

Making the aperture larger may help in low light but all of us that sometimes comes at a price. Plus not to mention each new iPhone needs t crank the shutter speed even more to expose outdoors in sunlight. ND filtering is going to have to keep getting stronger. Plus where does Apple go from a f1.6 lens? Should they keep opening that up and potentially run into other issues? At some point they are going to need better sensor technology and some form of electronic ND filtering or a super tiny aperture.

I've also noticed that iPhone 13's cinematic mode feature, objects in focus have a feathering at all ends. You can see the feathering when focusing on foreground or background. I remember Potato Jet doing a video on the Samsung 8K phones and there was an option in some focus mode that feathers around the subject. I don't know what's going on but in the new Whodunnit video you can see feathering around objects. I rather still just use A B rack focusing from Filmic Pro. I don't know what's going on in this cinematic mode. YOu guys should look at it.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I've also noticed that iPhone 13's cinematic mode feature, objects in focus have a feathering at all ends. You can see the feathering when focusing on foreground or background. I remember Potato Jet doing a video on the Samsung 8K phones and there was an option in some focus mode that feathers around the subject. I don't know what's going on but in the new Whodunnit video you can see feathering around objects. I rather still just use A B rack focusing from Filmic Pro. I don't know what's going on in this cinematic mode. YOu guys should look at it.

It works like portrait mode where it takes the video from two lenses to create a sort of depth map. Like an alpha channel but values to indicate the different between the perspective and focal planes of the two lenses.

It then uses that to apply blur to the image in selective regions based n the depth map. Thats why in post a slider can be used to shift which part is in focus. In 3D animation we sometimes use z-depth maps in a similar way where in post we can adjust blur or isolate different regions based on the depth of the scene.

The problem is its pretty much a fake. Even with the photo portrait mode you can sometimes see a lot of odd glitches that are nothing like what real optics would do. For example if a person has their hand on their hip the tiny region between their arm and body will have the background completely in focus while the rest of the background is out of focus. The depth map created isn't 100% accurate and the edges are not exactly the same as how optics would treat the edges. Think of a chroma key where you blur the edges and it creates an odd soft edge that just doesn't look right. Thats kind of what Apple is doing. Like keying out a person on a green screen and doing a crude key and then blurring the background but when you did the key you missed parts. In this case the foreground and background are similar.

Its a cool effect and creates a look that would physically be impossible on a phone camera but it is just not the same thing as doing it for real.

I'm really shocked people are considering this such a game changer. Its really just Apple trying to do something we have all done for a decade now. Yes its cool it can be adjusted in post but what creative person on set wouldn't know what they want to focus on while shooting? Its only a game changer for those clueless about film making and having the option to experiment. For the rest of us it provides almost no creative or quality advantage over what tools we already have.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm really shocked people are considering this such a game changer. Its really just Apple trying to do something we have all done for a decade now. Yes its cool it can be adjusted in post but what creative person on set wouldn't know what they want to focus on while shooting? Its only a game changer for those clueless about film making and having the option to experiment. For the rest of us it provides almost no creative or quality advantage over what tools we already have.

I totally agree with your post. But just to play devil's advocate - I think there are some impossible focus shots that could be interesting and can't be achieved without trickery.

For example, just from shooting weddings (since I do a lot of them) - I often get a CU shot of the groom's face while his bride is approaching him from behind in the distance for their first look. And I will rack from his face to her and back. It could be interesting to start the shot with only her in focus and then bring his face into focus as well, so you can see them both clearly simultaneously rather than just one at a time. To do it with normal optics and no trickery, you would have to close your aperture way down mid-shot to radically expand your DOF and then compensate for your exposure via ND or gain. But it would be even cooler if, through trickery, your bring the plane of his face into focus but everything between them and behind her is still out of focus. I'm not sure if that would just look weird, but it could be cool. Like a split-focus diopter. But of course, there's no reason you have to accomplish this shot with a PHONE instead of a camera with similar technology

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

It's not a BUG, it's a FEATURE.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I totally agree with your post. But just to play devil's advocate - I think there are some impossible focus shots that could be interesting and can't be achieved without trickery.

For example, just from shooting weddings (since I do a lot of them) - I often get a CU shot of the groom's face while his bride is approaching him from behind in the distance for their first look. And I will rack from his face to her and back. It could be interesting to start the shot with only her in focus and then bring his face into focus as well, so you can see them both clearly simultaneously rather than just one at a time. To do it with normal optics and no trickery, you would have to close your aperture way down mid-shot to radically expand your DOF and then compensate for your exposure via ND or gain. But it would be even cooler if, through trickery, your bring the plane of his face into focus but everything between them and behind her is still out of focus. I'm not sure if that would just look weird, but it could be cool. Like a split-focus diopter. But of course, there's no reason you have to accomplish this shot with a PHONE instead of a camera with similar technology

I agree that sometimes it will be very useful. Any tool can have a great use but it kind of becomes like a fisheye lens or a star flare filter. It can be a neat creative tool at times and other times its best to not use it. Thats where I think its a mistake to just think oh here Apple solved it all and this is the future. Almost everything Apple does on the iPhone is a processed simulation of the real thing. Maybe that's ok to some but to others I'm not sure it ever will. We are in an age now where we are moving away from m43 and APSC to FF sensors. We are also moving away from video compression towards raw formats like Braw.

I want to make it clear that I do think this is awesome. I also think it opens up cool options for a lot of people not like us. There are times when people will look at whats created with it and think oh wow that looks just like a $100,000 camera because frankly they don't really know any better. Then there will be times when people will look at it and ask why does it look off and so wrong or why is it so limited and we can only do this or that.

Every time Apple does some neat new thing with the iPhone video there is an insane amount of hype and yet completely ignore all the flaws it has. By the same people that will nitpick and crucify other video cameras for excluding a headphone jack or not providing a 10bit option. I just find it strange how Apple always gets a free pass to cut so many corners just because they invented something neat.

For me its an absolutely deal breaker to have to adjust shutter speed outdoors in sunlight as the only way to expose the image. I find it insane that we just cannot shoot with a 180 degree shutter outdoors on these camera after all these years. There are some decent vND options out there but they add more to the cost of a camera that should do that out of the box. Plus thats a purely manual operation and there is no auto way to maintain exposure without altering the shutter speed. I just cannot believe so many ignore that rather critical flaw of professional video. Yes shutter speed can be a creative choice but for the most part it should not be. Plus if a film does use a different shutter speed for creative reasons they stick with that shutter and not let the camera chnage it based on lighting. Instead of adding all this cool whiz bang stuff I would love to see Apple solve that.

 

[demoboy]

I agree that sometimes it will be very useful. Any tool can have a great use but it kind of becomes like a fisheye lens or a star flare filter. It can be a neat creative tool at times and other times its best to not use it. Thats where I think its a mistake to just think oh here Apple solved it all and this is the future. Almost everything Apple does on the iPhone is a processed simulation of the real thing. Maybe that's ok to some but to others I'm not sure it ever will. We are in an age now where we are moving away from m43 and APSC to FF sensors. We are also moving away from video compression towards raw formats like Braw.

I want to make it clear that I do think this is awesome. I also think it opens up cool options for a lot of people not like us. There are times when people will look at whats created with it and think oh wow that looks just like a $100,000 camera because frankly they don't really know any better. Then there will be times when people will look at it and ask why does it look off and so wrong or why is it so limited and we can only do this or that.

Every time Apple does some neat new thing with the iPhone video there is an insane amount of hype and yet completely ignore all the flaws it has. By the same people that will nitpick and crucify other video cameras for excluding a headphone jack or not providing a 10bit option. I just find it strange how Apple always gets a free pass to cut so many corners just because they invented something neat.

For me its an absolutely deal breaker to have to adjust shutter speed outdoors in sunlight as the only way to expose the image. I find it insane that we just cannot shoot with a 180 degree shutter outdoors on these camera after all these years. There are some decent vND options out there but they add more to the cost of a camera that should do that out of the box. Plus thats a purely manual operation and there is no auto way to maintain exposure without altering the shutter speed. I just cannot believe so many ignore that rather critical flaw of professional video. Yes shutter speed can be a creative choice but for the most part it should not be. Plus if a film does use a different shutter speed for creative reasons they stick with that shutter and not let the camera chnage it based on lighting. Instead of adding all this cool whiz bang stuff I would love to see Apple solve that.

I feel Janusz Kamiński should get royalties whenever someone shoots with an iPhone and its big sensor! lol

 

[cyvideo]

I often get a CU shot of the groom's face while his bride is approaching him from behind in the distance for their first look. And I will rack from his face to her and back. It could be interesting to start the shot with only her in focus and then bring his face into focus as well, so you can see them both clearly simultaneously rather than just one at a time.

Check out the video down the page titled "Seamless depth-of-field control". Is that the sort of effect you are chasing? Very easily obtained with Sony's electronic variable ND on their video cameras.

Chris Young

https://pro.sony/en_GL/technology/variable-auto-nd-filter-technology

Or this video shows similar techniques. Film example at the end. Again using variable NDs

 

[NorBro]

Without the exposure change...tech for the future, if doable.

 

[NorBro]

On a related note:

If patents are currently protecting this tech to be included inside of non-Sony cameras without external modules like Z CAM's (IDK), it was only a matter of time before it arrived in matte boxes and maybe lenses, too. (Obviously there are variable ND filters but those are mechanical).

https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/09/...rs-first-look/

 

[ahalpert]

Check out the video down the page titled "Seamless depth-of-field control". Is that the sort of effect you are chasing? Very easily obtained with Sony's electronic variable ND on their video cameras.

Chris Young

https://pro.sony/en_GL/technology/variable-auto-nd-filter-technology

Or this video shows similar techniques. Film example at the end. Again using variable NDs

Yeah that's the idea although I think it would be cool to do it with 2 shallow DOF planes on each subject (similar to split focus diopter but without a split in the screen). Also I'm not sure I can get enough dof even at f/22 on full-frame 100mm+ to capture CU of groom and wide of bride 20ft behind him over his shoulder

But yeah I would try that in a heartbeat if my a7siii had eND. Maybe ill try it with shutter priority and rack my variable ND. It could be fun

 

[ahalpert]

On a related note:

If patents are currently protecting this tech to be included inside of non-Sony cameras without external modules like Z CAM's (IDK), it was only a matter of time before it arrived in matte boxes and maybe lenses, too. (Obviously there are variable ND filters but those are mechanical).

https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/09/...rs-first-look/

This is variable ND not eND?

 

[NorBro]

Yeah, variable ND, controlled electronically.

 

[demoboy]

So the cinematic mode teasers were done in 30fps? No wonder the actors were directed to not move much....

 

[demoboy]

 

[NorBro]

I briefly posted something about it the other day in the other thread, but deleted it because I noticed the other videos Apple uploaded were 24p and some were 30p so I wasn't sure what's up.

But the way companies write those specs usually mean to include 24p.

I can't imagine 24p not being included for a phone that's pushing video like this.

 

[Run&Gun]

So the cinematic mode teasers were done in 30fps? No wonder the actors were directed to not move much....

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that... I'm not a fan of 30p, but you wouldn't be shooting "cinematic mode" in 60 and 24(what we would normally shoot) is 20% less frames per second.

 

[Thomas Smet]

At one point the iPhone did not provide 24p so don't just assume its there for cinematic mode. To this day we only get 24p when shooting 4k and don't have it as an option for 1080p unless you use Filmic Pro. Plus there are other special modes on the iPhone that are limited to 30p for whatever reason. There is an app that can export tracking data from the iPhone to use in a animation scene but right now it only supports 30p and not 24p. I think for the same reason because it only uses 1080p mode and there is no 24p option without using Filmic Pro.

Since cinematic mode is limited to 1080 it could very well only support 30p and not 24p. That is unless Apple finally added 24p to its 1080p mode. If you go into the camera settings in the settings app you will see only 4k has a 24p option. This is on my iPhone 11 Pro Max and the latest iOS. Maybe that will change with the iPhone 13 and iOS 15 to make cinematic mode support 24p. Maybe thats why some videos are 30p with an older beta version and some may be 24p.

I have never been all that impressed with the 1080p video quality on the iPhone. 4k tends to hide some of the over processing and artifacts the iPhone has but with 1080 a lot of that ugliness can show up.