Slashdot Mirror
Apple Acknowledges iPhone 5 Camera Flaw
An anonymous reader writes "Many iPhone 5 users are complaining that its camera is adding a purple flare to their photos. Speculation is that it's caused by the new sapphire lens cover that Apple touted as 'thinner and more durable than standard glass with the ability to provide crystal clear images.' Apple's response to those who've complained? 'The purple flare in the image provided is considered normal behavior for iPhone 5's camera.'"
that returning a defective phone is also considered normal behaviour.
Camera review site (known for not being slanted in their reviews) to the iPhone 5 for an initial review (longer one comparing to other phones will come later) and dedicated a whole page analyzing the flare issue. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6867454450/quick-review-apple-iphone-5-camera Here's their analysis of the flare issue: "Really, our advice is not to worry. Just do what you should do anyway, and avoid putting bright lights near the edge of the frame when shooting." Their final conclusion on the 5's camera: "The iPhone 5 is a fine mobile device, with an excellent camera. In qualititative terms it's not the best camera out there, and nor is it the best camera on a smartphone (the Nokia 808 has that honor, for now) but it offers satisfying image quality, some neat functions like auto panorama and HDR mode, and - crucially - it is supremely easy to use. It isn't much better than the iPhone 4S, as far as its photographic performance is concerned, but it isn't any worse (notwithstanding a somewhat more noticeable propensity towards lens flare). When manufacturers employ pixel-binning to achieve higher ISO settings we don't normally celebrate the fact, but in the case of the iPhone 5, it gives you greater flexibility in poor light (i.e., you might actually get a picture now, where you just wouldn't with the iPhone 4S) and the drop in quality is unnoticeable when the images are used for sharing/web display."
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/10/01/purple-flare-test-iphone-5-vs-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-vs-htc-one-s/
Bottom line: The latest and greatest iPhone 5 was clearly the worst offender of the bunch.
Every optical element shows some sort of dispersion. "Simply" to control when you have the space (like in objectives of real cameras, microscopes or binoculars) but not so easy when your optical element is a simple plate with parallel faces (like a protective glass cover) or a tiny lens. Combine a tiny lens with a tiny CCD and you're out of luck when you hit a difficult to control lighting situation. 8 MP on smartphone "cameras" with tiny optics and tiny CCD-chips is a waste of storage space anyway. You can't get the required optical resolution. Simple physics.
It is not a flaw with the iPhone camera but rather a limitation of the optics of the camera lens that causes chromatic aberration. This is a well-known phenomenon that is is most prevalent in high contrast situations with any camera (unless you spend $$$ for a high-end lens). Taking a picture with the sun high overhead against a dark background is an excellent way to highlight chromatic aberration. The advice from Apple Support is correct in that the user of camera should recompose their picture rather than stir up controversy with blog posts. You'll also note that the pictures on the link are similar but not framed quite identically, which exacerbates to chromatic aberration. And I won't even get into the ridiculous comparison of the fixed focal length iPhone cameras with a professional level Nikon D300.
For a more detailed description and how to avoid it (or fix it - perhaps with iPhoto which is likely installed on your iPhone)
http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/photography-tutorials/correcting-and-preventing-chromatic-aberration/
The only reason I would buy an iPhone is if I could run a nuclear power plant with it. My compost heap already makes the biological weapons, they're called "flies".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The iPhone4 didn't do this.
The iPhone 4S did. Not sure about the iPhone 4.
http://5.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/iphone-5-haze-on-the-4s.jpg
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/26/the-iphone-5s-camera-suffering-purple-haze-flaw-not-fast/
And yet it went without comment before. Why? It's a damn good camera for a phone, but it's not a DSLR. It's impossible to have DSLR level photography from phone that's 7.6 mm thick.
Here are photo comparisons with the 4s that do show the 4s with purple fringing.
http://5.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/iphone-5-haze-on-the-4s.jpg [mshcdn.com]
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/26/the-iphone-5s-camera-suffering-purple-haze-flaw-not-fast/ [thenextweb.com]
Note that camera angle to light source is critical, to get the effect to show up on either phone. In your example comparison, if the photographer tried a bit more he could probably have found the angle to make the purple flare show on the 4S too.
This is a lot of fuss about nothing. But we're used to that with iPhone stories. No other phone gets this level of close examination for flaws. Not enough people care about other phones.
No, other cameras do not "manage it fine". I've got $3,000 lenses, and if you catch a bright source at the wrong angle, you get flare.
Bingo. I have a camera modified to allow infra-red and that is almost exactly what it looks like before any other filters are used.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
There was no purple flare camera issue on the iPhone 4 / 4S
Not true. There was just no hysterical news vomit about it.
http://5.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/iphone-5-haze-on-the-4s.jpg
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/26/the-iphone-5s-camera-suffering-purple-haze-flaw-not-fast/
Nah, this is now "rearrange nature." If the sun is in your way. move it. Want to take a picture of your child running in the sprinklers on a sunny day? well that's a moment that cannot be captured.
And the Apple fanboys say if you don't want a camera that adds purple flares (all cameras apparently do this) then get a professional level Nikon D300. Those are your only choices so quit complaining that you didn't get the professional level Nikon D300.
Now, my iPod Touch and Droid phone don't add purple flare. Obviously, these products are either 1) inferior garbage that can't capture the true color spectrum or 2) actually professional level Nikon D300's in disguise.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/26/the-iphone-5s-camera-suffering-purple-haze-flaw-not-fast/ Look at the comparison shots.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
I think GP meant that we then generally still perceive the wall as being white. At least, I hope he did.
Best optical illusion that illustrates this I've seen to date: http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/checker-shadow
Since the hardware hacking crowd has already taken apart the iPhone 5 & discovered that the camera is identical to the iPhone 4S, I'd say you're on to something.
The only thing that changed was the sapphire cover.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Except, as linked earlier in this thread, the iPhone 4S has the exact same "problem", it just happens in margionally different circumstances. The reason that both the 4S and 5 have it is because they both have saphire scratch resistant lens covers, because this is a phone, not a camera.
Gizmodo are making something out of nothing, as always.
I'd like to make a rather pedantic point of clarification here: it is a "chromatic aberration" in the general sense that the system images spurious color, but it is not an aberration caused by dispersion (the variation of refractive index as a function of wavelength), nor is it a Seidel aberration.
If the purple hue comes from incomplete filtering of wavelengths outside the visible range, then it would be easy to test this theory by simply taking four kinds of photos: one that shows the flare with the unmodified camera, one of the same scene with a UV filter placed in front of the lens, a third with an IR filter placed in front of the lens, and finally, one with both UV + IR filters.
In 1986, James Doohan demonstrated a slight purple flare when transporting live sea creatures into/out of transparent aluminum (sapphire) aquariums.
They used a Klingon transporter to do the beaming... The transporter effect was orange.
Double dumb ass.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)