Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Could Herald Interchangeable iPhone Camera Lenses
concertina226 (2447056) writes with this excerpt from IBTimes: "Apple has been granted a patent for interchangeable camera lenses — which could be used on the up-coming iPhone 6. The application was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in remarkably quick time, according to Patently Apple. Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad. A bayonet mount is a fastening mechanism which is typically seen on cameras, used to attach lenses to the camera body. At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
wow, you mean like the 5s
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Perfect for trench warfare!
No prior art here. A completely unique idea. I hand it to Apple for inventing the bayonet mount- on a computer.
Lenses seem like a natural progression.
The bayonet mount of my camera does not need to protude out of it. And neither did it, but having it protuding out of the body is certainly not an improvement, nor really innovative :)
Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad.
Great.
Stick a black synthetic stock and a large capacity SD card on that bad boy, and Diane Feinstein will demand it be banned.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
because they just patent the apple attacher - and then just sue anyone doing the same with a smartphone.
also, the summary is incorrectly worded, because there have been many(more than 3) smartphones with moving zoom optics in the past decade(samsung has a model now that is basically an android phone bolted to a moderately sized pocket camera.).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Why? Because patents don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. Here's one from a DOZEN YEARS AGO about an Apple patent on color-changing cases. Still waiting for those...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I'm guessing "for a smartphone" is the new part, just like new patents based on old ideas are approved when you add "on the Internet" to it.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I dont understand how this could be patented if it is already a thing, just on a different piece of hardware.
It's because it includes the phrase "on a computer".
You see, in addition to their computational uses, computers also have a "human memory erasure" capability. When you bring a computer near humans working with any old technology, all memory of that technology is erased, and the humans have to learn about its use from scratch.
This is a well-known phenomenon in the field of patent law, and is a major source of income for patent lawyers. And for the companies that manufacture the old technology, which becomes patentable when in proximity to a computer.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Hell, i've got a shelf full of bayonet lenses for my film making endeavors.. Seriously, just because you make the phone come with a built-in mount, I'm not so sure that's patentable. We've been asking for that kind of crap for awhile now for those of us interested in shooting film (errrrrm... video) on cellphones (nokie n8 and 1020, for example). I mean, good on you, Apple, release it! But a patent?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Would the concept modular phone that was floating around some months ago constitute prior art? I remember it had just such a concept. It should at least be proof of non-originality (not that this would really matter legally speaking, unless it's actual prior art). How would this be affected by the recent patent changes where it's now "first to file" vs. "first to describe"?
Apple receives patent #999666 for "power adaptor allows handheld device to be charged from AC mains" and patent #666999 for "Handheld device User-interface buttons".
I hope this is an April Fools joke. How long have cameras had a bayonet lens mount?
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
I'm sorry but this has existed in one form or other on hundreds of different cameras for many decades! Simply adding one more camera to the list (iPhone) does not make it a new and patentable device! Clearly this is prior art and the patent should have been rejected by the patent office.
A bizarre comment, since the whole point is NOT to be stuck with the tiny lens. As for the shitty sensor, like it or not but smartphones get the newest and best sensor technology first because that is the mass market, for example the iPhone 4 was one of the first consumer products with a backside illumination sensor. The old conventional wisdom was that "physics is physics" so nothing mattered by sensor size; that has been disproven.
I don't know why Apple would ever add a bayonet mount to a camera, it really messes with the smooth look they go for and makes for something really easy to break on a camera. Also anything recessed on a camera is going to get really dirty, and be very hard to clean - so this would mess with the camera for most people who never wanted to attach other lenses.
Instead I would expect them to do something like a magnetic mount - they could easily place a steel ring around the lens opening, even just under the surface, that lenses could clamp onto via magnets. External lenses don't need to be mounted in any particular orientation, just straight over the camera lens...
Also why is the story talking about adjustable lenses? That's not what the patent is about. It's only about the mount. Its not like I cannot already buy an iPhone case that has such a mount and attach lenses as it is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the patent is for lens mount that decouples itself in the event that the phone is dropped-- potentially reducing the damage to the phone and lens.
It is true that sensors in top of the line phones get the latest technology. However, they also get low budget versions of that technology and they *are* tiny compared to full frame and medium format cameras.
One of the reasons people still use those bigger sensors is that the quality of the lens system used is less critical to prevent distortion if your sensor is bigger. If you use a 4*3 meter sensor (your wall) you can get amazing pictures with just a tiny hole in the curtains, you can do away with a lens completely. This scales up and down, so the more area, the better the image quality given the same quality of lens.
Also you can get a much better control over depth of field with larger sensors. If you have a larger aperture you get a more shallow depth of field, giving you the option to blur the back and foreground. Aperture sizes larger than your sensor aren't effective any more, so tiny sensors can only go so far when it comes to shallow DOF.
Lastly the "compression" of your subject (how big their nose is if you get closer to their face to fill the frame) gives more natural looks if you use bigger sensors. The same sort of physics apply here. Bigger sensors equal bigger focal lengths of the lenses to get the entire sensor exposed properly with the same composition. That means that you get less of a fish eye effect and people in general look more pleasing when photographed with a bigger sensor style camera.
Apart from all these reasons, I despise smart phone cameras because they aren't instant ready and I haven't found one phone+app that will let me control things like focus points, ISO sensitivity, white balance and such. Maybe they are out there, but they must be in telephones that cost way more than a much better dedicated camera so I have never looked at them. Horrible ergonomics make even the best sensor and lens totally useless for anything but casual snap shots. Given the same price, I'd rather have a decent camera with an older generation sensor and lens than the latest smart phone with a horrible user interface and the typical 300+ ms lag between grabbing the device and being able to take a picture.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
There should be a mod "+1 Actually read the f'ing patent". Thank you.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
I used to look forward annually to see what would come outâ¦why did they do away with it?
Seriously, one day of OMG Poniesâ¦was fun and funny.
RIP April Fools on Slashdot.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So? There are numerous photographers doing amazing work with "shitty sensors and tiny lenses". An iPhone camera is every bit as much a real camera as the latest four figure offering from Canon or Nikon. A camera is only a sensor or surface for collecting light combined with something to focus the light onto that sensor or surface after all.
Only a fool, a poseur, or a computer nerd thinks that you absolutely must have the best top end gear to do worthwhile work.
patents have expired, and there are millions of lenses out there.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
when you can't tell whether an Apple patent story is serious or an April Fools joke.
Apple's patent was pretty specific - and probably intended to prevent third-party manufacturers from making attachable lenses for iJunk without cutting Apple in for a slice of the pie. If somebody were to devise a (similar but different) mechanism for a non-Apple smartphone, it would almost certainly differ sufficiently from Apple's mechanism to be allowed (but only after Apple attempted to sue and get an injunction, of course). Again - *Sigh*.
Let's also remember one other point - All the iPhones in existence were made by Apple, to the best of my knowledge. There are many manufacturers of Android devices. Apple may well be able to standardize their bayonet mount (their bat, their ball, their rules), but within the Android ecosystem such an item would require cooperation and buy-in from a majority of Android device manufacturers. Ever seen a horse designed by a committee? We call it a 'camel'.
And there, right in the summary we have:
At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
The need have been shown by third party, the next natural step is to integrate it. There is no reason for this patent to be granted. Hopefully it is a joke but sadly enough it as obvious as it should be.
Okay, from all the silly things said in this discussion, this sure is in the top three - "because there are third party products, doing it different than any of them is totally obvious."
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"$PriorArt, on a phone."
Innovation worthy of a patent, indeed. >_>
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
it's plan b for the kill switch legislation
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Because of patent issues in the 1950s, Exacta 35mm cameras had the film on the right and the takeup reel on the left. You advance the firm with your left thumb.
Clockwise/counterclockwise lens mechanisms is trivial by comparison.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
or, "with a computer."
Credo sim. - I think I am.
Doesn't Nikon already own this patent?
Except that the laws of physics dictate that equipment below certain size will have to compromise on at least some parameters. In this case, low-light conditions will probably suffer the most. Something like Sony DSC-QX10 (perhaps in a slightly more compact version) makes actually more sense to me.
Ezekiel 23:20
True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense), that doesn't necessarily translate into better pictures (in the artistic sense). Many think, as the grandparents seems to, that the former is a synonym for the latter - it isn't. While a better light capturing box will allow the photographer to do more things, ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box.
It's a simple bayonet with the added feature of one of fittings clips being able to move outwards in the event the attachment is knocked so the clip doesn't snap off.
"that has been disproven."
Care to share that proof?
"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"
"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."
And two seconds later you conflate the terms again. ;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.
Back on topic. A detachable lens on a phone (with all it's inherent limitations) will be useful for some people for casual photography. Amazingly high quality Nikon and Canon digital SLR cameras are available for not much money these days.
"just as Canon Patented the EOS mount, Nikon patented the F mount..."
Which is just as shitty. Whomever made the original camera bayonet mount maybe deserves protection. Everything else is a derivation or iteration of that.
"And two seconds later you conflate the terms again."
If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say.
"I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor."
Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously.
I already cited an example of a specific improvement in sensitivity for a given sensor size.
"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."
Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not a problem, you just need to adjust how you're writing.
"Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously."
Which is "Or use a real camera". And how does that relate to the artistic merit of photographs?
The reality is small sensors and lenses have serious limitations in light collecting ability and it is to the detriment of the photograph.
I mean a scientific paper. Or industry whitepaper. If you please - you're not obliged - I'm genuinely interested.
Cheers.
Unless the new phone has a lense that's more susceptible to damage, I'm not sure how useful this is. Almost every incident of damaged iPhones I've seen is a cracked front screen (digitizer/LCD), not a broken camera lense.