We've already asked you to please not do this! We do ban accounts that continue to violate the guidelines in this way.
Ever think that might be because you harassed and banned everyone who thought differently?
That you've created a monoculture, as a result of your crusade against diversity, and thus there's not much to talk about when everyone is exactly like you and agrees on everything?
Maybe that's why. At any rate, your ideological based moderation and anti-intellectualism is not working.
Why isn't dang banned for his abuse and harassment of people?
You force me to edit my comment because you slow banned me. which means I can't respond to the people who are being abuseive.
Your moderation policy favors and encourages abuse...which is shown by the abuse that dang heaped on someone earlier (Which I identified to you.)
Again, why isn't dang banned?
You don't get to pretend like I did something wrong when you're being completely dishonest and hypocritical.
You set up the rules that prevent me from responding, you have carefully cultivated a culture where those who agree with you ideologically know they can be abusive without risk, and you hellban people for, for instance, the crime of linking to scientific articles that disagree with your ideology.
Literally, I once created an account that had one and only one submission before it was hellbanned-- a comment link in to an article that undermined the global warming hypothesis, the "article" as published in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The link was the totality of the comment and it was relevant to the discussion. You cannot justify that, it is proof positive that the moderation policy of this site is ideological, and has nothing to do with civility or being substantive.
Of course you're going to ban me- this site cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with your hardcore leftist ideology, and technology views, no matter how civil. You harass them, as you have harassed me, you abuse them as I caught dang abusing someone before, and then you ban them.
You insist on an echo chamber. Enjoy it. But don't for a second pretend like you have any moral high ground, you lying piece of shit.
Do you even realize you're an anti-intellectual?
--------------------
The censored comment was: [Sigh, despite giving a description of how this works, meaning that aperture and sensor size are actually irrelevant, I'm being downvoted to hell, for the "crime" of pointing out how Apple has done something new. Most of the comments are ignorant, and obviously fanboy nonsense. This site does not appreciate substantive and civil comments when said comments go against its biases (in this case, hatred of Apple and love of all things google.) Further, because I am slow banned I cannot even reply to people. Therefore, I have given a substantive and civil comment, it is being misrepresented and I can't respond. Fuck this bullshit. You don't get to see what I said originally.]
Proof hacker news does not give a fuck about substantive and civil discussion, but only about agreeing with the moderators ideology.
Enjoy your echo chamber!
(and yes, I expect to be banned. I knew creating an account I would be banned because this site is run by assholes who will not follow their own rules and when caught breaking them, they delete the comments exposing their hypocrisy.)
And it doesn't work like a DSLR (since a DSLR doesn't simulate DoF, it accomplishes it optically). Apple is just using its two cameras to focus on two different points then using software to intersplice those two pictures into one, that isn't real shallow DoF, that is just a software trick (least of all because bokeh will have to be simulated, since it doesn't exist optically).
I'd also like to add that the samples Apple have released to the press look REALLY bad.
[0] https://research.googleblog.com/2014/04/lens-blur-in-new-goo...
I'm being a bit pedantic, but these conversations are mostly missing the third important variable. You need to know aperature, sensor/film size, and distance.
Your pedantry is extremely misleading. For any subject with any framing, an f/1.8 on a tiny sensor will deliver far, far less background blur than an f/1.8 on a full frame. Probably less than even an f/5.6 on a full frame.
A big issue being glossed over is that depth of field and background blur are not actually the same thing. Focal length makes a big difference in how blurred the background looks but little difference in actual depth of field. When people talk about wanting shallow depth of field for portraiture or sports photography, they largely want heavy background blur.
My point was that you can't really talk about bokeh without considering subject distance relative to effective length. That shouldn't be controversial. You're right that background blur and DOF but even that is an oversimplification (circle of confusion comes in here, "sensor size" is a proxy for this but flawed). This wasn't intended to be misleading, just pointing out that the conversation was too superficial.
It's true (and I didn't deny it) that a phone sensor won't do this for typical portraiture.
It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling.
Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane.
The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems.
Sure. But that's frankly overcomplicating things. The people considering the iPhone 7 [Plus] as their camera don't need a detailed discussion of the factors that affect depth of field. Hell, Apple was calling this Bokeh. What the typical consumer needs to understand is that a large aperture on their phone won't make it take pictures that look like a DSLR.
> It doesn't look like the iPhone 7+ will really do this either, but employ some software tricks and perhaps a rough depth map to do slightly better than a simple filter would. The examples seen so far were hardly compelling.
Yeah, I don't have high hopes for this either.
> Fwiw, depth of blur for portraiture and sports photography are usually achieved through different mechanisms anyway, on being focal plane location and the other (mostly) motion relative to that plane
I'm not sure what mean here. I'm not aware of anyone doing lots of portraiture that involves any motion at all. And sports photography is typically shot with a fast enough shutter to largely freeze any action. The obliterated backgrounds in portraiture and sports photography is mostly achieved by using long lenses wide open.
> The "portrait" look that most people actual want is achieved through foreshortening as well as blur, and you aren't going to achieve that with the (typically quite wide) optics on a smart phone. Even the 7+ "tele" is actually a normal, it seems.
I agree, though I think more people are conscious of the blur than the perspective difference.
Wrt sports photography, sure you shoot long and open like portraiture, but for sports you are trying to freeze motion. You usually do this by getting a fast enough exposure and also tracking the subject. As a result in many/most situations the background is moving faster relative to the subject than the subjects motions are (in this frame of reference). Hence blurring, even if the optics alone wouldn't give you much...
The small lens diameter in mobile phones yields larger depth of fields than DSLRs with large lenses, so the drop to 1.8 might be more than just "slightly more shallow" (haven't done calculations, if somebody has a link, it would be appreciated).
Using 2 cameras, the new iphone still relies on simulating shallow depth of field by blurring the background from the calculated depth information and fakes the bokeh with blur. The result could be a differentiator for the new iphone, or it could not be.
Looks a bit too fake for my taste in some situations.