it's known fact that full frame cameras give more extreme bokeh than crop sensors
does it still apply to smarthphone cameras?
for example lumia 1020
>Pixel size is 1.4 µm. Sensor size is 10.67×8.00 mm. Crop factor 3.2×.35 mm equivalent focal length: 26 mm, 16:9 | 28 mm, 4:3. f/2.4
>Carl Zeiss optics with f/2.2 focal ratio. Focal length: 7.2 mm: 35 mm equivalent focal length: 25 mm @16:9 aspect ratio, and 27 mm @4:3 aspect ratio
so lowest DOF will be at f/2.2x3.2=f/7.04 ?
couldn't find crop factor for galaxy s7 but could be more than 6 so f/1.7x6=f/10.2
>>2831101
Yep, nothing magical about phone cameras.
https://youtu.be/DtDotqLx6nA?t=949
You can see he can get the same background blur on the 2x crop as doubling the aperture on the FF camera. (Though he has to raise the ISO more to get the same exposure with F5.6 instead of 2.8)
A samsung G7 has a 1/2.5" sensor with a crop factor of 6, so to imitate a F2.8 shot background you'd need F16.8 on FF. That's why it ships with a "F/1.7" lens instead of the prev generation's F/1.9.
It needs that lens because 1.7 is only F10.2 when used on a sensor so tiny. Camera phones are quite bad if you want to get background blur.
>>2831101
Some phones are getting around this artificially, using two cameras to judge distances in the scene, and using that information to very accurately add blur to the image.
It doesn't hold up at huge viewing sizes and prints, obviously, but for the stuff you're doing with a photo you took on your phone, it's really convincing, and people wouldn't know unless you told them.
>>2831229
>using two cameras to judge distances in the scene, and using that information to very accurately add blur to the image.
one is taken with a FF camera with f1.7 lens. The other is a dual module smartphone camera.
>>2831269
Looks vomit inducing. Portraits and subject separation works so well optically because you can have strands of hair and other details sharp while everything behind is blurred away. That masked gaussian blur looks something a 12yr old would do on Photoshop.
Details blurred, characteristic heavy perspective distortion and the need for a ton of instagram filters is what you get on that phone shot. Utterly disgusting.
>>2831286
>vomit inducing
If you weren't specifically looking for it, and doing a 1:1 comparison, you would literally never ever be able to tell.
>>2831289
I just looked at the photos. The phone shot feels like it was mutilated right away, that's when I started looking for the details.
>>2831101
I had a high end lumia that could get pretty decent boke ......if you were taking pictures of bugs really close to the camera, like close enough that you had to use an app that would let you manually focus because the auto focus would just glitch out
>>2831269
looks horrible.
Maybe a bad example as well.
Highlights are completely blown in pic1 and looks like shadows were completely destroyed as well.
Get a comparison that's actually exposed by a non-garbage photographer.
>>2831269
source?
>>2831298
You realize it was a test of the depth of field characteristics of the phone, and not a shot taken for a portfolio, right? You DO understand the differences between testing a feature and making a photo?
>>2831319
there's no benefit of lok fucking up exposure (that the camera can do automatically) for showing off the feature.
He only exists to get pity money from Kai.
>>2831346
How would you correct the exposure for the worthless highlights in the background without affecting the exposure on the subject, which is his face?
>>2831348
I would expose for the subject and not care for the background. Coupled with the usual -0.7 exposure comp. It would give a usable image and correct shadows and highlights in post.
>>2831356
The subject is well exposed in that image. -.7 EV comp will do nothing to rescue the highlights in the background. So again, how is the image in the tagged post (taken specifically to who the artificial thin DOF feature, and nothing else) garbage, exposure wise?
>>2831357
Why would you need the highlights in the background? It's completely out of focus it isn't like you can recover any details from it in any fucking way.
Are you mentally retarded?
>>2831369
So? Who cares if the highlights are blown in an inside portrait shot with windows in the background? Again what detail, what information do you want from those areas?
What extra can it give to the shot?
so phones with dual cameras will be new memes
>>2831378
>be new memes
You mean "further the idea that most casual photographers have literally no need for a larger dedicated camera setup"
And yes, it probably will.
you can throw out all lens that are worse than Noctilux f/0.95
thanks huawey
>>2831269
But seriously, a normie wouldn't think there's much of a difference between the bokeh of the two images. smartphone cam obviously has worse DR, color, and detail, but when most content is uploaded to Facebook/Instagram nowadays which compress images to shit, it won't make too much of a difference to most people.
>>2831318
http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-the-leica-q-the-huawei-p9
>>2831453
didn't even check what website this was, i was wondering why all the articles were good and didn't have dumb clickbait and the end of each one
>>2831101
How was this picture taken
>>2835577
It's not a photo, it's digital art.
>>2835582
so.. it's completely made from nothing? no base photo?
>>2835583
Very difficult to say, but most likely, yeah. If there is something behind there, it's been blurred and colored all to hell and back, and you wouldn't recognize the base photo even if it were sitting next to it. All of the color and all the little circles are all brought in in post. The triangular darker shape in the bottom left may be a remnant from a base photo, but also, maybe not.
>>2831269
Looks great. The difference is neglectable
