| json_metadata | "{"app":"Musing","appTags":["camera"],"appCategory":"camera","appTitle":"What differentiates the iPhone camera from the cameras in other phones?","appBody":"<p><br></p>\n<p><img src=\"https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ab0b7873fe871c1ba6e359b1fd32ab2d\" /></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>The lovers of 'the latest and most expensive' will hate me but it is what there is.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>To be a little comforted the question is not about the element of which I speak but about the entire camera, but still I think the explanation is necessary.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Actually in the world, all over the world, there are only two manufacturers of image receivers for cameras, that is, the sensor that receives the light and that then transmits the received signal to the electronic circuit that stores it in whatever medium.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Both manufacturers are almost on par in technology although the patents are different. But as they maintain a 'healthy' competition between them as soon as one of them improves in something the other one always worries about improving also the design of his patent.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Therefore there are three basic premises.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>First: All phones, iphone, smartphone, lechesphone, etc. buy the same receiver, since both manufacturers only manufacture the same model of receiver that only changes to improve from Easter to branches. They may even agree to share the market.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>And since that market includes that of mobiles, digital cameras, video cameras, surveillance cameras, medical devices, etc. I do not think they fight much, but banks are lacking to put all the money they earn.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Second: The quality of the pixels to capture the light per square centimeter is almost equal in both patents.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Third: The speed of capture and transmission of the image signal is practically the same in both patents.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Assimilated these three premises we arrived little by little to the painful reality that is:</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>As much as the X brand assumes that its latest model supermobile can capture 'Nosecuantos' frames per second, never, never again, will be able to capture images faster than what is transmitted by either of the two patents, as much as they have managed to match the speed to receive the signal without skipping frames.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>The problem is that the electronics needed for that is very expensive, hence those mobiles are more expensive.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>As much as the brand Y presumes that its latest model supermovil has more resolution per pixel than any other, never, never repeat, may have more resolution than that offered by the manufacturer's patent.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>[you will see how in some answer they repeat the one of never :-)]</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>The problem is that the 'optics' to be used is much more expensive than the one used to make eyeglass lenses, and all of us who use them know how expensive the glass of normal glasses can be even as standard.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Note Apart: continuing with the comparison I will add to this that if the graduation of your eyesight matches the graduations of glasses for standard glasses you will be very lucky, otherwise you know that in your glasses you will be given the standard lenses closest to your graduation and You go that chutas, that's why those who use progressive flipen in colors. End of Note</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Finally the conclusion is obvious, unless we buy a mobile 'churrero' of two or three € your image receiver will be exactly the same as that of the 'ultramovil supermobile' more expensive. The only difference is in the 'Optics' and in the electronics that is added later.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>By the way, the image receivers of the 'hubble' and others have nothing to do with those of mobile 'street' their manufacture in terms of materials is completely different since they have to withstand temperature variations ranging between 150 below zero to 200 and peak over zero, (I have not looked at the exact figure but there it goes).</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Conclusion:</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>If you want the 'friend plasta presumed shift' give him a fit of hysteria explain this same and never, I repeat never see you again.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Basically, it has a lower Gammut than Pixel, Huawei and Samsung. They exaggerate the contrast and decrease the stauration of color, to disguise the noises of B & N and color that is not as high as that. It has an exaggerated acutancia, what diminishes the steps of the target to the black in the 256 colors. The photosensors have fewer photos, so you can not shoot in UHD until the next model, which was already the S7 of 2015.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><br></p>","appDepth":2,"appParentPermlink":"f3tz8y79x","appParentAuthor":"seeee3","musingAppId":"aU2p3C3a8N","musingAppVersion":"1.1","musingPostType":"answer"}" |
|---|
hiveblocks