Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › iPhone 5 sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone 5 sound quality - Page 3

post #31 of 239

You should always shoot in RAW just incase. No reason not to with the latest cameras.

Much better for storing too as obviously, no compression.

Most cheaper SLR's and point and shoots, etc put a lot of noise into JPEG's, and loads of processing.

RAW just looks tonnes better, even on my 550D

post #32 of 239
Thread Starter 

How much with jpegs?

post #33 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

How much with jpegs?


A lot more obviously, but why would you honestly shoot in JPEG on an important shoot?

post #34 of 239
Thread Starter 

When a photographer is shooting a pole vaulter at the Olympics for instance, the key frame of the action is a remarkably tiny sliver of time. The same can be true of a basketball player leaping through the air to perform a sky hook. Landscape photographers can set up sticks and take their time, but action photography often have to let loose in burst mode, grabbing a chunk of action, then finding the perfect frame after the game is over. The faster the camera recovers from each shot, and the longer it can go before stopping dead with the burst and dumping from internal memory to the memory card, the better. Some cameras are designed for landscape photographers (Canon) and some are designed for action photographers (Nikon).

 

Large jpegs are visibly transparent, just as high bit rate lossy audio files are audibly transparent. If you have your camera adjusted correctly in advance for exposure, white balance and image processing, you can shoot straight ahead to jpeg and squeeze out better camera performance with no loss in quality. Experienced photographers have control over their camera settings. They don't need to "fix it in the mix" by doing wide corrections in post processing.

 

Myself, I've got a nice Nikon D7000 and a great little Canon pocket camera, but some of my best photos were taken with my iPhone. I shot a publicity photo for a musician friend of mine with an old 3 megapixel Olympus. He blew it up into a full size poster and it looked great. Image quality is dependent on *how* you shoot the shot, not necessarily the equipment or file format you use. That only comes into play in extreme situations (ie: poor lighting) that don't really lend themselves to photography.


Edited by bigshot - 1/27/13 at 4:48pm
post #35 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

When a photographer is shooting a pole vaulter at the Olympics for instance, the key frame of the action is a remarkably tiny sliver of time. The same can be true of a basketball player leaping through the air to perform a sky hook. Landscape photographers can set up sticks and take their time, but action photography often have to let loose in burst mode, grabbing a chunk of action, then finding the perfect frame after the game is over. The faster the camera recovers from each shot, and the longer it can go before stopping dead with the burst and dumping from internal memory to the memory card, the better. Some cameras are designed for landscape photographers (Canon) and some are designed for action photographers (Nikon).

Large jpegs are visibly transparent, just as high bit rate lossy audio files are audibly transparent. If you have your camera adjusted correctly in advance for exposure, white balance and image processing, you can shoot straight ahead to jpeg and squeeze out better camera performance with no loss in quality. Experienced photographers have control over their camera settings. They don't need to "fix it in the mix" by doing wide corrections in post processing.

Myself, I've got a nice Nikon D7000 and a great little Canon pocket camera, but some of my best photos were taken with my iPhone. I shot a publicity photo for a musician friend of mine with an old 3 megapixel Olympus. He blew it up into a full size poster and it looked great. Image quality is dependent on *how* you shoot the shot, not necessarily the equipment or file format you use. That only comes into play in extreme situations (ie: poor lighting) that don't really lend themselves to photography.
Seriously, Bigsbot? We are doing the Canon vs Nikon thing here...in a Head-fi forum?

Here, check your man Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

As to jpg vs raw, not a single pro photographer I know or work with shoots jpg.

How about this: you hire jpg shooters for your magazine, I'll hire raw. And I'll hire audio guys doing 24 bits for the same reason: post.
post #36 of 239

I would only shoot in JPEG if I were sure I wasn't going to do anything other than crop it or resize it. There's much more latitude when editing in RAW. Once the JPEG algorithm is finished mangling the image, editing just doesn't look nearly as good.

 

se

post #37 of 239

I am always amazed at home many people that are deeply into audio are also deeply into photography.  Must be a variant on the same disease.

post #38 of 239
Thread Starter 
post #39 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

See Jan 12
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
Hey, that solar charged lantern is really cool!
post #40 of 239
Thread Starter 
Yeah! Great price too
post #41 of 239
Thread Starter 
post #42 of 239

That seems a lot more reasonable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

It has 3 - 4 ohms output impedance but drives a 32 ohm headphone with 0.00015% THD?

Now:


Edited by xnor - 1/29/13 at 10:24am
post #43 of 239
I do think the iPhone 5 sounds better than my iPod Classic and iPhone 4S.
Reply
post #44 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

That seems a lot more reasonable.

 

Indeed, it now looks similar to the ED8 THD vs. frequency graph, but at lower level, as expected from the output impedance:

 


Edited by stv014 - 1/29/13 at 10:38am
post #45 of 239

It sure is a very nice piece of hardware. It's also expensive.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › iPhone 5 sound quality