To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple isn't already doing this and just doesn't say so explicitly. There is a crazy amount of image processing going on behind the scenes in each smartphone photo. Would be interesting to compare a photo taken with the native camera app and photosynthesis to compare. I'm assuming your demo images on your site are the raw and processed images from your app that don't go through Apple's "secret sauce" processing pipeline.
Hijacking this comment because of this line that reminded me of something:<p>"There is a crazy amount of image processing going on behind the scenes in each smartphone"<p>I bought the Pixel 10 because it said it had great zooming capabilities. After 5X (that means 10X), it's completely stupid. Basically it takes a very blurred photo and then tries to reconstruct it with AI. The final results are completely awful and really distant from reality.<p>Any advice in how to improve that?
You can use third party camera apps - <a href="https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/" rel="nofollow">https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/</a> is a decent one. I know there's a few professional ish options too with dslr ish focus control.
One solution is to buy a more expensive Pro version that has optical 5x zoom (or, rather, a third camera that start at 5x).
In photos after you can toggle between the AI modified and original. The original isn't as blurry as the preview shown - there's still a lot of image stacking happening and it's often very decent in my experience.<p>Edited to add: I have a pixel 10 pro which has a better zoom lens, so I could be having a different experience than you...
Also have a 10 pro .. but the AI-enhanced zoom goes up to 100x and is actually pretty handy for working out what tiny things in the distance actually are ... even if it's only a representation of that thing. Often use it for identifying birds, boats, etc.
I think my p10p's 100x zoom is neat, but I'd strongly caution against using it for ID in any sense, or necessarily even treating it as a photograph. It will "straight up hallucinate" objects into existence, more of a creative interpretation of 100x digital zoom than an oracle into the identity of something far off.<p>Makes for a fine image if "looking good" is the objective (which it often is), but I wouldn't trust it to disambiguate anything uncertain.
> Basically it takes a very blurred photo and then tries to reconstruct it with AI<p>So the ENHANCE is no longer just some lazy movie writing!
Even funnier:<p>The biggest of the "sharpening with AI" models, if you let 'em go, they'll turn you into a celebrity on accident.<p>If you go to the Topaz AI forums on Facebook, you'll see examples of where the AI sharpening tool went off the rails and turned a blurry photo of someone (typically the user who bought the software, who is trying to clean up their own photos) into whichever celebrity that is in the AI model who resembles them.<p>IE, it might turn a photo of YOU into a photo of Robert Downey Jr.
A couple years ago, we needed a good photo of my grandfather for a photo collage. The best photo I had of him was where he's sitting next to a very decrepit looking old woman (some family friend?). It really was a great composition, great lighting, background and pose but the old lady was killing the vibe. My wife is really skilled at Photoshop but removing this old lady would have been really difficult so we decided to try the generative fill, something she had never used before. She selected the lady and typed in "delete this person". Instead of deleting her, it creates this strange, human like being. We try again and again with different permutations of the same command. Most of the attempts just replace the old lady with a small asian child. Eventually we just try with a blank prompt and it gets it in the first go. The Asian child thing was really strange, it truly looked like the same kid but just slightly different appearance each time.
That's hilarious!<p>Also wonder how how long until photos are no longer court-admissible evidence because they get overwhelmed with the burden of the amount (and the cost) of the "non-AI" certification?
The ENHANCE meme used to drive me nuts because it is clearly impossible. My brother and I even briefly competed to find the earliest ENHANCE reference (I no longer remember what we concluded, but it goes surprisingly far back). The fact that it actually exists now is mind-boggling (even though it is, by necessity, still a fiction).
Can't wait for the first use of such images as evidence in court.
go closer irl
Wasn't that the same manufacturer that got caught with the moon AI stuff? Lol
Yes exactly, the site shows photos all taken from within the app. I have done A/B tests against photos taken in Camera.app and the Photosynthesis composite does significantly beat the detail central area covered by the second lens in Photosynthesis.<p>Because of the limitations of capturing multiple lenses at once through isVirtualDeviceConstituentPhotoDeliveryEnabled, there is a second capture mode in the app for 'Quality' which takes a simultaneous capture then takes sequential shots from each lens which do benefit from Deep Fusion, then uses those for the stitch (as long as the Deep Fusion images outperform the simultaneous capture results). That's also what I do for our Night mode.
Phones have been doing this for a LONG time, if you had a oneplus 7 pro (released may 2019) and took it into an extremely dark area, like where your eyes can't see anything at all, and take a 'night mode' photo, it asks you to hold it steady for about 4-5 seconds and is clearly taking a series of photos with long exposure time. Then it stacks them and uses data from the sensor of hand movement jitter to deblur.<p>The result when done outdoors (like, standing in a dark forest at midnight) will be a photo where you can actually see what's around you, and details show up as if it was a brightly full moon lit night.
That's a bunch of photos from the same camera, not 2 lenses at the same time
I know, I just don't think it's a huge jump from "take multiple photos over a 2s period from one camera and stack them" to "take several photos from discrete physical cameras and stack them". As a subscription of paid app I am not the target market for the person who made this, I agree with another person commenting in here that said they should be working for a phone manufacturer.
The Amazon Fire Phone did this in 2014. I'm not aware of any prior art in mainstream devices aside from gimmicks like 3D (stereoscopic) photos. I can't remember if the Fire Phone had any relevant gimmicks but it certainly used multiple lenses to produce a single image.
UAV sensor people made a thing that uses 300+ phone size sensors in a single pod, and software workflow to fuse the output together. It's been around quite a few years now.<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ARGUS+photo+pod+uav" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ARGUS+pho...</a>
I think it's interesting that the same functionality appeared on iPhone in 2019 as well. Google tells me it was the iPhone 11 and iOS 13.
There is an iOS app that does this called Spectre: <a href="https://spectre.cam" rel="nofollow">https://spectre.cam</a><p>From the authors of Halide.
I use iPhones (paid for by work) as a tool for my agronomy job. I take a large amount of photos throughout the day to help document what I find in the field.<p>Since at least the iPhone 12, holding the phone still and letting scene sit for a few seconds will result in a sharper photo. I’m not sure if it’s a subtle version focus stacking or a sharpening algorithm, but it’s definitely there.<p>On my 16e, immediately looking at a photo just taken can result in the image noticeably sharpening after a second or 2, so this may be a post processing step as well.
I think this is just Deep Fusion.
One time I took a photo of a snake in the road with my iphone in low light. When I looked at the photo afterwards the snake was removed by the AI enhancement
Don't they do this with the "macro" setting already ?
It is part of Apple’s “secret sauce”, yes.
This should be easy to check. In these photos, the center of the image has higher detail than the edges.
Somewhat related... I made an indie app called TwinCam which combines front-and-back camera images to create a combined selfie. Free. No strings attached. Cheers!<p><a href="https://apps.apple.com/us/app/twincam/id6448645623">https://apps.apple.com/us/app/twincam/id6448645623</a>
<a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.evergreenlabs.twincam">https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.evergreenl...</a>
> No strings attached.<p>Except for the "have full network access" permission according to the Google Play Store.
This is probably some kind of configuration mistake… I wouldn’t presume the author has any nefarious intent.
There are very few apps on app stores that don't need network these days. Feel free to check out the details on the settings page on the app.
I have a Motorola moto g stylus 2025. I have not altered the OS or installed a custom rom. I simply have not signed into Google yet. I use aurora store to download and install app updates from the play store. What I'm curious about is why some apps won't even open at all without a Google log in? Is there something in your app that requires a Google account?
It would have been nicer if the examples wouldn't have been digitally altered to exaggerate the results. For instance, the center of the third photo has been intentionally blurred in the "standard photo" version.<p>The fact that they have to resort to manipulation to sell their product tells me that they are not trustworthy and that their product is probably underwhelming.
Neat work, but the free tier lets you export 3 images <i>a month</i> and the alternative is a subscription? No thanks.
I cannot see a meaningful difference at all in any of the example photos, so not really seeing what the point of this is.
It’s weird, because the center of the image will be more detailed, so how are they dealing with the “grid of pixels” that is on the display. Are they doubling up the wide angle.<p>“Easy-to-understand framing
The brackets over the viewfinder indicate the area covered by the more detailed lens. Frame your subject inside them to capture the best detail.“<p>Reminds me of the old 3d cameras that took two photos at once through 2 lenses (on film)<p><a href="https://www.ebay.com/itm/206409326865?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1PMJaVRLFSOqpYg_4IQyTBg31&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-173151-913341-5&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=206409326865&targetid=2451667593817&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9002000&poi=&campaignid=23920418628&mkgroupid=201082675087&rlsatarget=pla-2451667593817&abcId=9408285&merchantid=119039024&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23920418628&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh_cWkdwqcOGnJH0fc3iMP3iS&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkOvTBhDgARIsAKUNyRtSt-NBo-VdsMbLuzUXph3DTFDoEE-osBKlHKZe1-P4U-VxxKftF5MaAsgfEALw_wcB" rel="nofollow">https://www.ebay.com/itm/206409326865?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%...</a>
I'm scaling the wider 'outer' image using Core Graphics 'CGInterpolationQuality' to avoid blocky pixellation, then feathering the seam between the two lens outputs so the transition isn't jarring.<p>I didn't know about those Nishika stereo cameras, that looks incredible!
I just assumed this was what all phones with multiple rear cameras were doing, is it not? What are the multiple cameras for other than that?
Phones can't fit a zoom lens with moving elements. The other cameras are just other prime lenses so you aren't restricted to having a single focal length all the time.<p>When you hit the little 0.5x, 1x, 4x buttons in the camera app you are switching between the physical cameras. Though Apple goes out of their way to obscure what is actually happening.<p>The obvious issue with the product here is that the telephoto lens will not cover the whole image that the 1x captured so only some portion of the center of the frame will be higher resolution.
Each camera has a different optical system with a different focal length range. This lets the camera cover everything from ultra wide angle to telescopic magnification while remaining thin enough to fit in a phone.
Not a fan of “Photosynthesis” on the demo. Sliding between the two, “standard” looks clearer and cleaner.
If it works, Apple copies it soon enough...
There's nothing to copy. Apple's iOS Camera app already uses multi-camera image fusion in many cases. This app builds on the Multi-Camera AVCapture feature that Apple opened up in iOS 13.<p><a href="https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/249/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/249/</a>
Apple has done this (multi-camera/spatial fusion) since 2016, in addition to multi-frame/temporal fusion. The OS decides whether these techniques are worthwhile for any given shot based on context.<p><a href="https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avcapturephotosettings/isautovirtualdevicefusionenabled" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avcap...</a>
They might acquire it and have done it in the past.<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/06/apple-buys-iphone-camera-app-snappycam-and-gets-australian-algorithms-whiz" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/06/apple-buy...</a>
subscription camera app seems like peak comedy to me
Definitely not peak, my kid asked for a Rubik's Cube solver app which turned out to be subscription based, then wanted to tune her Ukelele with an app which turned out to be subscription based.
Gotta keep up with pitch inflation!<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch</a>
That's what makes me sad about the current Tetris game, on iOS.<p>One of my favorite games ever, and I'd gladly pay for an ad-free version, but they don't have it. I assume there's much more money to be made with ads, over subscriptions.
Play the Gameboy version. I bought <i>every single</i> official Tetris version and they all suck in conparison.<p>Gameboy emulators are now available again in the iOS app store or even as a a web app. Or just play on real hardware.
I think there's money to be made with both, but there's <i>more</i> money to be made by not maintaining two separate models, so ads win.
It's not that rare for games to offer a "remove ads" option for a few bucks. That model doesn't require a lot of extra "maintenance".<p>I think a few bucks for ad-free brings in more money for most developers, but that still pales in comparison to a recurring subscription model (or models where people keep spending in-app on consumables).
Oh, the Rubik's Cube app has both actually - the subscription gets rid of the ads you have to watch to get more solves.
A penetrating observation that feels true. Too bad.
This is why some hardware is still supreme. I've had the same Korg chromatic tuner for 20 years and would not be in the least bit surprised if it goes for another 40.
This sort of nonsense is what I think will drive adoption of AI for personal apps. Tell it to create a ukulele tuning app and you get one without ads without subscription that you can make work exactly how you want. I wonder whether this is something that only privacy and tech oriented folk will do and care about our whether it will be adopted generally.
Metronome apps are paid now or have an 'ad' tier. I took my money and spent it on a real metronome.
Did you buy it or show them a better way of doing it?
There was some video on reddit that I saw the other day where a man struggled to take a photo with his camera app because it kept popping full screen ads in front of everything else.
There is Halide which I find completely uninteresting because I have a Sony A7iv. (Funny my latest piece of “gear” I am learning to use is a selfie stick because I can do stuff like <a href="https://mastodon.social/@UP8/tagged/selfie" rel="nofollow">https://mastodon.social/@UP8/tagged/selfie</a> and I don’t see third party apps really improve on the official camera)
Yeah, at that point it's better to buy an external lens for the Iphone. Single purchase and better pictures.
Apple customers are just built different.
I'm so confused. Does the dev not know that this is what iPhones do by default?
I'm confused. So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?<p>Of course the extra detail in the middle is nicer, but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting? Like when you zoom into satellite view on Maps and it's clear that there's a blurry area and a sharp area?<p>I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image. I can understand why you'd want to snap photos with both lenses simultaneously as save them as separate photos, but I don't understand why you'd combine them.
> I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image.<p>An image with the FOV of the wide-angle camera but the quality of the main one in the center? Assuming the border interpolation works well (which tbf is probably hard for close objects), why would anyone <i>not</i> want this?
>but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting?<p>Your own eyes work that way, so you tell me.
> <i>So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?</i><p>Yeah that looks to be the case. Not sure what use case this solves with that 'limitation'. I don't think photographers would particularly like this.
Why do i need a subscription for a camera app?
The principle is similar to foveated imaging [1].<p>Recently, Samsung introduced the ISOCELL platform which allows to select the area which will be recorded at higher resolution compared to other regions.<p>There can be all sorts of different applications build around such as extracting higher resolution of text regions, etc [2].<p>Of course, the lens needs to support this resolution but I think that will be default in the mid-term future.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3799902.3811218" rel="nofollow">https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3799902.3811218</a>
Pretty cool -- I built see ya' an app which allows you to connect N number of phones locally, and use one phone as the view finder + shutter, and the other(s) as the dedicated camera. I'm just using Apples native API, so it'll connect over bluetooth, wifi, direct, whatever pretty seamlessly. I don't collect any data, and it's 100% free.<p><a href="https://apps.apple.com/us/app/see-ya/id6792367530">https://apps.apple.com/us/app/see-ya/id6792367530</a>
That's super handy, thanks! I've been using one of those selfie monitoring screens and opening the camera to record video + turning on the flash, this app seems like a better way of accomplishing this
What API are you using if you don’t mind me asking?<p>That seems super cool! You could almost strap an iPhone to the back of your phone and see yourself for recordings.
Please post your own Show HN, or comment in “what are you working on” threads, or pick some other approach.<p>I also have an app that uses device camera and I don’t write about it in mostly unrelated submissions.
Nice idea.<p>On my phone, at least, I had to pintch-to-zoom to 2-3X to see the difference.<p>And at that size, the “synthesized” version looks much sharper.<p>You might need more cropping for the mobile version. At 1X I couldn’t tell them apart.<p>Haven’t checked the desktop version yet
Very cool stuff, I've long thought there must be some fancy ways to get extra information for better image resolution by taking advantage of the other cameras.<p>That said, I must also say that most of the side-by-side comparison photos shown here are somewhat impressive, and in some cases, the photosynthesis one just looks worse to my untrained eye.<p>_______________<p>I'll choose to take this as evidence of the fact that you're tacking a very difficult problem, and you're also being honest in your comparisons and not cherry-picking too aggressively.
As dole alluded to below, I have been going back and forth in balancing the quality of the example pictures with the data load. I've pushed an update to the site now that weighs much more towards quality for this exact reason! But you're right, I don't want to hide the fact that not all results are perfect.
Some of the photosynthesis zoom-ins have overlays take a bit longer to load at higher resolution.
How can you in good conscience charge a subscription for this? It would be one thing if the app relied on infrastructure, but it's a one and done algorithm that's entirely local on device!<p>Subscriptions are charged because the developer needs to maintain the upkeep and cost of running the service, but that's not applicable here. It's capable of taking a million photographs fully offline, without any reliance on an online service.<p>Essentially you're saying your product is so superb that people should pay you indefinitely for the privilege of using it. Even though it costs you nothing to maintain, you somehow need people to perpetually pay you for a local, offline algorithm that you wrote one time. How gross, that's the definition of pointless greed.<p>Shame on you, honestly. This is exactly what's wrong with modern software nowadays. Just like Adobe and all these other companies, taking advantage of people to milk them dry forever. You'll lease a product, you won't have the right to own anything, and you'll be happy about it.
>It would be one thing if the app relied on infrastructure<p>Look into value based pricing. It's a mistake to charge based on how much something costs you to produce.<p>As an example, if I make an SEO tweak that makes a company an extra $10M in profit a year, should I charge for the hour of effort it took? Or should I charge differently?
I think this is actually how oneplus phones have taken 'night' mode photos for a very long time in their default camera app, it takes multiple exposures and uses the movement sensor in the phone to pick several which were taken with the least hand jitter, and then stacks them into the final result.
I want to know what is possible if there were triple the number of cameras on the back of the phone and every single one fired on every photo. If they all focused at different points, the telephotos zoomed at different lengths etc., maybe throw some infrared cameras on there as well, what would be the results when combined?
There is a much better way of doing this which some professional cameras do called pixel shift. It shifts the sensor a tiny amount in between multiple exposures to compose in to an absurdly high resolution image. The downside is it only works on a tripod since you need the camera perfectly still.<p>The obvious issue with multiple cameras at different focal lengths is they won't all cover the frame of the widest one so only parts of the image will be sharper.<p>But if this matters to you, just get a full frame camera. Any 33MP full frame will blow away a 200MP phone camera in sharpness and detail.
I wasn't thinking so much about resolution, but rather all the other things it might allow. Re-focusing after taking it, for example. 3D by default, since the width of a phone is basically the distance between your eyes. A host of other things the much-more-high-powered CPU on the phone can do compared to a camera.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_(company)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_(company)</a><p>Good review: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3uUozW4zHc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3uUozW4zHc</a>
Left side and the right side look the same to me except some subtle differences in the color of shadows…. And another waitlist? Nein Danke.
I am co fused, 50% of photos look better in standard zoom and 50% of them look better woth photosynthesis. This is like an anti campaign for the app hinting "in the end it doesn't really matter"
I think this may be due to an issue I've had with loading the full res zoom images on the website, I've been going back and forth trying to balance the loading times and stress on the browser with clarity of the images. Working on a new idea now, so hopefully it'll give better demonstrations soon.
I believe this is something similar to what Lytro aimed to bring to market.<p>Lytro, Inc. was an American company founded in 2006 by Ren Ng which developed some of the first commercially available light-field cameras.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro</a>
This might be a personal preference thing, but in every single example photo on that page, I significantly prefer the colours in the "standard zoom" version of the photo. I wonder if they can figure out how to do this fusion without losing that beautiful contrast the zoom lens brings to the table?
That's really interesting - the colour match attempts to find the best match between the two lens outputs, which frequently results in them 'meeting in the middle'. You can then manually adjust the output of each lens within the app's editing interface. I'll have a think about the weighting of the colour match.
How is parallax error solved? The two cameras don't share the same optics center.
Awesome work. Now to bring back the fusing of several images into a true high res pano! Not the garbage native “pano” mode but a true stitched mosaic.
This was actually a purported feature of the Pixel 3 camera. Google said it would be constantly taking photos and the different information captured as your hand moved slightly could be used to create higher information density photos. It didn't work very well at that point but the idea was cool!
That's not what's being described here. It's just combining the telephoto and wide angle photos.
I believe that's a similar idea to Apple's Deep Fusion which also takes multiple frames from the same lens then intelligently combines them for higher detail. As ipsum2 said below, that's different to Photosynthesis, which captures from different lenses simultaneously.
very cool app, a few questions: why does the color "temp" of the image change between traditional iphone photography vs your app? it appears to both warm and cool the images. Also why is the contrast decreased, specifically in the library/book store example?
I like the idea of this app and the website is well done. Subscription isn't for me, but for folks who take a lot of photos and need this sort of thing, I can see it. Free tier could offer a few more photos per month.
Anyone know if they’re using the native camera resolution for the zoomed part or doing sensor fusion to get better quality than either alone?
That demo looks like Minority Report level enhancement. Amazing if it really works, but I'll be damned if I'm paying for a SaaS camera app.
Isn't quite a lot of modern smartphone photography post-processing? Yes camera SAAS is extremely funny but I can kinda see it maybe
Sily question... why not all 3
nicer comparison site: <a href="https://slow.pics/c/xpGfe2hK" rel="nofollow">https://slow.pics/c/xpGfe2hK</a>
Leading with a concert photo example is cringe. Camera phones are a scourge on the concert experience. It should not be encouraged.
Interesting. I wonder if this could be extended to take MPO 3D photos.
That is a fantastic name.
Anything like this for Android or Pixels?
My hesitations on this are it stores data in a proprietary format that I may not be able to export to another common format if the product disappears in a few years.<p>For something personal like photos and the memories they capture, that's not ideal for me.<p>While the app is still with us, I'm not sure how much it will cost me to export to my photos to my photo library each month.
There is zero lock-in with the files being saved - you can export from the app in HEIC/PNG/JPEG as well as PSD and spatial/SBS 3D. The format the website calls the 'Photosynthesis' file is an HEIC so even if you export that you can still access the data outside of the app.<p>Unlimited exports of the composite images are part of the subscription (with an option to automatically export to Photos.app and/or a folder of your choosing), but the free tier still offers unlimited saving of the constituent images e.g. the wide & tele shots, just not the composite.
"This site was paused as it reached its usage limits. Please contact the site owner for more information."
Similar idea to the discontinued Light L16 camera
<a href="https://petapixel.com/2017/12/08/review-light-l16-brilliant-braindead/" rel="nofollow">https://petapixel.com/2017/12/08/review-light-l16-brilliant-...</a>
This appears to use a naïve masking approach (using ML to find the edges of the mask) which seems to suffer from slight uncorrected differences in lens distortion. There's a fairly obvious feathering around the edges of the detailed area, objects shift quite dramatically, and overall I feel like I'd do a better job of this manually. It is a cool idea, but flawed execution. I would prefer something like using ML to generate a displacement map between the wide angle and the narrow angle parts. That way you can map the higher details down faithfully without having to feather the edges nearly as much or compute any mask. That would also solve parallax which I see also looks unaccounted for.
Weird issue: The iPhone dropdown doesn't include the iPhone XR.
It's not like I expect it to work, I'm just curious what the app does.
This whole thing feels wrong. OP should be working for a phone manufacturer, not trying to sell this as a subscription. How much is it worth to be able to squeeze a little more visual clarity out of my phone? Maybe $20 maximum? And I feel like I’m on the generous side of the population here. Most people will say $0. But if you’re inside of Apple and you can tell them you can add an average of $1 of perceived value to each of their millions of phones sold each year they’ll be over the moon and you can get a fat salary.
As an Android guy and not an iPhone, or phone pic guy...<p>What <i>do</i> the multiple lenses do then, if not this? Like,I presumed <i>that was the point.</i><p>Are they LITERALLY just decoration for me to make fun of?
This has to be bait right? They’re different lenses with different focal lengths. Same as on Android phones with more than one lens.
Different optical zoom levels.<p>Many phones already use information from both cameras, too.<p>Android phones have multiple cameras too.
Normal, wide, and zoomed
Not just the app idea … but the WEBSITE — is VERY WELL DONE.<p>I immediately signed up. (And offered to help bring users to this thing.)
Is it just me or do the original photos look better overall?
[flagged]
[dead]