[HN Gopher] Modern smartphone lenses are crazy ___________________________________________________________________ Modern smartphone lenses are crazy Author : luu Score : 181 points Date : 2022-03-04 17:22 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | amelius wrote: | The comment of Daniel Darabos points to an interesting resource, | explaining how these lenses are designed: | | https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#mobile | roughly wrote: | Boy, that page is Comprehensive on lens design - that's an | awesome resource. | IshKebab wrote: | Interesting. He doesn't really explain how they're designed | though. Must be just automatic global optimisation at this | point though. No way a human manually optimised all the ray | paths. | fsh wrote: | Usually some form of gradient descent is combined with a | global optimization routine that tries to explore the | parameter space. This is nothing new, optics has been | designed this way since the early 60s. | GoToRO wrote: | And yet you can't take a picture of the stars or street lights on | an iphone... | mmaunder wrote: | Physics is still the law. As long as your aperture is small, so | is the usable amount of light you're collecting at the top of | that lens funnel. | GoToRO wrote: | The problem is that the tiny light from a star or from a | street lamp post is multiplied (in software) multiple times | to a comic effect... | mattlondon wrote: | Is this just a software problem? Android has had various night | sight modes for several years that make dark views work pretty | well? | GoToRO wrote: | There is something with the hardware as well, there is some | green glare even on easy shots, but the fake lights problem I | think is software, the software tries to "pretty" the image | and introduces these fake lights. | TooKool4This wrote: | Well thats definitely not true | | Stars: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/10/amazing-night-sky- | photo... | | Street light: https://cdn.vox- | cdn.com/thumbor/R51UlZi7g1UPq7b9Be05nWfOP_o=... | GoToRO wrote: | https://twitter.com/zoneoftech/status/1236746998805680128 | GoToRO wrote: | C'mon. From your link: "The images were shot using Apple's | ProRAW format and then edited using the mobile version of | Lightroom on the iPhone itself" | | I have the 12 and it multiplies any tiny source of light in | dozens of fake lights. | | The street light I;m referring too is much darker than this: | a dark street with a string of lights. All the lights will | get multiplied as fake lights. | CharlesW wrote: | Of course you can. | | Stars example: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/10/amazing- | night-sky-photo... | | Street light example: | https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/iphone-13-pro-vs-12-pro-max... | GoToRO wrote: | C'mon. From your link: "The images were shot using Apple's | ProRAW format and then edited using the mobile version of | Lightroom on the iPhone itself" | | I have the 12 and it multiplies any tiny source of light in | dozens of fake lights. | | The street light I;m referring too is much darker than this: | a dark street with a string of lights. All the lights will | get multiplied as fake lights. | kazinator wrote: | It looks way less crazy when you "focus" on just the payload | areas of the optic pipeline, trimming out the "lunettic fringes". | | Here is what I mean: | | https://i.imgur.com/ktbWf0X.png | H8crilA wrote: | Why are the lenses so complex outside of the area that matters? | Structural integrity / resistance to dropping? | fsh wrote: | The picture in the tweet only shows rays originating from an | object that is close to the center of the field of view. The | article mentioned in another comment has better schematics: | https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#mobile | | Smartphone cameras usually have a pretty wide field of view. | The complex shapes are required in order to compensate for | the aberrations caused by the large angles between the | optical rays and the lens surfaces. | mrfusion wrote: | Perhaps this technology could be useful for breakthrough | starshot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot | agluszak wrote: | https://nitter.net/yiningkarlli/status/1498069538264399872 | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Thank you! | ykl wrote: | Hello! Original author (original tweeter?) here. | | This particular design is from the iPhone 7 (or, more precisely, | my guess is that it's from the iPhone 7 due to both the date of | the patent [1] and due to the elements matching up with marketing | images of the iPhone 7), which is 6 years old now, but I think | it's broadly still representative of modern smartphone lenses. In | the past 5 years or so, advancements in phone cameras have come | mostly in better sensors, far better image processing, and adding | more cameras, but the basic principles of the compact ultra- | aspherical lens design seem to still be in place. | | As an example, here [2] is an exploded view of the iPhone 6's | lens setup, and here [3] is an exploded view of the more recent | iPhone 12's lens setup. The iPhone 12 gained an extra element, | but they both use similarly weird ripply elements and you can see | the clear lineage between the two phones. | | Also, as mentioned in the tweet thread and elsewhere in the | comments here, Kats Ikeda has an excellent, incredibly detailed | and thorough explainer on mobile phone lens design [4]. I don't | actually know a whole lot about the optics field; I'm just a | dabbling as a hobbyist from a computer graphics perspective. Kats | Ikeda's site is a much better resource than my Twitter posts for | learning about this stuff. | | [1] | https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7e/4e/3f/4e88d65... | [2] | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMyGm6IVkAY77eY?format=jpg&name=... | [3] | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMyIbszVQAQhMQ_?format=jpg&name=... | [4] https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#mobile | doomlaser wrote: | Sony makes the lenses sensors on modern iPhones and, if rumors | are to be believed, also the micro OLED displays on a forthcoming | new product category. | | It's funny. The 1970s Sony Trinitron CRT TVs are what inspired | Steve Jobs to make the Apple II case, and here they are working | together, at the highest end of technology, many decades later. | systemBuilder wrote: | Sony also made the AppleColor 640x480 monitor in 1987 with the | release of the Mac II. This was quite likely the most fantastic | monitor available in this size in this year. It was rumored to | be a regular Sony Computer monitor without an anti-reflective | coating so it could be brighter and clearer. | alphabettsy wrote: | I think Sony make the sensors only. | [deleted] | olliej wrote: | Sony only make the sensor, it looks like a bunch of companies | manufacture the lenses (sharp, lg infotech, and another company | I forgot from my googling 10 seconds ago). | | But as the linked thread says, apple _designed_ the lens itself | (as it has a patent on it, which is apparently common?) | | I am curious what the Samsung lens system looks like given it | has real optical zoom | turing_complete wrote: | "You think anyone would be doing this kind of utterly insane | stuff if it wasn't absolutely necessary?" | | - Not a software developer. Obviously. | olliej wrote: | The problem is an artifact of size constraints and plastic lens | having far less variation in optical density, that means a lot | more work to correctly direct light to avoid various types of | distortion. | | https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#mobile has a | much more in depth discussion on the how and why if the lens | system design (someone referenced this in a reply to the linked | thread) | [deleted] | baybal2 wrote: | Plastic lenses are actually more expensive to make than glass. | You need extreme precision, more than with lapped glass lenses. | | A Taiwanese factory northwest of Dhaka | https://www.youngoptics.com/ makes the lion share of molds for | plastic lenses worldwide. | | YoungOptics used to make them for Sony too. I don't know if it's | still the case today. | CliffStoll wrote: | Long gone are my high-school days of grinding and polishing a | 20cm mirror in the cellar, carefully using Foucault knife tests | to parabolize it. As an undergrad, using Gaussian formulae when | matching lenses in eyepieces. In grad school, writing ray- | tracing codes to design multi-element lenses. Then, as a | postdoc, using Zernike polynomials to estimate optical errors | in the hexagonal mirror segments of the Keck 10 meter | telescope. | | Today's iPhone optics astonish and impress me: A lens built | with over a half-dozen aspherical elements. Coordinated imaging | with multiple cameras. Wow! | anfractuosity wrote: | From reading some of the comments it sounds like the elements for | these lenses are plastic? | | Is there a downside to using plastic lens elements compared to | glass, in terms of image quality? | | If there isn't a downside, could lenses for SLRs/mirrorless | cameras also use such elements? | | Edit: It sounds like aspheric lens elements might be made from | plastic in SLR lenses. But also I found that plastic might not be | used for outer lens elements as it scratches easily | wyager wrote: | Plastic typically has much worse reflection and losses than AR | coated glass (at least for narrowband lenses - I'm | extrapolating to photo lenses). | post_break wrote: | My S21 with "scumbag zoom" or creeper zoom. The amount of zoom, | in something as thin as it is, is mind blowing. To zoom 10x, and | be able to take great pictures, hand held with almost no shake. | Then you have the top GoPros shooting 5k with gimbal like | stabilization. Cameras are getting crazy. | bufferoverflow wrote: | This is from iPhone 7, released 6 years ago. I would like to see | an actually modern lens design. Smartphone cameras got so much | better in the last 6 years. | etu wrote: | Correction: It was released 2016, that's 6 years ago. | | The point still stands though. But 6 instead of 8 years. | tadfisher wrote: | And mine just got updated to iOS 15. | | Meanwhile my Pixel 3 XL is three years old and is no longer | receiving updates. | simonh wrote: | I suspect that's mostly down to sensor design (big pixels, | reflective layers behind the sensor so the light goes through | twice, etc) and software. | londons_explore wrote: | I don't think there are any really big changes to the lens | design recently... All the effort has gone into multi-camera | setups, and different types of lens for macro, wide angle, | telephoto, etc. | | To my understanding, there is still only a single set of moving | lenses in an iPhone 13 lens. | ghaff wrote: | The iPhone 12 Pro is insanely better than the iPhone X-- | especially in low light. I have a bunch of fairly high-end | camera equipment that I rarely use outside of some fairly | specific circumstances at this point | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Yeah, likewise. | | I have high end kit (and some semi-pro lighting) which I love | to use, but I now use a secondhand iPhone X, an Apexel | teleconverter lens and a cheap Ulanzi grip, and I really | enjoy this combination for its immediacy. | | The higher end kit is now increasingly used in novel, DIY | ways, because carrying a phone has taught me that gear should | be used for its strengths. | ghaff wrote: | Cameraphones have gotten to the point where I should | probably consider getting some external lens gear. It | didn't really make sense to me when there were so many | other compromises with respect to image quality but | offering some additional options when traveling with just a | phone is probably legit useful at this point. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Filmic pro was a total game changer re: compression | options and image control. Definitely when I started | using the video a ton. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | The Apexel HD 2X lens has been useful for me. Cheap | enough not to stress about, and just enough extra reach | to be useful. | | I really enjoy the cheap little Ulanzi CapGrip thing, | too. | | It's definitely not 100% like using a real camera (no | half-press for focus, though I am a back-button-focus guy | on DSLRs anyway!) | | But it adds just enough of a camera-like feel to allow | relaxed one-handed grips and slightly more immediate | shooting. And it weighs nothing so it's always in a bag | or jacket pocket. | ghaff wrote: | Thanks. I'll probably wait until my next upgrade which | will probably be a good couple of years. But I can | absolutely see pulling the plug on upgrading my other | cameras at that point. Which would make even going with a | couple higher-end Moment lenses pretty thinkable. | | The always with you is a big thing. | polskibus wrote: | Would you mind sharing which Apexels do you recommend? | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I have just the one now. It's the Apexel HD 2X telephoto. | | I bought it because I wanted a slightly longer lens for | portrait location scouting, and chose this one not | because I am certain it is excellent but because I doubt | there's enough of a quality gap between the Apexels and | the Moment or Rhinoshield lenses to justify the much | higher price. | | It is really fairly good though, until you get into the | corners. But then I happily use vintage lenses on my A7II | that are worse in the corners! | | What difference there is, is that the Moment lenses use a | tiny bayonet, which I think I _would_ prefer to the 17mm | thread Apexel, Ulanzi and others use. Screwing the lens | on can be fiddly, especially with the semi-open, three- | quarter circumference attachment threads you typically | see on lens adapter phone cases. | | Don't use the clamp attachments. They are hard to align | and I think that is a lot of why people find attachment | lenses so disappointing. | | Get a phone case with a built-in 17mm thread (or bayonet | if you pick a bayonet lens type). I think I'm using a | Ulanzi case. | | The only frustration that remains is that the iPhone's | built-in camera app does not let you force the choice of | either of the lenses. It will choose for you if you pick | 2x. So you might want an app. I really like the ProCamera | app. | | I'm not sure whether accessory lenses are so useful on | some of the three and four camera mobiles, but it works | well enough for my iPhone X. | hughrr wrote: | Yeah 13 Pro here. I sold my DSLR last year. I don't need it | any more and I hated carrying it around everywhere. | ghaff wrote: | I have a fairly large FF DSLR Canon system that I rarely | use at this point--though not sure if it's worth selling. | (I do use it now and then.) I use my Fujifilm mirrorless | setup more but even that almost has to be a longer trip | where I plan to take a lot of pictures. iPhone is fine for | most purposes. | mrfusion wrote: | It's really that comparable?? | unfocussed_mike wrote: | They aren't _comparable_ , not really. In the same way | that an 8x10" camera and a full-frame camera aren't. | | But they are _excellent_. | | Good phone cameras have a value proposition all of their | own, and they are utterly changing what we expect from | photography. | | My mobile has taught me that a lot of what I relied on or | worked with in a DSLR or mirrorless is a crutch. | | Mobile phone cameras force you, for example, to really | think about composition, because you can't simply blur | out the bits you don't like (portrait mode still sucks). | They force you to think of other ways to isolate | subjects, other ways to make use of light and contrast. | | I've owned a lot of kit over 20 years or so, though I | still own a lot of it -- I'm using a 14-year-old full | frame DSLR and a seven year old full-frame mirrorless. | | In the last two years, when studio portrait photography | has been complicated or impossible, I have used my phone | a lot, when out walking by myself. What I thought was | just a way to not-totally-give-up photography has turned | into a work of its own. | | It will anger a lot of photographers who like to whine | about how mobile phone cameras can't do X, Y and Z, but | here's the truth: if you don't understand what a mobile | phone camera can teach you as a photographer, you're | probably not really trying. | tuyiown wrote: | Besides telephoto and real macro, the results of the | iPhone 12 made the idea of gear renewal almost absurd for | me, it's just incredible and I'm not talking about the 12 | pro. | | There is trade offs, none of them justifies carrying | heavy gear around most of the time. | | edit: it's a hobby and I just spent a lot of time trying | to take pretty pictures, and searching the proper cost | tradeoff to do them | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Right. Gear churn just seems peculiar. | | I think this is also why we see lots of people who own | high end full-frame etc., are now adapting old lenses, | building extraordinary DIY rigs like the "digital camera | obscura" trend of the moment, making entirely custom | lenses with surplus optics and 3D printers, etc. | | It's the same reason as for why there's so much interest | in film. | | These things have different strengths. I think mobile | phones have liberated photography in a way unparalleled | since the time when 35mm film liberated photography. | ghaff wrote: | >Gear churn just seems peculiar. | | There was a period when DSLRs were improving pretty | rapidly and it made sense to move up on a pretty regular | cadence because the new stuff was so much better. (And | we've seen this with phones more recently.) | | There's definitely a retro aspect to film and vinyl. | Personally that's not for me having lived with the | limitations of both. But I spent years working with | custom film developing chemistry and the like. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I still think of myself as someone who shoots a little | bit of film, though like other things I still think of | myself as doing, not since the pandemic. | | But I think I view film photography, darkroom work, and | mobile phones in basically the same way. | | They are just _some photography tools among many_ , and | my photography education would be incomplete without | them. | ghaff wrote: | I was photo editor of my undergrad newspaper, editor of | high school yearbook, and made beer money with | photography in various ways. (I was also de facto photo | editor of a newspaper in grad school among other things.) | | I spent a lot of time on it and got a lot of enjoyment | out of it. I also probably got a bit burned out and | wasn't really interested any longer once I didn't have | easy access to a good darkroom any longer. But yeah, | happy I did it, zero interest in doing any longer. | Digital pretty much rekindled that interest. | | (Also could really not get into video in those days | because overhead was just too much. Don't have obvious | entry point into creative video these days but at least | casual is easier.) | ghaff wrote: | It depends on what you're doing and what the photos are | for. If you're shooting events, sports, wildlife, or want | to do shots with specialty--like ultra-wideangle--lenses, | precise aperture control, large blowups, no. But phones | can now handle a huge amount of what most people--even | relatively serious photographers, need day to day or on a | random hike/city visit/etc. need. If you're shooting with | a DSLR and whatever kit lens it came with on A you're | probably fine using a phone. | bagels wrote: | So are these lens assemblies designed by some optimizer? There | are a lot of radical shapes in there. | R0b0t1 wrote: | It's possible, but they are sufficiently regular I think some | obvious hand optimization math could get you there. I've seen | similar in other fields. | Buttons840 wrote: | How much does this lens cost? | trevortheblack wrote: | Yining Karl Li has mentioned in previous posts their intention to | write a blog post about modern lens optics, which should outline | multiple things. | | Hopefully, a general overview of the 100s of lenses they've | found/made the models for, alongside how modern optics fail to be | accurately modeled by the polynomial model of optics... | mrfusion wrote: | I don't really get it. Also could this be used to improve | telescopes? | sega_sai wrote: | (astronomer here). Some comments below partially answered the | question, as modern optical/ir telescopes are based on mirror | designs (i.e. they have primary, secondary, and sometimes the | tertiary mirror like the Vera Rubin telescope). But the lenses | are still heavily used in the camera part of the instrument or | in spectrographs. And there is a lot of know-how there, as well | as optimization in terms of minimising light losses, | aberrations etc. I think the constraints and goals are clearly | different from the cameras in iphones, but I'd think the | techniques must be pretty similar (although Apple clearly has a | ton of money that astronomers don't so it's possible that there | are some big innovations there, that I don't know about). | leeoniya wrote: | SCT reflector telescopes use an exotic looking "corrector | plate" (lens) to compensate for the easier-to-produce | spherical mirrors vs parabolic. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_corrector_plate | bagels wrote: | These designs are required due to the package size constraints | and the relatively generous lighting conditions. | ElephantsMyAnus wrote: | Isn't the primary reason that the picture has to be projected | on a flat plane? | aliher1911 wrote: | Not an astronomer, but from my limited knowledge telescopes | usually use reflection e.g. mirrors so they don't need to | correct for chromatic aberrations introduced by lenses and they | also don't use things like optical stabilisation. Refractors | could possibly be corrected, but AFAIK they aren't widely used | in astronomy and hobby telescopes is such a niche market. | amelius wrote: | They are still rotationally symmetric, at least. | teekert wrote: | I recently switched from a OnePlus3 to an iPhone 12 mini and | although the pictures are really much better, one thing is worse, | the lens glare. There is often a glare and sometimes a bright | green dot. Is that a consequence of these many elements? Less | spherical and chromatic aberrations but more glare and other | internal reflections? | GoToRO wrote: | From what I've learn from 3d software tutorials (trying to | simulate a glare), this glare comes from the lenses and each | lens will add another ring in the glare? not sure. | red0point wrote: | Maybe dumb to suggest, but when this happens usually the lens | is dirty / a bit greasy, at least from my experience with | iPhone cameras. | teekert wrote: | I'll degrease the lenses now, perhaps this was quite a | brilliant suggestion :) | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | The OnePlus 3 had a sapphire camera lens, Apple does not. Maybe | that's why the flare. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-05 23:00 UTC)