>I am consistently disappointed with the iPhone’s video quality.
Compared to what? An Arri? Bebause on its own, as far as smartphone video goes, it's quite fine. You can also trivially shoot a higher bitrate (not ProRes) in Filmic Pro and other apps.
I don’t really have anything to compare it to as I have never used a proper video camera. So I’m just comparing it to the average YouTube video quality I guess.
The main problem that I see is compression artefacts, especially in complex scenes with a lot of motion. For example filming a person or pet moving against a background of grass or gravel, or the camera panning across complex terrain. I even got it really badly just filming waves going in and out on the beach.
I know these are tough situations for to handle but it feels like bumping the bitrate would help a lot.
He has though: that "youtuber quality" can be misleading as a criterium for iPhone video quality, as major youtubers nowadays use high end devices.
If you don't have video experience, then you might find it subpar when actually you compare it to impossible standards and 10x more expensive gear and lenses.
Sorry, it seemed to me that you didn't realize that you were comparing your phone to the same cameras used for actual film productions.
YouTube is not a shoestring operation anymore, filmed with whatever point and shoot digital camera is at hand, and for most even semi-popular creators it hasn't been like that for some time now.
I thought it would be constructive to point out that most pro or semi-pro YouTubers are now using top of line kit, with full post-production pipelines tailored to YouTube.
If you know this already and yet still expect your iPhone to match up, then ok, perhaps you're right and there isn't a constructive conversation here.
Considering how large tha camera bump has gotten, you could probably put a single large 1" sensor in there as one of the Xperia phones did. Then you'd get much better image quality and wouldn't have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's limitations.
And even ignoring the limitations of the sensor, the iPhone isn't even the best smartphone. Due to the fact that it can only record variable framerate video it's basically unusable for professional work, even with the Pro model in ProRes.
> Then you'd get much better image quality and wouldn't have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's limitations.
Interesting, I've always thought the iphone camera produces extremely good results. Subject to the obvious limitations like not being able to replace the lens! What sort of benchmarks should I be looking at, to really measure the camera's limitations?
Take a look at the RAW images at full scale. Compare that with even a cheap Sony APS-C camera's RAW images.
The quality difference is massive, and not in favour of the iPhone. Apple has awesome algorithms to post-process these images, but garbage in, garbage out, you can only fix so much.
A larger sensor means you naturally get much better low light capabilities, much better bokeh, and the ability to increase the dynamic range without losing resolution.
What e.g. Google Pixels call "HDR+" is what high end Canon cameras can do at 24 frames a second, due to the higher dynamic range of their sensors and the integration of two independent gain circuits.
I don’t think the sensor is the limiting factor for me. I am happy with the photo quality on the 15 pro. It’s the video compression. Or maybe the speed at which the sensor can offload video data.
The phone has to do a significant amount of post-processing to get the sensor data to look as good as it does. With a better sensor, you'd actually have less work to do in post.
Compared to what? An Arri? Bebause on its own, as far as smartphone video goes, it's quite fine. You can also trivially shoot a higher bitrate (not ProRes) in Filmic Pro and other apps.