Hacker News Reader

Comment by FalconSensei | Hacker News Reader

> The SW backing it is much more powerful than what you get in standalone cameras

that is very due to camera makers not giving a sh*t though. Maybe now they do, but it's overdue. And I'm not even talking about the phone apps for connection, or image processing, but more on a user interface and usability PoV, and also interesting modes for the user.

Fuji and Ricoh are the only ones that I see are trying to make things easier or more fun or interesting for non-professionals. Fuji has the whole user customization that people use for recipes and film simulation (on top of the film simulations they already have), and Ricoh is the only one (I know of) that has snap focus, distance priority, and custom user modes that are easy to switch to, and to use. But even Fuji and Ricoh could still improve a lot, since there's always a detail or another that I'm like... why did they made it like that? or... why didn't they add this thing?

View on HN

I don't think it's only that. The processing in a phone is expensive. If you'd build a high end camera with a Snapdragon 8 gen 3 it would raise the price a lot. In a phone that's not an issue because you need the chip there anyway for other tasks. So there's just much more compute power available, not to mention a connection to the cloud with even more potential compute.

Would be cool if there ever were a product like a large external sensor and lens hardware dongle for phones (essentially all parts of a system camera without the computer) that would use the phone as a software processing platform. They would “just” ship the raw data over to the phone for post processing.

Also, many more people buy phones than standalone cameras, so they can afford a lot more software R&D.

Well yes but a lot of that can be reused across devices I would guess.

Naw, astrange is correct. At peak in 2010, 121 standalone cameras were shipped worldwide. By 2021, that number was down to ~8 million. By comparison, 83 million smartphones are shipped each quarter (~1.4 billion for the year). Those kinds of economies of scale means there's more R&D revenue to sustain a larger amount of HW & SW innovation. Even though smartphone shipments should come down over the next few years as they incremental jump each year is minimal & the market is getting saturated, there's always going to be more smartphone shipments.

Individual camera vendors just can't compete as much and I don't think there was possibly anything they could have done to compete because of the ergonomics of a smartphone camera. The poor UX and lack of computational photography techniques doesn't matter as much because the pro market segment is less about the camera itself and more about the lenses / post-processing. Even professional shoots that use smartphones (as Apple likes to do for their advertising) ultimately tend to capture RAW + desktop/laptop post-processing when they can because of the flexibility / ergonomics / feature set of that workflow. The camera vendors do still have the advantage of physical dimensions in that they have a bigger sensor and lenses for DSLR (traditional point & click I think is basically dead now), but I expect smartphones to chip away at that advantage through new ways of constructing lenses / sensors. Those techniques could be applied to DSLRs potentially for even higher quality, but at the end of the day the market segment will just keep shrinking as smartphones absorb more use-cases (interchangeable lenses will be the hardest to overcome).

Honestly, I'm surprised those device manufacturers haven't shifted their DSLR stack to just be a dumb CMOS sensor, lens, a basic processor for I/O, and a thunderbolt controller that you slot the phone into. Probably heat is one factor, the amount of batteries you'd need would go up, the BOM cost for that package could be largely the same, & maybe the external I/O isn't quite yet fast/open enough for something like that.

Good points.

> Honestly, I'm surprised those device manufacturers haven't shifted their DSLR stack to just be a dumb CMOS sensor, lens, a basic processor for I/O, and a thunderbolt controller that you slot the phone into. Probably heat is one factor, the amount of batteries you'd need would go up, the BOM cost for that package could be largely the same, & maybe the external I/O isn't quite yet fast/open enough for something like that.

This is not really an option. There were actually clip-on cameras back in the day when cameras were new on phones. But there were several problems:

- Software support tended to lag with updates

- Phones change form factor very regularly and phones in general are replaced much more often than camera hardware, leaving you a highly expensive paperweight

- I don't think any phones have thunderbolt yet, just some tablets

- Dealing with issues is a nightmare because you don't control the hardware end to end

I think the limiting issue has been I/O. The recent iPhone 15 has 10gbps usbc which might be close but RAW images are quite big - not sure and too lazy to do the math.

The form factor issue feels tractable - just have the housing that you slot your phone into be a cheap bit of molded plastic that adapts it to the thing you sell that contains the sensor, battery etc. That makes it a ~$50 part at most that you can support nearly every phone on. There’s also spring loaded designs (look at all the spring based universal car mounts). Now that even iPhones are usbc, this also standardized the I/O connector port which would have been harder/impossible to solve and a bigger obstacle. The SW support thing doesn’t seem real - the R&D cost for maintaining the camera OS with its own custom gui is going to be much more expensive than just hiring some mobile app developers. Form factor feel might be an issue (ie wright distribution / Feel in the hands) and that might be a real issue. Not sure but also feels solvable.

But the biggest issue is that computational photography in a mobile form factor just isn’t relevant to the space that these manufacturers are in. The creators will use tools like darkroom and newer generative AI tools to post process and the value add of computational photography isn’t relevant there. “Computational photography” techniques to help capture and set up shots might be but I’m not enough in the space to know whether or not there always doing that (eg automatically being able to capture back to back shots with different settings for later compositing, providing automatic tips on lighting, etc etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com