"This is an image straight out of the camera, with no post processing. All we've done is apply a Portrait Filter to fade out the background."

Uhhh, I guess that doesn't count as post processing, then.

These days, after the rise of dSLRs, post-processing is something that occurs after the image is saved to memory.

Raw sensor data to JPEG undergoes incamera processing. Cameras typically only allow small oversight of that process, so many photographers prefer to shoot RAW, and do 100% of the processing via post-processing.

That's apologist at best. I'm not disputing the feature is cool, or whatever. But what they're doing is unabashedly post processing. Come on, in most of the examples there were sliders to choose the effect, the intensity thereof.

To claim "well, it's not really post processing because you're doing it before 'saving'" (also doubtful because if it's an extension of what is currently possible with editing on the iPhone, it's an edit to a saved original) is grasping at a straws, as is comparing it to "raw-to-JPEG". This is 'straight out of Aperture/Lightroom' style editing, aka post processing.

If I remember right from the keynote, "no post processing" wasn't mentioned on the photos that had the new lighting feature. Even if it were, however, I'd still call it true; I would consider post processing something that you do outside of the Camera app (e.g. even editing it Photos to adjust lighting, black point, saturation). Something you do in the Camera app, even if it does some fancy "magic", I would argue falls outside of the post-processing realm.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, as is Apple, but it basically flies against the definition of anything else in photography. "Straight Out Of Camera" is about taking the time and effort to nail something so that when you hit the shutter button, exposure, focus, composition are all "as the camera saw it", not "as the camera saw it and then image manipulation software found the subject, and applied a mask to the image to burn out the non-subjective areas while keeping the exposure of the subject as-is, if not enhanced".

Edit: Hell, even Apple's own iPhone X page up now says this:

"A new feature in Portrait mode, Portrait Lighting produces impressive studio‑quality lighting effects."

"Create beautiful selfies with sharp foregrounds and artfully blurred backgrounds."

Somehow, these are "effects" which don't fall under the umbrella of post-processing.

But this is a nitpick, admittedly. Nothing wrong with the feature or whatever, but it amused me to hear "No processing. Just [applied post processing]."

I wouldn't consider it post-processing because it's using data that's only available live. Making a live 3D mapping of a face and applying lighting effects to it will give you much better quality than applying lighting effects after the image has been saved.

"Create beautiful selfies with sharp foregrounds and artfully blurred backgrounds."

This occurs optically, by choosing the proper depth of field, and an appropriate focus point. The blurring of the background is "bokeh" and used in portraits, none of which is considered "post processing."

Clearly the iphone guts aren't nearly as capable as my 5D2, but my opinion is that if it's software that can produce a reasonable approximation of something that can be done optically (or in the case of studio lighting with a pair of strobes), it's fine to not be pedantic.

Unless I misread you, this is not what is happening here. That tiny camera/sensor combo is unable to do that narrow of a depth of field. There's a blur, but nowhere near that extent.

The “bokeh” here is completely software generated, and made quite the buzz last year. I remember reading a technical post by an Apple engineer explaining how they reinvented a way to do lens blur instantaneously on the phone.

How is it post-processing when it is happening automatically when you click? It's not something YOU have to do or take a creative call on.

The main point they were trying to make is that nobody cares, disciplined elitists are irrelevant, and everyone can realize their creative vision now. Thats what matters right?

Thats why the elitists originally got into the craft right?

FYI, iOS 11 no longer stores images in JPEG, but HEIF instead.

I believe they meant that in the sense that they didn't modify it in anyway on the computer, it's exactly what would show up on your photo roll on the device after you press the shutter button.

My understanding is that the iPhone applys GOBS of processing to reduce noise and do other things to make such beautiful looking photos from such a pathetically tiny sensor. I assume other phones do as well.

Same here, a tiny bit underwhelmed, not underwhelmed enough to get a Google Pixel successor for Daydream. If my cellular provider gives a decent upgrade and monthly payment plan, then I won't mind that it costs the same as an entry level macbook.

I'm glad the Iphone X is smaller than the Plus line, and has a more advanced dual camera system with the addition of a fast point cloud. That's good enough for me, I skipped the 7 because the smaller model didn't have the depth camera, and the bigger model was too big.

Face ID is marginally interesting, would like to use the API for more. I mean A FREAKING POINT CLOUD IN YOUR PHONE! Good bye Kinect! I can't wait to hover my hand over the screen for gestures, please open up the APIs.

Very important point. With the current iPhone, by the time you have brought the phone up to look at it, it's already unlocked by Touch ID. It was very clear from the demonstration that there was a delay and he had to look directly at the phone. The phone did not even wake until he looked directly at it.

Bet the chip that allow those snapchat feautures could be used for on-device machine learning, that'll open up really interesting app.

This.

There are multiple scenarios where not looking directly at the phone comes handy. You mentioned the driver scenario, but there's more.

E.g before bed, I don't wanna look directly to my phone as it's annoyingly bright.

Or sometimes I want to use the phone while it's still in my pocket (for example, click Next Song ...).

I agree with the sentiment, but what did you plan to do after unlocking the phone in bed, with touch-id

"Hey Siri, turn the brightness all the way down."

Works for me for the first one. Don't pause after hey Siri; just make it one smooth utterance.

For the second one, not sure how you do that even with today's phones.

> I feel like "attention to unlock" is going to cause an increase in distracted driver related incidents.

Aren't you not supposed to use your phone when driving, and it is specifically against the law to do so in a lot of places? In any case, it's as distracting as using your phone currently because it seems that it doesn't have to be pointed directly in front of your face, as long as it gets a decent look at it.

> Aren't you not supposed to use your phone when driving

Yes, but while laws say one thing; 80% of your users say a different thing.

Unless Apple is being purposeful to work to reduce texting while driving.

You can text with Siri and there is a new Do Not Disturb mode while driving in a car.

>Aren't you not supposed to use your phone when driving

I know that when driving if we need something on my phone, my girlfriend uses it and I just put my finger out to unlock with my attention still solidly on the road

Couldn't you just tell her your passcode? That seems safer.

I have a general aversion to giving anyone enduring access to my accounts, but I don't have a problem giving people I trust temporary access.

Regarding safety, I don't think it's unsafe but would be happy to have my mind changed if you have more experience with the relative risks of driver distraction: my hand is on the wheel with a finger held out and she positions the touch id button under the finger, so I've still got both hands on the wheel & have full control in the event I need to steer out of the way of a hazard. I'd only do it on a straight stretch of road with no obvious hazards (and on top of that it's rare that it's needed, usually just if we need a contact number that was sent only to me).

I'd definitely not use FaceID while driving because I'd be uncomfortable taking my attention away from the road to look at a phone screen (even if it's just a glance just like checking the speedometer)

I feel the same way. Usually after I have given out the unlock code to my wife for one time use, I'll rotate it.

My wife tells me the unlock code for her phone occasionally, and I never have bothered to commit it to memory.

My toddler son watches me unlock the ipad for him, in a few weeks or so, he'll be able to unlock it himself.

iOS 11 has a specific feature to deter people using the phone while driving: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/30/ios-11-do-not-disturb-w...

Wonder what the liability of that will be?

In WA, it's now illegal (a primary reason for a stop) to use the cellphone when you are in your car, unless you are in a parkinglot, pulled over.

Say with this new feature, you disable it, and you are found to cause an accident while being distracted, are you in more trouble because you knowningly disabled the phones safety features?

Also, I commute by bus everyday, so I will definitely be disabling the "are you sure you're not driving" warning.

The law didn't really change. It was already a primary offense to be using the phone. Before that, there were already distracted driving laws on the books. The only real difference now is that it can all be reported to your insurance company.

I don't see how this changes anything really. How are you going to be in more trouble? I don't think there are any laws regarding bypassing safety features of the phone. If it's not explicitly illegal to bypass the safety features, it's technically legal isn't it?

Texting was Illegal, as was holding the phone.

The new law Driving While Under the Influence of Electronics codifies this even more clearly. No more using phones, unless it's mounted on the dash, and you use minimal interaction (such as starting an app)