Not true, as per the scientific method you only want to test typically along one dimension (in this case sensor quality).
If the cameras are subject a random motion which causes blur greater than the blur caused by low-light conditions then the results are meaningless as the random motion is independent of the variable being tested.
I disagree because you want to test photographs from a human holding it, not a tripod holding it. Perhaps you could take dozens of shots with each phone and compare.
suivix nailed it. Photography is not one dimensional. A great photograph with a camera phone must be handheld. Suivix's point about taking a great number of photos then comparing the results with a huge sample then making a quantitative assessment would be the only correct way to test it.
This post wasn't about the quality of the sensor it was about the quality of the photograph.
Increasing the number of photographs would definitely make this more significant (as increasing the sample size in any experiment does).
My point is that regardless of if a 4S shot better photos, the photographer could hiccup and get a blurrier photo than they might have taken last with a 3GS. In a less extreme circumstance, they could have just exhaled instead of hiccuping, in which case no one would have noticed and the error could be incorrectly attributed to the camera.
A great photograph with a camera phone requires a certain set of parameters that can almost entirely be individually measured outside of human interaction (and randomness). If you want good handheld performance, you need a fast exposure time, which can be measured from the EXIF data of each photo. If you want high dynamic range, measure the ratio of pure white and black pixels to the rest of the image (white and black is basically over/underexposed). The only thing that would be effected by motion that I can't think of how else to measure beyond being handheld is time to good focus (outside of crazy contraptions that result in more repeatable motion, like sticking your phone in a centrifuge), but there probably exists a way to do so while avoiding the inherent non-repeatability of humans behavior.
It is relevant since movement from their hands/body can change the outcome.
With a tripod there would be no blur, but the picture quality would still shine through. The amount of noise difference in each phone's photos is very noticeable.
In an experiment all the conditions should be the same except for the variable, which in this case is the phone.
Sure this would have made for a more scientific experiment, but I still argue that such a controlled experiment is less relevant to a user's real experience with the phone because the photos wouldn't look anything like the photos one would actually take. I assume the shooter tried to maintain a consistently steady hand throughout.
The motion blur is significant because it speaks to the increased aperture/ decreased exposure time in the 4S, which are both part of the phone wouldn't you agree? On a tripod these aren't crippling to the quality of the photo like they actually are.
Actually I'm contemplating replacing my broken camera with a 4s, something that will come up more often. I do take a little tripod with me when I travel, usually to take after sunset shots. I see your point though ... I'd have preferred to see how the quality improved without the blur, but perhaps this new tech is good enough to take shots at night without flash/tripod at all?
