Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TonyC28

macrumors 68030
Aug 15, 2009
2,885
7,256
USA
The "sideways" pic you uploaded is a PNG, so it still lacks camera metadata.
I don't know what's going on. Maybe because it's ProRAW?

Screenshot 2024-10-18 at 10.06.18 PM.png
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
11,003
8,900
A sea of green
I don't know what's going on. Maybe because it's ProRAW?

View attachment 2439249
I don't know what's going on, either.

It might be good to make some test photos of ordinary objects, using various settings, such as image format, exposure time, etc. and then check the metadata using something other than the device the photos were taken on.

The "1.0 s" exposure time is baffling to me, because it seems so out of whack with the light trail in the image.

However, I'm also baffled by the metadata for the "IMG_7892.jpeg" file in your Media collection:
meta.png


According to that, the exposure time is "1/1 second(s)" which seems like an odd way of expressing time. If its math is correct, that's a 1-sec exposure, which again seems inconsistent with the light trail in that image. I count 6 brighter flashes and 6 dimmer ones on that trail. That's reasonable for an 8-sec exposure but not a 1-sec one.

Maybe it's just a problem with how this website displays exposure times longer than a second. If so, then some site-displayed metadata is unreliable.
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68030
Aug 15, 2009
2,885
7,256
USA
I don't know what's going on, either.

It might be good to make some test photos of ordinary objects, using various settings, such as image format, exposure time, etc. and then check the metadata using something other than the device the photos were taken on.

The "1.0 s" exposure time is baffling to me, because it seems so out of whack with the light trail in the image.

However, I'm also baffled by the metadata for the "IMG_7892.jpeg" file in your Media collection:
View attachment 2439385

According to that, the exposure time is "1/1 second(s)" which seems like an odd way of expressing time. If its math is correct, that's a 1-sec exposure, which again seems inconsistent with the light trail in that image. I count 6 brighter flashes and 6 dimmer ones on that trail. That's reasonable for an 8-sec exposure but not a 1-sec one.

Maybe it's just a problem with how this website displays exposure times longer than a second. If so, then some site-displayed metadata is unreliable.
Could be that I captured an alien spacecraft entering the Earth’s atmosphere 🤷‍♂️ LOL. I didn’t pay very close attention to each picture I took. I took about a dozen over two nights trying to get the comet. Only these two showed this weird streak. I was messing around with exposure settings to try to get more time out of night mode.

How else can I view the metadata?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: darrinS

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
11,003
8,900
A sea of green
How else can I view the metadata?
If you have a Mac you could try transferring the photo there, and see what Preview.app and Photos.app say about it.

If the photo is stored on iCloud, maybe use the online web app for photos and see what it says. It's been a while since I poked around in that web app, so I don't recall what features it has.
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68030
Aug 15, 2009
2,885
7,256
USA
If you have a Mac you could try transferring the photo there, and see what Preview.app and Photos.app say about it.

If the photo is stored on iCloud, maybe use the online web app for photos and see what it says. It's been a while since I poked around in that web app, so I don't recall what features it has.
Photos on the Mac says the same thing...one second for the long streak, eight seconds for the short streak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chown33

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
11,003
8,900
A sea of green
Photos on the Mac says the same thing...one second for the long streak, eight seconds for the short streak.
Weird. I think it's worth taking some test photos with different parameters, especially exposure time. If aircraft often fly at night near you, then that's a good subject.

I'll have to think about other simple subjects that can be photographed in a dark room. The ideal would be a low-intensity LED flasher you could move around in front of the camera. Most people don't have something like that.
 

jajo.j

macrumors 6502
Oct 11, 2023
321
986

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.02s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 10.87MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.13s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.04s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 12.13MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.08s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 11.79MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.02s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 11.45MP)
 

jajo.j

macrumors 6502
Oct 11, 2023
321
986
So you can shoot with way lower ISO? Or is it kinda the same with how much light gets on the sensor ?

Yes, I can shoot at lower ISO with 16 Pro Max. Not a huge difference though. 15 Pro Max is almost as good.

At the same ISO I see slightly lower noise with 16 Pro Max which means I can use less denoise and preserve more detail.

The key to get really good results with iPhone is to use Regular RAW instead of ProRAW with a third party app like ProCamera or ProCam.
 

Stiille

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2024
734
854
Yes, I can shoot at lower ISO with 16 Pro Max. Not a huge difference though. 15 Pro Max is almost as good.

At the same ISO I see slightly lower noise with 16 Pro Max which means I can use less denoise and preserve more detail.

The key to get really good results with iPhone is to use Regular RAW instead of ProRAW with a third party app like ProCamera or ProCam.
Ok thank you very much!
 

Gator5000e

macrumors 65816
Jan 27, 2018
1,052
975
The second one. Never mind. The site won't let me post it from my phone and I can't delete this post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marzfreerider

jajo.j

macrumors 6502
Oct 11, 2023
321
986

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 11.59MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.13s, f/1.7, ISO 400, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 1s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 11.75MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.1s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 12.13MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 1s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.13s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 12.06MP)
 

Stiille

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2024
734
854

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 11.59MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.01s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 0.13s, f/1.7, ISO 400, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 1s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 11.75MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.1s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 12.13MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (1x, 24mm, 1s, f/1.7, ISO 50, 12.19MP)


Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max (5x, 120mm, 0.13s, f/2.97, ISO 32, 12.06MP)
Would you mind share your settings with ProCamera? My RAW images (standard RAW) are way bigger in size - normally 18-20mb
Or is this the size of the jpeg file after you edited it?
Still want to know your settings :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleKarma
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.