iPhone 5se to have 4K video recording, 12MP camera

16 March, 2016
Early whispers suggested an old 8MP/1080p camera, but it seems the 5se will be closer to the 6s than the 5s.

Sort by:

  • ?
  • Anonymous
  • tUd
  • 29 Mar 2016

great job

    • D
    • AnonD-1034
    • 7Xq
    • 25 Mar 2016

    Id rather buy sony z5 compact,
    Than this 4"outdated crap

      • ?
      • Anonymous
      • vV5
      • 23 Mar 2016

      Record 4K and play with your 4in tiny 1K screen? Are they kidding?

        • G
        • GMK
        • w4m
        • 18 Mar 2016

        After iphone 5se release what will be price of 5S ??

          • A
          • Ashik
          • bC7
          • 18 Mar 2016

          I am excited,, when it'll be released and what is the price? i want to have this phone.

            • D
            • AnonD-367917
            • i2k
            • 18 Mar 2016

            AnonD-442781, 17 Mar 2016As you said, fps is mainly about smoothness. It isn't to do... moreYes, smoothness!

            Maintaining V-sync, and a strong 'minimum frame rate' is what matters.

            This is where Intel video seems to suffer... It benchmarks alright, but the minimum frame rates are immersion breaking.. Any AMD APU smashes them out of the park with regards to playability.


            With regards to 4K?
            It is a good tech to have (as it is cutting edge).. In the same way that the 4K TVs have great upscalers in them; where they shine best; 4K cameras WILL do high refresh rate 1080/generally have better digital stabilisation/ and likely have better colour and contrast (dynamic range); simply for being the newer part where cost is less of a concern.

            Apple typically wait until tech proves itself.
            Their comments after the launch of the first iPhone, was it was a marriage of technology that wasn't available to them a year prior. (Battery and screen tech made it happen just as much as the processing parts they put in)

            4K in a camera is going to be for playback, later on, on what will no doubt be the consumer norm.

            Any of my digital films recorded from the late nineties and early 2000's are low res on my 1080 sets... So 4K will likely be more practical for everyone down the track.

            Also the newer chipsets likely have better compression algorithms, and, a few posts ago, I gave a listing of a few of the benefits that 4K cameras offer the layman in terms of post processing etc... (Sure, the true layman doesn't even cut/edit their vids,.. But even 'on-device', most of my 4K camera phones have had vastly better video performance across the board.
            Eg when filming at 4K, pans are choppy, when filming at 1080 they are smoother than consumer class camcorders typically perform.

              • ?
              • Anonymous
              • 4S}
              • 17 Mar 2016

              Most likely a SONY 4k sensor for this new Iphone in 2016.

                • D
                • AnonD-442781
                • JiT
                • 17 Mar 2016

                AnonD-367917, 17 Mar 2016To you it might not be. To say 'in no way', is not true ... moreAs you said, fps is mainly about smoothness. It isn't to do with responsiveness. Whether a game is 30fps or 60fps makes no difference in responsiveness because people already don't respond in 1/30 of a second to begin with. Its all about how smooth it appears, and the same applies to video. Only if you're taking a video where there isn't much movement it doesn't matter. But I'd rather not be ogling a 4k video on a huge TV if it meant that everything appeared clunky. Of course, 30 fps is mainly fine, but you can't ignore that there is a balance, and if there's a lot of movement you're better off with 60fps, and that 4k takes a lot of space.

                In the grand scheme of things, its a very small number of people that will gain proper value from 4k recording, given the constraints. Even smaller than the number of people who use vr, or utilise a removable battery or any other niche feature a phone typically has these days.

                  • C
                  • Cleas de Vrieslaan
                  • nBx
                  • 17 Mar 2016

                  The first small form factor phone with a 4K camera. I have never seen this before. And the most phones with 4K are ovepriced.

                    Zenodroid, 17 Mar 2016they are talking about 8k on tv now. not 4k anymore. samsun... moreAnd I could say the same about 4K, don't waste your hardware on it.

                    4K does little to make my life any easier, and it uses a hell lot of space. If you want 8k, you'll need a 1TB phone, and these are still a few years away.

                    4K like 3DTV's are super technological but so not aimed at the customer.

                      harlekkin, 17 Mar 2016When 4K was totally irrelevant and even more gimmicky than ... morethey are talking about 8k on tv now. not 4k anymore. samsung is even talking about 11k on mobile screens.

                      but the comment was that once again, apple comes with something that has been out for ages, on other platforms. i know other platforms are getting 3d touch, but not really something worth wasting hardware on.

                        • D
                        • AnonD-367917
                        • i2k
                        • 17 Mar 2016

                        Herodroid, 17 Mar 2016ugh, are you Apple fan? (no sarcasm) I didn't say that I... moreClearly you do not understand this technology.

                        Glad to know you are reading to learn all about it.

                        Nothing wrong with a 4K camera in a small form factor phone.

                        Digest this truth and ease up on mis educating others.

                          Herodroid, 17 Mar 2016ugh, are you Apple fan? (no sarcasm) I didn't say that I... more4K also makes little sense in a 5.5" 1080p phone, so what's your point?

                            Zenodroid, 16 Mar 20164k video? OMG. Other brands had that like 2 or 3 years ago. When 4K was totally irrelevant and even more gimmicky than what it still is today. I've got 4K and won't use it.

                              AnonD-367917, 17 Mar 2016So, these are your projections... All very negative in na... moreugh, are you Apple fan? (no sarcasm)

                              I didn't say that I am not interested in a phone, I just said that I would not like having it.

                              Nothing personal here, since its just sad how people gets 'fooled'.

                              Good luck having 4K recording in 4inch phone! (in laugh and sarcasm mode)

                                • M
                                • Mahesh
                                • PSL
                                • 17 Mar 2016

                                AnonD-442781, 17 Mar 2016Its closer to your face so there is more value in higher re... moreThe pixels will be visible if you hold the TV in our hand but not with iPhone as its the matter with the Pixels Per Inch :)

                                  • D
                                  • AnonD-367917
                                  • i2k
                                  • 17 Mar 2016

                                  AnonD-442781, 17 Mar 2016Fps in games is in no way about responsiveness.To you it might not be.

                                  To say 'in no way', is not true for everybody or in all cases.

                                  When I play slower games like 'the witcher' I turn all the eye candy up (including hair works) and I am happy with 45fps.
                                  Battlefront I run at 100 frames per second.
                                  It depends on the situation.

                                  Some game types benefit from higher frame rates more than others.
                                  Even running a game at 40 frames per second into my 120hz monitor (that renders 120 frames per second); the delivery of any given frame to the monitor will be rendered faster than a 60hz monitor.
                                  It appears lag free and is more 'responsive'.

                                  For some game types, with a lot of post effects (mostly a range of motion blurs etc..) some games can get away with 30fps and appear very smooth. They might have an extra 16ms for a frame to render to the screen, but input lag and a range of other things can even this out.
                                  In fact, developers generally know that they have no control over the video output, and have to program accordingly.
                                  Twitch games on CRTs? We miss you!

                                  Most gamers just do not have the luxury of high refresh rate monitors, or a beastly PC to drive them.

                                  Heck in the PlayStation era days many games, action titles included were happy around twenty something frames with lows in the single digits.
                                  Descent (an action shooter) was happy with 15fps. The gameplay, after all, was fun.

                                  Real game players are generally system agnostic, and whilst they may like great graphics, it is all about the gameplay/story.

                                  If we are talking competitive beat em ups, where a slow tv might take an extra two frames (of time) to render the image on the screen,may give a competitive disadvantage, and sure most people who argue for high frame rates might actually 'need' them.
                                  With the exception of a handful of titles, most people can survive with less frames per second.

                                  I choose eye candy over frame rate wherever possible, as long as the game play is smooth.

                                    • D
                                    • AnonD-367917
                                    • i2k
                                    • 17 Mar 2016

                                    AnonD-442781, 17 Mar 2016Its closer to your face so there is more value in higher re... moreRight before me are a >500 ppi (pixels per inch) screen and another somewhere around half that.
                                    Several good monitors in the house have half that again.

                                    There isn't any need to go to higher pixel counts, except for potential screens in VR headsets where the phone is an inch on front of your face...

                                    Nothing wrong with utilising the 'right' screen for the job.
                                    The best feature of qhd cutting edge screens is more likely their colour accuracy, brightness and contrast.
                                    Resolution? Yawn. It doesn't matter if it has gone past the point of our eyes resolving the extra detail.
                                    Just presents more of a workload to the video chip.

                                    This 264ppi I write this on is indistinguishable from the qhd screen in my phone (in terms of sharpness).

                                      • D
                                      • AnonD-442781
                                      • JiT
                                      • 17 Mar 2016

                                      ithehappy, 17 Mar 2016What's the use of QHD display in Android flagship when the ... moreIts closer to your face so there is more value in higher res screens. For example if you have a 50" TV that's 3m away, and you use your phone from 20cm away, the pixels are more visible on your phone at the same resolution

                                        • D
                                        • AnonD-442781
                                        • JiT
                                        • 17 Mar 2016

                                        AnonD-367917, 17 Mar 2016This 'mythical' person just doesn't exist (or, if they do; ... moreFps in games is in no way about responsiveness.

                                          1 of 6