- Aug 16, 2010
- 3,151
- 0
- 0
It's pretty auto. You dont think about it and it's not like the apk where you see it load when you take the pic. Usually I snap it and look in my gallery and it's already processed.
Google Pixel 2 Camera Shots! Show Us Your Pictures
- Thread starter Jeremiah Bonds
- Start date
- Aug 16, 2010
- 3,151
- 0
- 0
nelamvr6
Well-known member
- Jan 9, 2011
- 661
- 0
- 0
LeoRex
Retired Moderator
- Nov 21, 2012
- 6,223
- 0
- 0
You know, this argument popped up early on when Google was still developing HDR+... Should reviewers use the mode when comparing phones? On the surface, it might sound like a legitimate question... But in practice, it's utterly absurd.
These phones have absolute crap cameras. Every one... From the Pixel 2 to the cheapest piece of junk you can pick up for $10 at Walmart. They are pointing puny little sensors through puny little lenses. The pictures each take are noisy, hot messes. What really sets the best ones apart is software.
Everyone takes that dumpster fire raw image and reduces noise, sharpens lines and margins, cleans up colors and tones. The cheap phones just punt and use the default processing provided by Qualcomm, Mediatek, etc... And you pretty much get what you pay for.
The phones with the best cameras? Those OEMs have dumped a ton of resources into getting those images out of the trash. They take things beyond the middling default processing and use their own special sauce. Samsung, Apple, LG, Sony, HTC, etc... They try to use better algorithms, more intelligent processing. Some do better than others.
Now a some years back, Google recognized that the future of mobile photography was a) all about software and b) the current approach, which was based on traditional photography, was a dead end. So they went out and started hiring a bunch of imaging ubernerds, many from astronomy. Google figured what better group of people to improve cameras that are too small and receive to little light than one that has to take a few stray photons and turn it into those glorious images we see posted from the cosmos.
And here was the real advantage.. astronomers hate... HATE... artificial processing. They loathe it was a passion that burns hotter than a blue supergiant star. Because they don't want to see an image that was created by an equation, they want an image created by whatever the hell they are looking at. So over time, they developed several little tricks and techniques that would improve their images without having to send them through the digital meat grinder.
HDR+ is the result of that approach. It was a drastic departure from the status quo, but it still no different than what everyone else does: Taking a crap picture and turning it into a good one. But the problem was that is significantly more processor intensive than any other approach, probably by an order of magnitude of two. So they had no choice but to tack it on as an optional mode... Which took quite a long time to process in its early days. Meanwhile, they all but stopped bothering to improve non-HDR+ processing. They saw no point. And as HDR+ and processors improved, they got closer and closer to their goal: HDR+ working on every shot.
That became possible with the first generation Pixel. HDR+ became the default mode, always on. They still allowed people to turn it off, but you're not going to get anything special since it's pretty much just pumping it through the sd835’s out of the box ISP. Why they include that, I have no idea... There is literally no situation that I can think of where you would want to disable it.
And with the Pixel 2, turning it off is akin to forcing a Note 8 to shoot in RAW only. Google sees HDR+ as their default photo processing mode and it should be treated as such.
These phones have absolute crap cameras. Every one... From the Pixel 2 to the cheapest piece of junk you can pick up for $10 at Walmart. They are pointing puny little sensors through puny little lenses. The pictures each take are noisy, hot messes. What really sets the best ones apart is software.
Everyone takes that dumpster fire raw image and reduces noise, sharpens lines and margins, cleans up colors and tones. The cheap phones just punt and use the default processing provided by Qualcomm, Mediatek, etc... And you pretty much get what you pay for.
The phones with the best cameras? Those OEMs have dumped a ton of resources into getting those images out of the trash. They take things beyond the middling default processing and use their own special sauce. Samsung, Apple, LG, Sony, HTC, etc... They try to use better algorithms, more intelligent processing. Some do better than others.
Now a some years back, Google recognized that the future of mobile photography was a) all about software and b) the current approach, which was based on traditional photography, was a dead end. So they went out and started hiring a bunch of imaging ubernerds, many from astronomy. Google figured what better group of people to improve cameras that are too small and receive to little light than one that has to take a few stray photons and turn it into those glorious images we see posted from the cosmos.
And here was the real advantage.. astronomers hate... HATE... artificial processing. They loathe it was a passion that burns hotter than a blue supergiant star. Because they don't want to see an image that was created by an equation, they want an image created by whatever the hell they are looking at. So over time, they developed several little tricks and techniques that would improve their images without having to send them through the digital meat grinder.
HDR+ is the result of that approach. It was a drastic departure from the status quo, but it still no different than what everyone else does: Taking a crap picture and turning it into a good one. But the problem was that is significantly more processor intensive than any other approach, probably by an order of magnitude of two. So they had no choice but to tack it on as an optional mode... Which took quite a long time to process in its early days. Meanwhile, they all but stopped bothering to improve non-HDR+ processing. They saw no point. And as HDR+ and processors improved, they got closer and closer to their goal: HDR+ working on every shot.
That became possible with the first generation Pixel. HDR+ became the default mode, always on. They still allowed people to turn it off, but you're not going to get anything special since it's pretty much just pumping it through the sd835’s out of the box ISP. Why they include that, I have no idea... There is literally no situation that I can think of where you would want to disable it.
And with the Pixel 2, turning it off is akin to forcing a Note 8 to shoot in RAW only. Google sees HDR+ as their default photo processing mode and it should be treated as such.
I think there's only two ways that it's valid to compare cameras. The first is straight up in auto mode with default settings and the second is trying to get the best that you can actually get out of it using manuals headings Etc. There is no argument to be made for gimping the device and then trying to get the best you can get out of it because that's just absurd.
worldspy99
Well-known member
- Oct 15, 2013
- 1,952
- 0
- 36
I don't understand the point of comparing Pixel 2 or for that matter any good smartphone camera to say a SLR. The whole point is to be able to take reasonably good (maybe even great) pictures with a very handy small form factor device than lugging around a bulky camera and lens hardware. I have a really great SLR but it seldom sees daily duty anymore. We take it on vacation trips and even then more pictures are taken using the smartphone and in a lot of instances the smartphone picture is fairly comparable to the SLR.
Bottom line, take a picture with whatever camera that suits you and is in your reach when you think the moment is there to capture it. In my case more often than not it is my Pixel device. I used the Pixel for almost a year, the XL for two weeks and then the Pixel 2.
Bottom line, take a picture with whatever camera that suits you and is in your reach when you think the moment is there to capture it. In my case more often than not it is my Pixel device. I used the Pixel for almost a year, the XL for two weeks and then the Pixel 2.
e30ernest
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2010
- 295
- 2
- 0
I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone was comparing it to an SLR? I think the comparison was between other phones that do not have HDR+.
I agree with your statement above btw.
hpilot
Well-known member
- May 11, 2011
- 524
- 2
- 0
LeoRex
Retired Moderator
- Nov 21, 2012
- 6,223
- 0
- 0
Yeah... that wasn't the heart of the matter. But that is another point... phones have progressed to the point where that window of quality... where the pictures they take are of reasonable enough quality that it starts to infringe upon DSLR cameras... that window is widening. A few years ago, it was really the convenience of having a phone that could take acceptable pictures... Now, its getting to the point where that phone in your pocket can take pictures that are of good enough quality that they are in the ballpark of a DSLR when it comes to taking those run of the mill pictures of every day life.... birthday parties, getting a shot of your son and the sand castle he's extremely proud of, etc.
That utility and convenience is still there, but the quality is now leaps and bounds better than what it once was. Now, phones are still at a distinct disadvantage... small sensors, small lenses, mostly static optics... there are shots that a DSLR can take that a phone couldn't ever dream of taking. But the percentage of shots that your phone can take that are good enough as to not make a difference is increasing.
eemix
Active member
- May 21, 2013
- 29
- 0
- 0
Camera's hardware is produced (mainly) by Sony. And it has limits.
I would really like an 1'' inch sensor with small f and large pixel size and xenon flash.
But it wouldn't be an elegant smartphone. (i would probably buy it, but anyway).
For a nice picture and with the given sensors, all you can do is software processing. And HDR+ is what 3rd party software developers are trying to copy when they realized it makes The difference among all. I don't care how the did it. I just want results. And by the time, a HDR+ picture has more details (specially in portraits) than any other smartphone out there, and because Camera is my 1st priority, HDR+ phones will rule. I only wish they wouldn't be so overpriced...
I would really like an 1'' inch sensor with small f and large pixel size and xenon flash.
But it wouldn't be an elegant smartphone. (i would probably buy it, but anyway).
For a nice picture and with the given sensors, all you can do is software processing. And HDR+ is what 3rd party software developers are trying to copy when they realized it makes The difference among all. I don't care how the did it. I just want results. And by the time, a HDR+ picture has more details (specially in portraits) than any other smartphone out there, and because Camera is my 1st priority, HDR+ phones will rule. I only wish they wouldn't be so overpriced...
Last edited:
e30ernest
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2010
- 295
- 2
- 0
A couple of test shots just to appreciate the camera's night capabilities...
This one is a test of the portrait mode, specifically it's ability to work out edges of the foreground plant vs the background tree and lights in the dark. It's also a nice look at how it handles small beads of light in an otherwise dark night. There is some flaring from the lights, but I also think my lens wasn't perfectly clean at the time (oops):
This second one was of the same tree, but mostly just a test on how well it can handle bright lights and dark shadows. I set my focus on one of the lights and let AF and AE do the work. This was actually pretty close to how the tree looked like in reality (in terms of brightness and colors). The lights are slightly overexposed.
This one is a test of the portrait mode, specifically it's ability to work out edges of the foreground plant vs the background tree and lights in the dark. It's also a nice look at how it handles small beads of light in an otherwise dark night. There is some flaring from the lights, but I also think my lens wasn't perfectly clean at the time (oops):
This second one was of the same tree, but mostly just a test on how well it can handle bright lights and dark shadows. I set my focus on one of the lights and let AF and AE do the work. This was actually pretty close to how the tree looked like in reality (in terms of brightness and colors). The lights are slightly overexposed.
RaRa85
Well-known member
- Oct 13, 2014
- 3,512
- 141
- 63
- Aug 16, 2010
- 3,151
- 0
- 0
Scott Shrewsberry
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2015
- 181
- 4
- 18
I just had to share this picture. This is my daughter mesmerized by her Grandmother's Christmas tree.
Scott Shrewsberry
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2015
- 181
- 4
- 18
Similar threads
- Question
Trending Posts
-
PreOrders May Be Live- Started by Katrina White1
- Replies: 20
-
-
Post your case choices here.- Started by Chex313
- Replies: 2
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram