How is the Pixel 4 low light motion shots (kids running around at night)?

[dpham00]

So I heard a commercial for the Pixel 4 on the radio which said in essence that the pixel 4 could be used on Halloween with kids running around at night due to night sight. I had the pixel 3 before and it was really bad at that situation. But being that the Pixel 4 is being advertised for low light motion, I am curious how good it really is, for this situation? Anyone have experience taking pictures at night trick or treating with kids running around, or other similar situations?

 

[Photo_Drew]

Haven't tried but even indoors in okay light you'll get motion blur. It just is incapable of using a fast enough shutter speed to snag motion in anything but daylight.

Doesn't matter what camera it is. Need to have at least 1/200 to come close to stopping motion. 1/500 preferably.

 

[strikeIII]

So I heard a commercial for the Pixel 4 on the radio which said in essence that the pixel 4 could be used on Halloween with kids running around at night due to night sight. I had the pixel 3 before and it was really bad at that situation. But being that the Pixel 4 is being advertised for low light motion, I am curious how good it really is, for this situation? Anyone have experience taking pictures at night trick or treating with kids running around, or other similar situations?

It's better but you'll still catch some motion blur in indoor or low lighting. If you use the night sight mode it'll be a blurry mess for sure. This is something the next gen cameras need to start focusing on. A way to capture better photos of moving subjects in indoor or low light with these tiny sensors. To me that would be the next game changer.

 

[mustang7757]

Yeah never liked any phone camera for fast moving stuff.

 

[idiotekniques]

It's better but you'll still catch some motion blur in indoor or low lighting. If you use the night sight mode it'll be a blurry mess for sure. This is something the next gen cameras need to start focusing on. A way to capture better photos of moving subjects in indoor or low light with these tiny sensors. To me that would be the next game changer.

it's gonna be awhile until sensor technology allows these little sensors to bump up the ISO quite a bit without the corresponding increase in digital noise that currently happens

 

[strikeIII]

it's gonna be awhile until sensor technology allows these little sensors to bump up the ISO quite a bit without the corresponding increase in digital noise that currently happens

I was thinking more computational magic. I know all about sensor capabilities with light but if we can get this great of photos from software then action shots is the next level I'd like to see.

 

[LeoRex]

I was thinking more computational magic. I know all about sensor capabilities with light but if we can get this great of photos from software then action shots is the next level I'd like to see.

You still can't beat physics. To eliminate motion blur, the phone would need to have at least one exposure quick enough to not pick up movement but exposed enough to work with. In low light, that straight up requires a huge lens... Even with a DSLR.

 

[strikeIII]

You still can't beat physics. To eliminate motion blur, the phone would need to have at least one exposure quick enough to not pick up movement but exposed enough to work with. In low light, that straight up requires a huge lens... Even with a DSLR.

Hey let's not get all scientific here. I can dream right. Besides years ago a lot of people couldn't believe what we have today couldn't be achieved either. You never know. Maybe a little bump in sensor size and stacking them can help achieve more computational magic.

 

[Rukbat]

It's not dreaming, it's plain old physics, as LeoRex said. To get a non-blurred picture of a kid running you need at least 1/500 speed, and at f1.7, at night, even under streetlights, at a reasonable (noise-free) ISO, you're going to get a picture of black. That's why they make f0.9 lenses (for SLRs) and photographers use multiple flash setups.

Maybe one day the manufacturers (and physicists) will come up with sensors that can go to an ISO of 500,000 without creating noise, but right now even 32,000 ISO is going to produce a noisy picture. (Go into a completely dark room and take a Night Sight picture. You'll see the noise in the sensor - and that's all you'll see. [With film photography you get a clear piece of plastic as the developed negative, producing a totally black print.]) Either they give us f0.01 lenses on phones (that would probably be 6" in diameter and weigh pounds) or improve the sensors. (But as long as we use electronic sensors, we're not going to eliminate noise.)

 

[dpham00]

It's not dreaming, it's plain old physics, as LeoRex said. To get a non-blurred picture of a kid running you need at least 1/500 speed, and at f1.7, at night, even under streetlights, at a reasonable (noise-free) ISO, you're going to get a picture of black. That's why they make f0.9 lenses (for SLRs) and photographers use multiple flash setups.

Maybe one day the manufacturers (and physicists) will come up with sensors that can go to an ISO of 500,000 without creating noise, but right now even 32,000 ISO is going to produce a noisy picture. (Go into a completely dark room and take a Night Sight picture. You'll see the noise in the sensor - and that's all you'll see. [With film photography you get a clear piece of plastic as the developed negative, producing a totally black print.]) Either they give us f0.01 lenses on phones (that would probably be 6" in diameter and weigh pounds) or improve the sensors. (But as long as we use electronic sensors, we're not going to eliminate noise.)

I have an a7iii which is mirrorless and it does ok with low light but no light won't work. Still it did much better than what my old pixel 3 could do. With regards to iso, I haven't gone up to 32,000 , but I find that iso 25600 is acceptable on the a7iii.

Multiple flash situation isn't practical for just shooting kids playing

Also f0.9 isn't practical at least on ff since the depth of field is so shallow, it would be hard to take a picture of kids playing, at least not without most of them being out of focus.

 

[Rukbat]

But try it at night with kids running, set to f/1.7 and see how slow you have to shoot to get anything. You'll probably get blur at that speed. (With Night Sight, I can get beautiful shots at night, but not of moving objects. A leaf shaking in a light breeze is okay, but not someone walking slowly.)

 

[dpham00]

But try it at night with kids running, set to f/1.7 and see how slow you have to shoot to get anything. You'll probably get blur at that speed. (With Night Sight, I can get beautiful shots at night, but not of moving objects. A leaf shaking in a light breeze is okay, but not someone walking slowly.)

Definitely. Under street light I can do 1/50 with iso 25,600. So I can bump it to iso 204k and get around 1/400. But I would presume it would be noisy. This is with a f2.8 zoom lens so I can do better if I used my f1.8 prime.

There are faster primes but they are big and heavy.

 

[Rukbat]

The phone is f1.7, but I don't know if it goes to 200k ISO without noise. (I can only get the 2 to 3200 - but Night Sight still works great.)

 

[strikeIII]

Night sight already defied plain ol physics. Anything is possible.

 

[L0n3N1nja]

Night sight already defied plain ol physics. Anything is possible.

Except it hasn't defied physics or done anything magical. It takes multiple exposures and stitches them together, all they did was automat something that photographers have been able to do for years with their cameras and photoshop.

 

[strikeIII]

Except it hasn't defied physics or done anything magical. It takes multiple exposures and stitches them together, all they did was automat something that photographers have been able to do for years with their cameras and photoshop.

Except, No that's not all it does but ok. It doesn't only just stich multiple exposures. There's Machine Learning and computational photography involved.

 

[mustang7757]

Except, No that's not all it does but ok. It doesn't only just stich multiple exposures. There's Machine Learning and computational photography involved.

Good point .

 

[Rukbat]

Except, No that's not all it does but ok. It doesn't only just stich multiple exposures. There's Machine Learning and computational photography involved.

Not exactly. It's a long time exposure, combined with fantastic OIS (because I can get shots hand-held and I never could hand-hold a 10 second exposure before). The OIS is just fantastic programming, not ML.

 

[goji26]

It's going to be much better than Samsung phones. I tried the Note 10+ for a bit in lieu of my Pixel 3 XL. Motion blur constantly.

 

[strikeIII]

Not exactly. It's a long time exposure, combined with fantastic OIS (because I can get shots hand-held and I never could hand-hold a 10 second exposure before). The OIS is just fantastic programming, not ML.

Yes there is Machine Learning and computational photography involved along with everything else including OIS and long exposure, etc. Do you even know what Night Sight does or are you confusing it with HDR+? There are quite a few sites that explains it. Here's one for reference.

https://www.slashgear.com/google-ni...logy-explained-info-release-history-14553723/