A new camera API was being developed by Google, it was initially supposed to be released with Kitkat but wasn't ready https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/b267554
It is raw image capabilities, hopefully we get to see it in the next iteration of Kitkat.
Another link with more information http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...a-new-android-camera-api-supports-camera-raw/
Can use camera fv-5 to save in PNG as it is, which ends up as 18mb files... so pretty much already have RAW imho
They should give us the option to choose which format and the compression rate.
I would like JPEG images with 8~10 MB per file. 18MB PNG is too much!
wezzel98765 said:
Can use camera fv-5 to save in PNG as it is, which ends up as 18mb files... so pretty much already have RAW imho
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, that is as good as you will get right now, there is no denying that.
As a side comment, if you open a stock jpg from the phone in Photoshop through camera raw do nothing with it and save it at quality 12 jpg you will end up with jpg files as large as your png no difference in quality just bigger file
Do you really understand what camera raw gives you? And how in reality it is nothing like saving a file as PNG, as per the comment directly above, that's whats happening with your fv-5 app.
You have a native image straight from the image sensor, no software processing of the image just what the image sensor saw. (most importantly no noise reduction or sharpening)
Your images currently are only 8bit, chances are raw images will be able to support more bit depth allowing far more shades of colours.
You get to choose you white balance to any temperature as if you were selecting it at the time of shooting in jpg, but after the fact with no strange hues as you would if you tried the same with a jpg.
Lossless processing of photos.
You have pretty much complete control of the output of the final file, as a hypothetical example, superior auto vs manual control.
jpg - 8bit file format is capable of displaying 16.7 Million colours (256 shades per primary colour)
10 bit raw file - 1 billion colours (1024 shade per primary colour)
12 bit raw file - 68 billion colours (4096 shades per primary colour)
My DSLR 14bit raw files are capable of capturing 4.4 Trillion colours (16384 shades per primary colour)
In the example above when working in camera raw with raw files you have far more shades accross the image to work with provided the image is not over or underexposed, this is also part of the reason why DLSR images look so much better especially with skin tones because the representation of these skin tones is much closer to what you can see with your eye.
Once you have tuned your shot exactly as you need then saving as a jpg will create the correct file indexed out of the 256 possible shades per primary colour based on the information provided from the colours within the final edited image.
I'll walk away with,My tail between my legs now
wezzel98765 said:
I'll walk away with,My tail between my legs now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but the biggest pain in the behind for raw images, is having to process each shot you take
when image size gets above 20MP, it's going to die on write speed of slow internal/SD.
supercoolman said:
when image size gets above 20MP, it's going to die on write speed of slow internal/SD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah with you on that, also if they introduce the 4k video recording that the processor is capable of.
I am in a dilemma now for exactly this, tying to future proof as I am in the Market for a 64GB card and wondering if there is any benefit to get the Sandisk ultra @ 30Mb/s or Extreme @ 80MB/s, because I am only seeing about 12MB/s on average from my current 32GB Ultra.
supercoolman said:
when image size gets above 20MP, it's going to die on write speed of slow internal/SD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is why there are specialised chips to do RAW on DSLR's. The card write speeds are also much faster. There isn't a need for anything above class 6 in present android devices as they cannot write faster. But the only 64GB microsd card is a class 10. Nobody makes anything that size in less speed.
Some points i disagree with in the OP's arstechinica article.
The Nexus 5 camera was a huge disappointment, especially after comments from high-ranking Googler Vic Gundotra stating that "we are committed to making Nexus phones insanely great cameras. Just you wait and see."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, its a defnite improvement over the nex4 in image quality.
Android cameras arguably lag behind the iPhone in quality, so this new API may be Google's solution to that problem.fnite improvement of the nex4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if you're from the lowest common demominator which iphones target. Please no options at all, just one button to click.
The article goes on about how RAW was not ready for kit kat. So that means we ain't seeing anything until the next version of android come out. When will that happen ? next oct. So this is just a taste of things to come a year from now.
The main advantage of RAW is it allows more post processing with minimal loss to image quality. With jpegs, the most you can do is colour correct, contrast boost and then maybe a crop in desktop software before loosing too much detail.
One Twelve said:
This is why there are specialised chips to do RAW on DSLR's. The card write speeds are also much faster. There isn't a need for anything above class 6 in present android devices as they cannot write faster. But the only 64GB microsd card is a class 10. Nobody makes anything that size in less speed.
Some points i disagree with in the OP's arstechinica article.
Lol, its a defnite improvement over the nex4 in image quality.
Only if you're from the lowest common demominator which iphones target. Please no options at all, just one button to click.
The article goes on about how RAW was not ready for kit kat. So that means we ain't seeing anything until the next version of android come out. When will that happen ? next oct. So this is just a taste of things to come a year from now.
The main advantage of RAW is it allows more post processing with minimal loss to image quality. With jpegs, the most you can do is colour correct, contrast boost and then maybe a crop in desktop software before loosing too much detail.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't mean that because it was not available for launch of Kitkat that it couldn't make it's way to 4.4.1 or other iteration before lime pie or lolly cake or whatever they call it
danw_oz said:
That doesn't mean that because it was not available for launch of Kitkat that it couldn't make it's way to 4.4.1 or other iteration before lime pie or lolly cake or whatever they call it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. I was not expecting a 4.3 or 4.4 thought it would jump to 5.0
I don't know whether there will be a 4.5. If so then there is a chance.
it will happen eventually though if Nokia is enabling RAW in the 1520. First i hear of that.
What this will mean is over processing is no longer an issue. A small power starved device like a cell phone isn't the best at doing image compression in the first place.
My Xperia Z1 kicks my sisters iPhone 5S around when I use manual mode... she even admits (and she is a loyal Apple fan) that I have a better Camera. Girlfriend continues to be pro-Apple and says that her iPhone 5 has better images (and it clearly does NOT).
Anyway this is something that has been long awaited, think we should have had it earlier. It could be ready for 4.4.1?
We never got to see what the camera can really do. All we saw is what the image compression program can do (!)
People think if they save in 20MP, the quality will be better, than 8MP but it isn't.
Larger sensor means you have more space for digital stabilisation via cropping.
Sony makes absolutely great hardware, but they really do need to get a better software team, Xperia's software has been lacking since I originally got my Xperia Play. If they had a better software team they would be unstoppable in my opinion.
Sony seems to do okay for some apps, like the album, Walkman player, movie player, photo editor etc.
It just struggles to do a decent camera app.
One Twelve said:
True. I was not expecting a 4.3 or 4.4 thought it would jump to 5.0
I don't know whether there will be a 4.5. If so then there is a chance.
it will happen eventually though if Nokia is enabling RAW in the 1520. First i hear of that.
What this will mean is over processing is no longer an issue. A small power starved device like a cell phone isn't the best at doing image compression in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spot on, we don't then have to wait for Sony to fix their image processing algorithms
TheCraig said:
My Xperia Z1 kicks my sisters iPhone 5S around when I use manual mode... she even admits (and she is a loyal Apple fan) that I have a better Camera. Girlfriend continues to be pro-Apple and says that her iPhone 5 has better images (and it clearly does NOT).
Anyway this is something that has been long awaited, think we should have had it earlier. It could be ready for 4.4.1?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep agreed, even my old HTC phone was way better than my friends iphone (of the same vintage), and after a camera shoot off with him, he left with his tail between his legs :victory:
As for 4.4.1 who knows but all we can do is hope. I think Google realise now that most phones are now stepping over the 8MP barrier that they have to do stuff to keep up from the OS perspective, I would suggest even newer linux kernels that would allow better memory management and faster internal usb throughput 10-12MB/s just does cut it today, and less so if 4k video gets implemented.
danw_oz said:
As for 4.4.1 who knows but all we can do is hope. I think Google realise now that most phones are now stepping over the 8MP barrier that they have to do stuff to keep up from the OS perspective
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Nexus 5 camera is excellent. It captures stacks of detail and works really well in low-light. But you wouldn't know that from using the native camera app, which struggles to focus and really can't cope with moving objects in anything but excellent light. Anyone would think they did all their testing outdoors in the hot summer sun, without trying to capture a picture of your active baby in a living room.
Just like the Z1, the phone is let down by bad software not bad hardware.
But now it seems Google has acknowledged this and is seeking to fix it. Perhaps it will send out a message to Sony and others that you need the expertise in producing good camera software, not just chucking in a fantastic image sensor and hoping that's it.
danw_oz said:
Spot on, we don't then have to wait for Sony to fix their image processing algorithms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sony won't need to do it. This means its unlikely we get to see a message like this any more.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Why did it overheat, too much CPU from image compression (along with other things in the background).
The real question is whether you can tell the difference. I have to believe a PC taking its own sweet time to batch process many images will do a better job than a mobile that needs to put out product quickly so you don't wait too long to take another photo.
How long will it take to write a 20-30MB RAW file to internal memory ? ~2 seconds
Internal memory would be faster than external.
One Twelve said:
Sony won't need to do it. This means its unlikely we get to see a message like this any more.
Why did it overheat, too much CPU from image compression (along with other things in the background).
The real question is whether you can tell the difference. I have to believe a PC taking its own sweet time to batch process many images will do a better job than a mobile that needs to put out product quickly so you don't wait too long to take another photo.
How long will it take to write a 20-30MB RAW file to internal memory ? ~2 seconds
Internal memory would be faster than external.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same as all other cameras they cache the images in internal memory then write as fast as they can to the memory card, this is also why many cameras have a low limit of buffered images before the continuous shooting stops for a time or slows right down.
Related
I have decided to do a little comparison test with the Galaxy note 2 and my old iPhone 4. I have only recently come aboard the good ship Android, so I am still finding my way around. Although I fully understand that the camera does not make or break the phone, for me it is one of the features that I rely on now and again.
I love taking a picture with my SLR but there are times when you cannot use the SLR, or times when you do not want to take it out so for me the camera is something I use. If it had been my sole requirement i would have probably chosen the Nokia 808 Pureview, but Nokia decided to cripple their phones using their chosen software - but that's is another debate.
I didn’t want to do a tremendous amount of testing so I decided to use the stock apps on both phones. I have paid a little more detail to the Note 2 with looking at the normal picture setting and the low light function. I may use another application on the note as the standard camera app is not the best.
I placed a book, a battery and a sound card in my photo booth. The reason for these items was to get something with a plain colour (the book) something that is small but has a little bit of detail (battery) and something that has a lot of detail (sound card). All tests were conducted indoors, nothing outdoors as of yet.
iPhone image:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Note 2 Image:
From both images you can see there is a definite difference. The iPhones image has a little more ‘viberance’ to it. Overall the colour on the iPhone looks better overall whereas the note 2 image looks a little washed out, however this is purely subjective and I like my photos to have a little more saturation. When viewing photos on the AMOLED screen they do look incredibly vibrant, however, on a normal monitor they do not. What is quite interesting is that the file size of the iPhone 4 image is actually larger than that of the 8 mega pixel file form the Note 2. This could be for a number of reasons; one could be the amount of sharpening applied in the processing, another could be the amount of saturation the software adds to give it a little more ‘zing’.
When testing the sharpness and detail of a camera most magazines tend to do 100% crops showing how much detail can be resolved. The comparisons have been done below.
iPhone first, then Note 2.
Crop with low light mode enabled
From this quick demo you can see that there is a slight difference between the iPhone and the Samsung photos. Personally I don’t think its hardware related, I’m pretty sure that it is software related. I am going on the browse for some add free, free camera software and take a few photos with that.
Once again I would like to stress that this is just an indoor shot, and I have simply not had time to do any outdoor shots. Maybe I will try some on the weekend and report back then.
What do you lot think?
Like yourself it seems, photography is a big hobby of mine and whilst I use a DSLR normally too, I'm more than happy to have my Note 2 with me for quick snaps.
Looking at your test shots, I'd say overall there's not much between them.
iPhone is definitely more vibrant, but the Note 2 shots look more natural. Looking at the uncropped shots, the Note 2 seems to give a clearer image but when viewed at 100% the iPhone seems to have captured slightly more detail. I'd say the Note 2 controls noise better, especially with low light mode. Even without low light mode the Note 2 seems to use more noise control than the iPhone. The downside to this is that more noise control can lead to softer shots, which is why the iPhone shots looks a touch sharper, if a little grainy.
Could all just be my eyes though
Random fact... the Note 2 was originally meant to ship with a 13MP Sony sensor, but Sony couldn't produce enough in time to meet Samsung's deadline so instead it shipped with an 8MP sensor. As you probably know, more MP doesn't always mean a better image as cramming more pixels on a small sensor means each pixel can capture less light, but it would have been interesting to see what the images would have been like had it got the 13MP sensor.
I really wish nokia would have licensed their Pureview tech to Samsung. Would make it a little better.
Though the GS2 and the GN2 both have an 8MP camera, I find the GN2's camera far superior. I suspect this may have something to do with the faster CPU, but not sure. I have used both extensively.
Dylanlewis2000 said:
I really wish nokia would have licensed their Pureview tech to Samsung. Would make it a little better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really wish Nokia would produce android devices as well...
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
The iPhone clearly takes sharper images in this comparison, at the expense of noise. Contrast appears to be much better with the iPhone as well, the GN2 photos look a little 'washed out'. Colours are more vibrant with the iPhone as well but perhaps too much?
A semi pro photographer here, hobby too. I never liked any cell phone's camera to be honest. But when I had my C905, things were little better. It had an impressive camera, almost replaced my Ixus for now and then, here and there shots. Then I got the Satio. Another good one. Then don't know what happened, I stepped into Samsung! My first Sammy was a i8910, it had a good camera. So I thought let's continue with Samsung. Next was Wave S8500, I didn't buy it for camera anyway. Then I got the infamous SII. Well after using it for more than year, I can say I was 'fairly' happy with it. Now, Note 2, I don't know, right from the first shot, till now, I DO NOT like this camera, how the photos are appearing, are below average in my eyes.
It's always about 'post software processing' in a mobile camera. A tiny sensor can never produce great photos. So it all matters how the photo is being processed after taking it via the camera firmware provided. That's where a brand plays it tricks. Most of them have Sony's sensor, so talking about hardware is meaningless. Now, here in Note 2, the post processing seems either to be not full or poorly done. Optimizing a photo is bad! An average user, who really would care about the 'background' processes, all they will see the ultimate photo, and there Note 2 fails. Photos turn out grainy, with noise. The biggest letdown is the led flash. At night, in parties, when it's dark, and you don't have your SLR or it's not the place for it, of course you'll need flash. The flash is terribly weak, and badly spread.
Anyway, writing too much, I'm short, after owning 7 or 8 high end cell phones, with their average camera, this Note 2 camera is the most disappointing in my eyes.
However, I don't give a damn, I always (you know what I mean) carry my 350 or D90 (yeah, I know, they are average DSLR), so I'd not bother much about this, BUT not everyone is like me or like OP, for them a 700$ mobile phone should provide 'fairly good' output, where this device, F A I L S.
Now, one thing you see, I really won't bother by some fanboys quoting my comment and say otherwise, knowing I've spent my hard time and money, for more than a decade behind photography. So thanks to them in advance anyway
Sent from my GT-N7100
The main issue comes down to the camera using iso 800 on auto mode in many scenes, i.e indoors, which is just bizarre. Set it to a lower value manually and the graininess gets a lot better.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
If you want more vibrant colours in the settings select SCN/Panorama.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
That's it. Now we know what really happens when you unlock the Xperia BL. The DRM (?) is responsible for the anti-noise feature in the camera.
Perhaps, everyone who's got his Z2 unlocked probably won't be able to get a new mint condition Z2 from their retailers... all I can hope is for some dev to find a way to restore that processing. Z2's camera is absolutely one of the most powerful around - it is a shame (not to say other things) that Sony actually let this happen.
Images used:
http://imgur.com/OoD3IS8 (taken by me, last night)
http://imgur.com/wzUkc0p (it was used for a review, you can find the unmarked image here: http://www.electrony.net/media/2014/03/Xperia-Z2-low-light-photo-and-4K-video-samples9.jpg)
That's what you can do with Pixlr Express (Smoothing : 3)
Honestly couldn't spot the difference!
jaffa1980 said:
Honestly couldn't spot the difference!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bionz could do it probably better, but honestly you need some glasses.
Ha ha i do?!
---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------
Ha ha oh i see now the noise in the square. Still negligible though. Take a photo of the same thing on the same settings with locked and unlocked boot loader. It could be different settings even if done with superior auto (ie night scene vs night portrait etc) and as he said in previous post just smooth with a photo editor ?
But i notice a lot of banding, even if i turned in antibanding to auto, 50 or 60Hz it won't go. Indoors btw, i think it is cz of the lights, but my dads s5 is not showing any bandings.
you take two total complete Pictures and compare them?.... great job!
If you want to compare for real get a locked phone, make the picture, unlock it and take the picture again within 5 minutes and with the same light condition!
Haldi4803 said:
you take two total complete Pictures and compare them?.... great job!
If you want to compare for real get a locked phone, make the picture, unlock it and take the picture again within 5 minutes and with the same light condition!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Haldi4803 said:
you take two total complete Pictures and compare them?.... great job!
If you want to compare for real get a locked phone, make the picture, unlock it and take the picture again within 5 minutes and with the same light condition!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since I am not able to get another locked phone, I can't do such test. Besides, black is black in any picture you see, is it not?
Modes, EV, ISO, etc. - all these are factors need to be put in balance when you compare pictures. However, I am comparing how the sensor works with noise. And that's really it.
rodritank said:
Since I am not able to get another locked phone, I can't do such test. Besides, black is black in any picture you see, is it not?
Modes, EV, ISO, etc. - all these are factors need to be put in balance when you compare pictures. However, I am comparing how the sensor works with noise. And that's really it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regardless, it's not really the fairest comparison.
This comparison is total nonsense. You're comparing two images with completely different exposure levels in an area with completely different luminance, and they were probably shot at completely different shutter speed and sensitivity to boot. Both images have been resaved and recompressed, probably multiple times, and have been rescaled by completely different factors. They've also had the EXIF information stripped, and quite possibly have been modified in other ways.
If your goal was to make the least valid comparison possible, then congratulations -- you've probably succeeded.
If you wanted to make a meaningful comparison, then sorry, this isn't it and this thread should probably be closed or deleted to stop it misleading people.
"Final test" indeed -- no testing has been done here.
knoxploration said:
This comparison is total nonsense. You're comparing two images with completely different exposure levels in an area with completely different luminance, and they were probably shot at completely different shutter speed and sensitivity to boot. Both images have been resaved and recompressed, probably multiple times, and have been rescaled by completely different factors. They've also had the EXIF information stripped, and quite possibly have been modified in other ways.
If your goal was to make the least valid comparison possible, then congratulations -- you've probably succeeded.
If you wanted to make a meaningful comparison, then sorry, this isn't it and this thread should probably be closed or deleted to stop it misleading people.
"Final test" indeed -- no testing has been done here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoa, I can't understand why people are so mad and rude.
You are not obliged to concur with my test - however, I did not pull it out from my ass - thing you are doing when you speculate that it has been "resaved and recompressed, probably multiple times, and have been rescaled by completely different factors".
No dude, they were not. I got both photos and didn't compress them to generate artifacts. EXIF is stripped because IMGUR does that. The test is to show how it renders the noise in low light.
While I have stated this is not the best comparison test, it's the best someone could come up with until now. I'd be REALLY happy if you could prove me that my unlocked phone hasn't had loss of low light quality since I unlocked it, though.
rodritank said:
Whoa, I can't understand why people are so mad and rude.
You are not obliged to concur with my test - however, I did not pull it out from my ass - thing you are doing when you speculate that it has been "resaved and recompressed, probably multiple times, and have been rescaled by completely different factors".
No dude, they were not. I got both photos and didn't compress them to generate artifacts. EXIF is stripped because IMGUR does that. The test is to show how it renders the noise in low light.
While I have stated this is not the best comparison test, it's the best someone could come up with until now. I'd be REALLY happy if you could prove me that my unlocked phone hasn't had loss of low light quality since I unlocked it, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FYI, Imgur compresses images that are over 1MB, so your image has been compressed (unless your source image was under 1MB, which I highly doubt):
http://imgur.com/faq
Also, a better way to compare is to take two images by yourself from the same scene, at the same time. Maybe you know a friend who has a Z2 as well with his/her bootloader still locked. This is because you don't know if the other website modified the images in any way. (EXIF data can be faked very easily btw)
I'm not saying your comparison doesn't make any sense, but you could probably improve it a lot with the things I mentioned above.
rodritank said:
No dude, they were not. I got both photos and didn't compress them to generate artifacts. EXIF is stripped because IMGUR does that. The test is to show how it renders the noise in low light.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, "dude", they were. You didn't shoot both photos, and you have no idea what has been done if anything to one of them. Neither photo is at a native resolution the camera supports, so both photos have been downsamples and/or cropped.
You cannot downsample or crop losslessly, so both photos have been saved using lossy compression, then recompressed and resaved again using lossy compression, at LEAST once and possibly more times.
This "comparison" is totally flawed on every single level, and the only meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from it is that "both locked and unlocked phones can take pictures". Every other conclusion you attempt to draw is utter nonsense.
B1nny said:
FYI, Imgur compresses images that are over 1MB, so your image has been compressed (unless your source image was under 1MB, which I highly doubt):
http://imgur.com/faq
Also, a better way to compare is to take two images by yourself from the same scene, at the same time. Maybe you know a friend who has a Z2 as well with his/her bootloader still locked. This is because you don't know if the other website modified the images in any way. (EXIF data can be faked very easily btw)
I'm not saying your comparison doesn't make any sense, but you could probably improve it a lot with the things I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed. Thanks for the input. Like I said, I lack of a second locked phone - so I compared the grain.
I just hope someone will make a new comparison under fair conditions then.
Random note
I saw 0 difference from bootloader unlocked or relocked
Tested with x-reality off and dithering off to remove any potential spoilers
If anyone wants i could give 2 pictures with a direct download so you can see for your self
knoxploration said:
Yes, "dude", they were. You didn't shoot both photos, and you have no idea what has been done if anything to one of them. Neither photo is at a native resolution the camera supports, so both photos have been downsamples and/or cropped.
You cannot downsample or crop losslessly, so both photos have been saved using lossy compression, then recompressed and resaved again using lossy compression, at LEAST once and possibly more times.
This "comparison" is totally flawed on every single level, and the only meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from it is that "both locked and unlocked phones can take pictures". Every other conclusion you attempt to draw is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first things first, I totally agree with you. Your logic is concrete and your method is scientific, I am impressed.
BUT, can you rephrase your words so that it is less intruding? Although you are the correct one, but these words might lead to keyboard war. Your words are like a dictator, which is not supposed to happen here in XDA. Perhaps if you know more than him, you can GIUDE him to enlightenment
While true that his tone might come off as a bit rude, I'd say that's partially because the OP is very bombastic when he states the following in the first post:
That's it. Now we know what really happens when you unlock the Xperia BL. The DRM (?) is responsible for the anti-noise feature in the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which, frankly, turns out to be BS.
A "final" test of this would be taking several pictures of several different motives/scenes with the exact same settings, the exact same motive, the exact same lighting and the exact same position, first with a locked bootloader and then with an unlocked bootloader.
A time-consuming task that requires the right equipment and person doing it, which is why there's no definitive answer to this yet.
rodritank said:
Since I am not able to get another locked phone, I can't do such test. Besides, black is black in any picture you see, is it not?
Modes, EV, ISO, etc. - all these are factors need to be put in balance when you compare pictures. However, I am comparing how the sensor works with noise. And that's really it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, black is black! But... Here it comes...
The Sky is not Black! There are a lot of stars in the sky! You will not find a Black spot on this earth. Not even in a totally closed of room you could create a photo of black with your smartphone, simply because the light of your screen would reflect from the walls!
So for 'nearly' Black pictures, to compare, values like ISO, aperture and shutter speed are most important.
And as you stated before. Most people are that happy to root their new phone, they either don't care or totally forget about Foto quality and noise reduction ^^
That's why there has not been such a test before.
@Envious_Data
Relocked Bootloader with restored DRM keys? And restored Bavaria engine?
Haldi4803 said:
Yes, black is black! But... Here it comes...
The Sky is not Black! There are a lot of stars in the sky! You will not find a Black spot on this earth. Not even in a totally closed of room you could create a photo of black with your smartphone, simply because the light of your screen would reflect from the walls!
So for 'nearly' Black pictures, to compare, values like ISO, aperture and shutter speed are most important.
And as you stated before. Most people are that happy to root their new phone, they either don't care or totally forget about Foto quality and noise reduction ^^
That's why there has not been such a test before.
@Envious_Data
Relocked Bootloader with restored DRM keys? And restored Bavaria engine?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tested
Relocked bootloader
Relocked via TA restore
Relocked then TA Restore
Freinds units
Never unlocked
Unlocked bootloader
Exact same placement, about 5-10 mins apart
Im going to upload some pics from my test
Results
0 difference in image quality
No x-reality at all
Settings
Manual
Iso 400
EV 0.0
Focal forced 1.5mm,3.0mm,3.0mm,1.7mm
White balance: -1
Spot metering
2MP
HDR OFF
Ill repost when uploaded
My Droid Turbo's camera clips are 1920*1080. Where is the setting for 4k?
itanas said:
My Droid Turbo's camera clips are 1920*1080. Where is the setting for 4k?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Swipe right on the camera screen to reveal the options.
Change video settings. See pic below.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
oh, thank you. Oddly enough the setting doesnt stick, so next time camera app is opened setting is back to 1920*1080.
Not sure why anyone would care though.
Megapixels, Schmegapixels
The camera sensors and lenses in phones are too low quality to make high resolution pictures or video make any sense at all.
Don't get me wrong. This camera is the best I've used in a phone, but large resolution just wastes space and gives no added benefit as the quality of the sensor and lens is not good enough to take advantage of it.
Really 3 - 5 MP is all you'd really need on any camera phone unless some major breakthrough is made in small sensors and compact lenses.
All you get is a really large image with lots of grain and distortion, unless it is scaled down, in which case a lower resolution would have made more sense in the first place, and what's even worse, to make some of these super high resolution images emailable in size, they are going to be overcompressed, adding compression artefacting to them.
First thing I always do on a new phone is turn the resolution way down, and keep it there, but unfortunately the Droid Turbo does not seem to have a resolution setting for pictures, only for videos.
The camera phone megapixel race is nothing but a marketing illusion. Same goes for most compact point and shoot cameras.
LOL, look at me, my arbitrary number is larger than yours. Looks good on phonearena comparison tables, but there is no real improvement in camera pictures. (if they instead measured high ISO noise, image clarity and color accuracy, however, these would be GOOD marketing comparisons that would actually help)
Now, on a high end SLR or rangefinder camera though, high resolution CAN (but doesn't always) make sense.
mattlach said:
Not sure why anyone would care though.
Megapixels, Schmegapixels
The camera sensors and lenses in phones are too low quality to make high resolution pictures or video make any sense at all.
Don't get me wrong. This camera is the best I've used in a phone, but large resolution just wastes space and gives no added benefit as the quality of the sensor and lens is not good enough to take advantage of it.
Really 3 - 5 MP is all you'd really need on any camera phone unless some major breakthrough is made in small sensors and compact lenses.
All you get is a really large image with lots of grain and distortion, unless it is scaled down, in which case a lower resolution would have made more sense in the first place, and what's even worse, to make some of these super high resolution images emailable in size, they are going to be overcompressed, adding compression artefacting to them.
First thing I always do on a new phone is turn the resolution way down, and keep it there, but unfortunately the Droid Turbo does not seem to have a resolution setting for pictures, only for videos.
The camera phone megapixel race is nothing but a marketing illusion. Same goes for most compact point and shoot cameras.
LOL, look at me, my arbitrary number is larger than yours. Looks good on phonearena comparison tables, but there is no real improvement in camera pictures. (if they instead measured high ISO noise, image clarity and color accuracy, however, these would be GOOD marketing comparisons that would actually help)
Now, on a high end SLR or rangefinder camera though, high resolution CAN (but doesn't always) make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Turning the MP count down does nothing for you, just decreasing quality, since it's still a 21MP sensor.
3-5MP is not enough when you have displays at a higher resolution, and if you want to crop/zoom at all, you need higher resolution.
It may sound like I'm saying you're wrong, but I agree with you. 21MP on a camera phone is useless. Heck, my $3,500 Canon 5D Mark III is only 22MP. I liked HTC's idea about improving the camera with a lower MP count, but unfortunately those photos still looked awful. Maybe someone will get it right, Apple seems to have a winning combination with their 8MP sensor.
geoff5093 said:
Turning the MP count down does nothing for you, just decreasing quality, since it's still a 21MP sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the way I am thinking about it is, at least I am not wasting storage space on distortion and noise, and have more manageable small, emailable files. In fact, downsampling high resolution noisy images is a well known method for reducing noise in images.
geoff5093 said:
3-5MP is not enough when you have displays at a higher resolution, and if you want to crop/zoom at all, you need higher resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but you don't NEED to display an image at the native resolution of your screen. In many cases an image can actually look better when lower resolution, if the image quality is crappy enough that it doesn't look good at 100% 1:1 pixel ratio, which is the case for every phone camera I have ever seen. And cropping? Then you'd be taking a grainy terrible image, and making it's defects even bigger....
Again, better to just have a low resolution image.
And either way natural resolution of the 2560x1440 screen in this phone is ~3.7MP. Most phones have lower resolution screens.
geoff5093 said:
It may sound like I'm saying you're wrong, but I agree with you. 21MP on a camera phone is useless. Heck, my $3,500 Canon 5D Mark III is only 22MP. I liked HTC's idea about improving the camera with a lower MP count, but unfortunately those photos still looked awful. Maybe someone will get it right, Apple seems to have a winning combination with their 8MP sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The camera in the Turbo is actually fairly decent. Does it compete with my Nikon D90? used with $2000 professional lenses? No, but it's not supposed to. All I am saying is that the much touted "21 megapixel" specification has absolutely nothing to do with how good it is. It' could have been 4MP and looked better, or over 9000 MP and looked much worse.
So, to that end, I wish I could set it to ~5MP in software, have it downsample, and hide some of the grain, artefacting and distortions, save lots of space, and be more emailable and still be way higher resolution than the screen in the phone.
What troubles me about phones is how they are limited. These are essentially small computers in my pocket. There should be no reason I don't have all the settings at my disposal, like jpeg compression ratios, resolution, etc. etc. Instead phones are dumbed down for the masses, and it pisses me off. I want to be able to change every setting and fiddle with every option.
I want my phone to be more like my computer, NOT my computer to be more like my phone.
mattlach said:
Well, the way I am thinking about it is, at least I am not wasting storage space on distortion and noise, and have more manageable small, emailable files. In fact, downsampling high resolution noisy images is a well known method for reducing noise in images.
Yeah, but you don't NEED to display an image at the native resolution of your screen. In many cases an image can actually look better when lower resolution, if the image quality is crappy enough that it doesn't look good at 100% 1:1 pixel ratio, which is the case for every phone camera I have ever seen. And cropping? Then you'd be taking a grainy terrible image, and making it's defects even bigger....
Again, better to just have a low resolution image.
And either way natural resolution of the 2560x1440 screen in this phone is ~3.7MP. Most phones have lower resolution screens.
The camera in the Turbo is actually fairly decent. Does it compete with my Nikon D90? used with $2000 professional lenses? No, but it's not supposed to. All I am saying is that the much touted "21 megapixel" specification has absolutely nothing to do with how good it is. It' could have been 4MP and looked better, or over 9000 MP and looked much worse.
So, to that end, I wish I could set it to ~5MP in software, have it downsample, and hide some of the grain, artefacting and distortions, save lots of space, and be more emailable and still be way higher resolution than the screen in the phone.
What troubles me about phones is how they are limited. These are essentially small computers in my pocket. There should be no reason I don't have all the settings at my disposal, like jpeg compression ratios, resolution, etc. etc. Instead phones are dumbed down for the masses, and it pisses me off. I want to be able to change every setting and fiddle with every option.
I want my phone to be more like my computer, NOT my computer to be more like my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, and this is one area I don't agree with LG and Motorola's direction as far as camera software goes. They remove features and settings, to make things "simple". I liked the past years phones which let you set more resolution settings, ISO settings, sharpening, focus points, etc. The new software on the Turbo and other Moto devices is extremely lacking.
Can't you use a camera app like FV-5 and manipulate to your hearts content?
Sent from my Dev Edition Moto X
Schaweet said:
Can't you use a camera app like FV-5 and manipulate to your hearts content?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like an awesome app, but the free version has pretty much everything restricted.
I have never paid for an app, and don't plan on starting now
Camera fv-5 is perfect for my needs. I've been using it on my Note 2 for 2 years, and it's gotten better and better. Spend $600 for a phone, but won't purchase an app that makes it easy as pie to use the camera in all its glory... I don't see the logic.
We all give Sony a hard time for releasing flagship devices with mediocre camera performance. I personally can verify that my previous HTC phones (One mini, One S, and even the Ville aka MyTouch 4G) dating back nearly 4 years all had better color reproduction, white balance, indoor performance, and faster focus and shutter response. None of those were even considered flagship devices at the time of release. We assumed Sony's problem was the software, so many of us searched for 3rd party camera apps such as Google Camera, A Better Camera, Camera FV-5, etc... and some even claimed to get better results using these apps. I've tried just about all of them (free versions only) and never saw any dramatic improvement to make me replace the default camera app. I finally decided to compare shots side by side on a couple of my personal favorite camera apps and here's what I noticed:
The 3rd party apps over-exposed the scene with far too much flash, giving it that cold LED light look, and washing out some of the natural colors. But worst of all, they weren't as clear when zooming in as the default app was. Pay close attention to the can of WD40 in the back. Only the stock app makes the word "Directions" visibly clear. All photos were taken using Auto Mode at 8MP - the setting the average person will use daily.
Sample Photos In Order (from left to right):
- Sony Stock Camera App
- Google Camera App
- OpenCamera App
https://goo.gl/photos/ihkstAg95Ag8rybX7
I took a few comparison shots in scenes that I thought would cause the stock app to falter, but it kept coming through and beating the competition. For example, when taking a picture of a poster that was covered by a slight shadow, the stock app was the only app smart enough to use flash; thereby making the words of the poster much clearer. In another indoor scenario, the competition once again over exposed the scene with too much flash, washing out the colors again. I may post these photos later if you request them.
Moral of the story:
Compared to other smartphones (especially flagships), Sony's camera is simply one of the worst performers. <-----(This is a click-able link to the results of a test article) There is no argument here and someone from Sony needs to do something about it. But as for the stock Sony camera app, it appears to utilize the camera better than 3rd party apps can. So if you want to make the best of out our bad situation, stick with the stock camera app.
I agree that the camera on the Z3C is somewhat lacking.
Outdoors in good light it can produce some really nice photos (some of the time) although even in good conditions it still seems to make a mess of things on occasions. Indoors and low light it's just plain terrible. I've done a back to back comparison with my rather elderly SGS3 and in most circumstances the SGS3 knocks the spots off the Z3C.
The problem is marketing.
In order to produce compelling marketing material, Sony developed the 20MP sensor and put this in all their flagship phones. This is way too many MP for such a small sensor and as such the quality suffers badly in anything other than bright sunlight. Even when interpolating the image down to 8MP you still see way more noise than the equivalent true 8MP sensor and the details are mushed to buggery. I'd be happy for the resolution on smartphones to top out at 10MP, which should be enough for 4K video and multiple aspect ratios (not that I think 4K video from a smartphone has much use).
sensor not bad, driver sometimes is...
Exmor IMX220 Shoot Out – Meizu MX4 Pro vs Sony Xperia Z3
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Wajk said:
sensor not bad, driver sometimes is...
Exmor IMX220 Shoot Out – Meizu MX4 Pro vs Sony Xperia Z3
indeed sony's pic are washed out but the looking at the "lay's" and "muji" comparision, meizu's pics are blurred.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We all know auto mode sucks isn't that right? Well Sony hasn't designed this phone for you, i have taken some absolutely stunning photos that my friends think were taken with a proper camera. The truth is that I'm a photographer that tries to push the hardware and software to the limit and if your having a good day you can produce stunning works of art. Sure there's a bit of noise but you can't expect fullframe image quality on this sensor. Taking a backwards step from my Nex7 to the Z3 compact was a great learning experience. If you're a photographer that likes to push the limits of a camera this one is for you, if your the average joe your wasting your time. Think about it, when you buy a camera what is the point of using auto mode when it limits the amount of control you have over a photo. Its like driving an automatic transmission car at a drag race.
As a photographer, you of all people should understand that a camera phone is not likely to be used when taking serious photos. This is designed to be a point and shoot replacement for selfies, pictures of food, group photos of friends in a restaurant, etc... This phone's camera isn't a complete failure by any means, but it simply doesn't perform as well as phones from 2-3 years ago under the most basic condition (indoors). I'm just finding it difficult to explain why my $500 flagship phone takes overexposed, blurry photos when my old phones (none of which were even flagship models) did not.
Starlith said:
We all know auto mode sucks isn't that right? Well Sony hasn't designed this phone for you, i have taken some absolutely stunning photos that my friends think were taken with a proper camera. The truth is that I'm a photographer that tries to push the hardware and software to the limit and if your having a good day you can produce stunning works of art. Sure there's a bit of noise but you can't expect fullframe image quality on this sensor. Taking a backwards step from my Nex7 to the Z3 compact was a great learning experience. If you're a photographer that likes to push the limits of a camera this one is for you, if your the average joe your wasting your time. Think about it, when you buy a camera what is the point of using auto mode when it limits the amount of control you have over a photo. Its like driving an automatic transmission car at a drag race.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am also a photographer (enthusiastic amateur and no expert for sure) who has worked for a software company in the digital imaging industry for 7 years. I get to sample a lot of cameras; including pre-production test mules, some of which never make it due to unrecoverable issues. I have tried the Z3C in every conceivable mode and it's still a disappointment in low light and unpredictable when it's good light. A brief summary of the biggest issues I've seen would include:
1) Poor light performance - It's not even low light, the performance is poor in moderate lighting conditions (20MP is too much for such a small sensor and lens)
2) Unpredictable auto focus - It misses what should be an easy AF fix more often than it should do
3) Too much NR - TBH this is a personal criticism of almost every camera currently made, but the NR on the Z3C is a bit nasty
4) Even the best shots seem to lack "definition"
I'm not saying that the camera is a complete dead-loss, but for a flagship smartphone it's not as good as I would expect. I don't think that I've taken a single picture with it where I've got home, uploaded it to my PC and thought it was really good. I've checked back through my SGS3 pictures and at a glance the best images look like they've come from a "proper" camera, I can't say that for many of the Z3C images. I'd really like to be able to get RAW images out of the camera to see what is possible with decent post processing, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen any time soon.
If you could give some hints about how to get the most out of the camera, then I for one would very much appreciate it.
mad-marco said:
I am also a photographer (enthusiastic amateur and no expert for sure) who has worked for a software company in the digital imaging industry for 7 years. I get to sample a lot of cameras; including pre-production test mules, some of which never make it due to unrecoverable issues. I have tried the Z3C in every conceivable mode and it's still a disappointment in low light and unpredictable when it's good light. A brief summary of the biggest issues I've seen would include:
1) Poor light performance - It's not even low light, the performance is poor in moderate lighting conditions (20MP is too much for such a small sensor and lens)
2) Unpredictable auto focus - It misses what should be an easy AF fix more often than it should do
3) Too much NR - TBH this is a personal criticism of almost every camera currently made, but the NR on the Z3C is a bit nasty
4) Even the best shots seem to lack "definition"
I'm not saying that the camera is a complete dead-loss, but for a flagship smartphone it's not as good as I would expect. I don't think that I've taken a single picture with it where I've got home, uploaded it to my PC and thought it was really good. I've checked back through my SGS3 pictures and at a glance the best images look like they've come from a "proper" camera, I can't say that for many of the Z3C images. I'd really like to be able to get RAW images out of the camera to see what is possible with decent post processing, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen any time soon.
If you could give some hints about how to get the most out of the camera, then I for one would very much appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, it does have its limits and they are really weird limits. For example when in manual mode anything that is set to auto including white balance and focus is either hit or miss, there is no touch metering, i have taken some stunners but they required me to work hard for it such as adjusting wb, iso, focus mode. Even the background defocus app which produced amazing photos btw i had to work really hard for. All that work on a phone is exhausting. Too many apps complicate the camera app and the post processing algorithm is inconsistent. Im interested what the results would be with a lens similar to the iPhone 6. The best thing about the camera is the wide angle lens but no one really cares for that.
Starlith said:
I agree with you, it does have its limits and they are really weird limits. For example when in manual mode anything that is set to auto including white balance and focus is either hit or miss, there is no touch metering, i have taken some stunners but they required me to work hard for it such as adjusting wb, iso, focus mode. Even the background defocus app which produced amazing photos btw i had to work really hard for. All that work on a phone is exhausting. Too many apps complicate the camera app and the post processing algorithm is inconsistent. Im interested what the results would be with a lens similar to the iPhone 6. The best thing about the camera is the wide angle lens but no one really cares for that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I personally don't even like the wide angle lens. It just forces me to stand that much closer to my subject to properly frame the shot. Then, if using flash, you blind them because you're standing 1 foot in front of their face. Anyway, I thought a sony branded lens/sensor was being used on most high end phones these days... even the iPhone? We just got stuck with poor image processing.
PuffDaddy_d said:
I personally don't even like the wide angle lens. It just forces me to stand that much closer to my subject to properly frame the shot. Then, if using flash, you blind them because you're standing 1 foot in front of their face. Anyway, I thought a sony branded lens/sensor was being used on most high end phones these days... even the iPhone? We just got stuck with poor image processing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you buy a phone you don't expect it to take pictures like an SLR Camera would, that being said though I still think 20 mp is more than enough for taking snapshots. If you complain about the camera quality then you shouldn't have bought a phone in the first place and buy a DSLR instead.
and if you came from a Nokia flagship this difference is even bigger ....
Revontheus said:
When you buy a phone you don't expect it to take pictures like an SLR Camera would, that being said though I still think 20 mp is more than enough for taking snapshots. If you complain about the camera quality then you shouldn't have bought a phone in the first place and buy a DSLR instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've already got several DSLR's thanks very much. I don't think that anyone is expecting DSLR like quality, in fact you seem to be the only person who has brought this up.
I think that what people would like is the the camera on Sony's flagship smartphones to be comparable with other smartphones, especially the ones that have the same sensor hardware!!! It's a disappointment that the 2/3 year old SGS3 produces superior photos than the current Sony flagships, the current Samsung 16MP cameras are vastly superior.
Revontheus said:
When you buy a phone you don't expect it to take pictures like an SLR Camera would, that being said though I still think 20 mp is more than enough for taking snapshots. If you complain about the camera quality then you shouldn't have bought a phone in the first place and buy a DSLR instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have completely missed the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with expecting DSLR quality from a camera phone. We just don't want pictures to look like they were taken from a flip phone from 2006 - which is what this camera looks like when taking photos indoors. A flagship phone needs a flagship camera, and Sony's image processing has left us without, while all other major manufacturers are using some form of Sony image sensor and getting much better results.
But as my original post indicates, the best photos I've been able to get from this camera are with the stock camera app. All others seem to fall short when viewed on a larger screen.
ray_J13 said:
Wajk said:
sensor not bad, driver sometimes is...
Exmor IMX220 Shoot Out – Meizu MX4 Pro vs Sony Xperia Z3
indeed sony's pic are washed out but the looking at the "lay's" and "muji" comparision, meizu's pics are blurred.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to me the camera glass on her Z3C was a bit smudged... That would explain the haze.
And the small details on the Z3C look much better and cleaner at 100% zoom than on the Meizu, even if the Z3C was a bit out of focus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm so disappointed in this camera. I took my Z3C and my old HTC Droid Incredible 2 to a concert last night. Inc2's pics were much crisper and cleaner. The videos were better as well (at 720p), though the sound on the Z3C's vids were better. Inc2 is what, 4 years old?
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Crewville96 said:
I'm so disappointed in this camera. I took my Z3C and my old HTC Droid Incredible 2 to a concert last night. Inc2's pics were much crisper and cleaner. The videos were better as well (at 720p), though the sound on the Z3C's vids were better. Inc2 is what, 4 years old?
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, this is our point exactly! The Z3C camera has far more advanced technology in it, yet the results are sub par to midrange and outdated phones. Care to share any of your pics for reference?
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
PuffDaddy_d said:
Yes, this is our point exactly! The Z3C camera has far more advanced technology in it, yet the results are sub par to midrange and outdated phones. Care to share any of your pics for reference?
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can upload the vids and couple pics. None of the pics are really the same for comparison since i was in the crowd at the concert though. But you can get a general idea.
PuffDaddy_d said:
Yes, this is our point exactly! The Z3C camera has far more advanced technology in it, yet the results are sub par to midrange and outdated phones. Care to share any of your pics for reference?
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my vids. One is from my old Droid Incredible 2 (2011, running GB) the other is from my Z3C (2014, running LP). I'll let you guys judge which vid is better.
That concert looks like it was a lot of fun! I watched both videos on full screen and i personally think the top video looks better - less grainy and handled the bright lighting much better.
PuffDaddy_d said:
That concert looks like it was a lot of fun! I watched both videos on full screen and i personally think the top video looks better - less grainy and handled the bright lighting much better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, just cleaner and sharper overall. Thats the Droid Incredible 2 video (720 only as well, Z3C is at 1080 lol).
I just bought this phone, and I'm extremely disappointed in the camera. My wife has a note4 which takes great photos, which I've been using pretty much every day as we recently had a child (our first). My main reason for buying a new phone was to always have a good camera on hand for taking photos of our son. I hate big phones though, hence why I didn't buy the note4.
Anyway, after buying the z3c, it turns out that I hate the photos it takes They are all completely lifeless and cold. When I take a photo with the note4, what I see on the screen is pretty much exactly what I see in real life. With the z3c I can clearly see the difference right away (and it's not just the phone screen). I've tried experimenting with settings in manual mode as well, but I'm not having much luck. Granted I'm not claiming to know much about these things. I don't care if it's not the highest resolution or the sharpest details (or not at this stage at least), I just want some colors that looks like what I'm seeing with my eyes. I've gone back to using the camera from my wifes phone again despite my own phone only being a week old, which is a bit sad.
Is there anything I can do about this? I feel like there should be a simple adjustment somewhere, but I can't find it. The colors on the screen were horrid as well, but I've adjusted those by using the "white balance" settings (where I significantly increased red and green while leaving blue at 0). Is there a similar setting for the camera or is there a different app I can download where I can make this adjustment?
I just want to be able to use my camera...
Here is an example. I took two photos, one after the other, using the z3c and the note4. He moved a little bit so they are not identical, but zoom in on his face and you'll see what I mean. One of the photos has got some color and in the other he looks pale and lifeless. The color in the first photo seem to match what I am seeing in real life (he is half asian, so somewhat yellow skin tone) It's a bit hard to show, but you'll just have to trust me that the photo which has more yellow in it is significantly more accurate. This is not even the worst photo either, this one is probably passable if looked at in isolation, but just one example I quickly snapped just now. They are all like this (or often worse) and it has led me to not wanting to use my camera at all.
EDIT: as a new user I was not able to add a link, but as this is just to dropbox, I hope it's OK that I present it like this. You will have to piece it together if you want to view it:
www dropbox com/sh/vb68vqquykxj13m/AAArXwsdSZHKdJCzz25Tu3Qxa?dl=0
Any suggestions on how I can fix this without having to manually post process the photos are much appreciated. I should note that I really love the phone in all other aspects so far, but the main reason I bought it was for the camera as mentioned.
EDIT: sorry, maybe this belongs in the questions forum. If so I apologize and feel free to move it.
EDIT: to clarify, I found what looks like a white balance setting, but it's only 4 preset modes. But maybe that is all we've got. I'll try and experiment with them and see if any produces better result than wb auto.
EDIT: those settings above seems to seriously mess with the colors, at least in current low light room I'm in. Despite loving the phone, I'm considering cutting my losses while it's still current and try to sell it In which case i would probably pick up a Samsung galaxy s6 instead, which should have an equivalent camera to the note 4. It's much bigger than I prefer though, and inflated price due to hype and being a new model as well
The s6 has a better camera in most conditions. That said the difference isnt that bad. On my screen both photos look very similar.
Anyway the usual thing, try in manual mode 8mp, slightly lower expo, multi, and adda tiny bit of clarity in google photos - seems to give best results on average
bilboa1 said:
The s6 has a better camera in most conditions. That said the difference isnt that bad. On my screen both photos look very similar.
Anyway the usual thing, try in manual mode 8mp, slightly lower expo, multi, and adda tiny bit of clarity in google photos - seems to give best results on average
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not the best example, you probably have to zoom in on face to see the difference. I might try and take a better example photo, but basically I lose all yellow in his skin tone and all I get is white and red.
I'll try your suggestions as well. Thanks.
You'll see from my camera thread and others that the Z3 is simply a poor performing camera indoors. There's little you can do to fix it.
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
PuffDaddy_d said:
You'll see from my camera thread and others that the Z3 is simply a poor performing camera indoors. There's little you can do to fix it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've read your thread now, and it doesn't paint a very positive picture. I still don't understand why it's so bad though, especially since the hardware seems good. From my point of view, I would be OK if pictures are not sharp enough or not capturing as much details as they could, but the poor color replication is a deal breaker.
Do you know if there is any sign that they are working on improving the software? Maybe with the release of z4/z3+ they might release a software update applicable to z3 as well? I know I'm grasping at straws, but still. You'd think they'd try and fix it. If nothing else, it's embarrassing that all competitors are significantly better despite using sonys sensor. This should be their absolute strongest point, their ace card, and instead they are getting destroyed.
White balance is the key for my photos... Auto WB always produces unatractive photos. Cloudy, and sunny settings add some warmth to the photo.
tompab said:
I've read your thread now, and it doesn't paint a very positive picture. I still don't understand why it's so bad though, especially since the hardware seems good. From my point of view, I would be OK if pictures are not sharp enough or not capturing as much details as they could, but the poor color replication is a deal breaker.
Do you know if there is any sign that they are working on improving the software? Maybe with the release of z4/z3+ they might release a software update applicable to z3 as well? I know I'm grasping at straws, but still. You'd think they'd try and fix it. If nothing else, it's embarrassing that all competitors are significantly better despite using sonys sensor. This should be their absolute strongest point, their ace card, and instead they are getting destroyed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't agree with you more. I read an article where someone managed to compare the display of the Z3 vs the Z3+ and noticed that the plus has a warmer tone. Probably still to early to know is the camera software has improved any though. Sadly, I've started to use filters on the shots that look too cold to help earn them up a bit... More of a workaround than a solution.
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
tompab said:
I just bought this phone, and I'm extremely disappointed in the camera. My wife has a note4 which takes great photos, which I've been using pretty much every day as we recently had a child (our first). My main reason for buying a new phone was to always have a good camera on hand for taking photos of our son. I hate big phones though, hence why I didn't buy the note4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got a Z1c(not Z3c) and S6 but I think I can share you some ideas here. Sony tends to like cold WB while S6 produces warm WB. Indeed, they both got pros and cons in my experiences bcoz Samsung is also easy to produce over-warm coast and sometimes not real good, it is just too warm, though in your case I admit this time warm WB got real better result.
If you want a smaller phone, you can consider the upcoming S6 mini(SM-G9198) with 4.6" 720P, s808, 2GB ram, 16GB rom, NFC, 16MP rear camera, 5MP front camera. Sony focus is just all bad(actually the image quality isn't bad though you can't compete it with Note4/S6) and Samsung is like 10 times better when you talking about the speed and focus part.
TheEndHK said:
I've got a Z1c(not Z3c) and S6 but I think I can share you some ideas here. Sony tends to like cold WB while S6 produces warm WB. Indeed, they both got pros and cons in my experiences bcoz Samsung is also easy to produce over-warm coast and sometimes not real good, it is just too warm, though in your case I admit this time warm WB got real better result.
If you want a smaller phone, you can consider the upcoming S6 mini(SM-G9198) with 4.6" 720P, s808, 2GB ram, 16GB rom, NFC, 16MP rear camera, 5MP front camera. Sony focus is just all bad(actually the image quality isn't bad though you can't compete it with Note4/S6) and Samsung is like 10 times better when you talking about the speed and focus part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will be very interested to see how that 16mp cam performs, if its anything like the S5 or S6 I may very well convert. Especially if they get the nicer build of the S6 in too, Just please no glass back.
S6 build also means glass back. I have no problems with glass. I'm not too fond of the diplay, Pentile matrix means less subpixels (=less sharpness) and effective resolution similar to qHD. It's clearly visible (rubbih harpness/dottiness) and just bad for the money.
PuffDaddy_d said:
I couldn't agree with you more. I read an article where someone managed to compare the display of the Z3 vs the Z3+ and noticed that the plus has a warmer tone. Probably still to early to know is the camera software has improved any though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Z3+ takes warmer pictures indeed but there's even more digital noise reduction:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
majaczos said:
S6 build also means glass back. I have no problems with glass. I'm not too fond of the diplay, Pentile matrix means less subpixels (=less sharpness) and effective resolution similar to qHD. It's clearly visible (rubbih harpness/dottiness) and just bad for the money.
Z3+ takes warmer pictures indeed but there's even more digital noise reduction:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I can't even see the difference in color tone between these photos. At most, I see that the plus didn't focus properly in this shot.
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
PuffDaddy_d said:
Honestly, I can't even see the difference in color tone between these photos. At most, I see that the plus didn't focus properly in this shot.
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here... its splitting hairs to say there is any difference in color tone. That could easily be randomness with the Z3 being warm in the next shot.
Look at the concrete. It's much warmer. Another pictures (from gsmarena):
Z3:
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/sony-xperia-z3/camera/gsmarena_015.jpg
Z3+:
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/sony-xperia-z3plus/camera/gsmarena_102.jpg
majaczos said:
Look at the concrete. It's much warmer. Another pictures (from gsmarena):
Z3:
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/sony-xperia-z3/camera/gsmarena_015.jpg
Z3+:
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/sony-xperia-z3plus/camera/gsmarena_102.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, yeah, the concrete does look warmer with the plus, but these are very obvious. Though, I question why it appears that so much time passed between shots. The sky is clear in one photo but is cloudy in the next. Overcast conditions will affect the white balance as well. Still a bit too soon for me to judge.
Sent from my Xperia Z3 Compact
Cronis said:
I will be very interested to see how that 16mp cam performs, if its anything like the S5 or S6 I may very well convert. Especially if they get the nicer build of the S6 in too, Just please no glass back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no much info yet so I can't tell about S6 Compact but we can make some safe guess here and probably quite close to the true specification.
1. Probably used the new ISOCell 16MP to save cost. We all know that S6 got two sensors which is Sony IMX240 and Samsung ISOCell. This time the ISOCell is improved and better than the one on S5, so it is a 2nd gen. It got better color during at low light while IMX240 got more details. On day time, both sensors are almost identical. Mine S6 got IMX240.
2. OIS is removed for cost.
3. Aperture down to f/2.2 or f/2.4 depending the price strategic
If Samsung willing to give it a f/2.2 then it is safe to say it is a killer for Z3c though Z3c will still own some advantages like waterproof and best battery life. Not sure about microSD card thing. Consider it got a powerful s808 so as a small flagship, very possible to own a f/2.2 aperture.
https://shopmeenova.appspot.com/st/p/mrg2.html
I use this otg to solve my storage problem on S6.
Aperture eans nothing without sensor's size. Z3 can have higher aperture because IMX220 one of the biggest sensors on the (mobile) market right now.
We know nothing about the S6 mini, SM-G9198 sounds like SM-G9098's replacement:
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/samsung-sm-g9098-1608
majaczos said:
Aperture eans nothing without sensor's size. Z3 can have higher aperture because IMX220 one of the biggest sensors on the (mobile) market right now.
We know nothing about the S6 mini, SM-G9198 sounds like SM-G9098's replacement:
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/samsung-sm-g9098-1608
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it is impossible to be the next G9098 bcoz it got only 3.7" size while G9198 is 4.6" with such powerful s808 cpu, they are in total different market segment.
Aperture is real meaningful in any size bcoz my One S(8MP 1/3.2") got f/2.0 so I know about it and Iphone 5s/6/6+ got only 8MP 1/3" f/2.2 but they are doing very well at low light too.
TheEndHK said:
I think it is impossible to be the next G9098 bcoz it got only 3.7" size while G9198 is 4.6" with such powerful s808 cpu, they are in total different market segment.
Aperture is real meaningful in any size bcoz my One S(8MP 1/3.2") got f/2.0 so I know about it and Iphone 5s/6/6+ got only 8MP 1/3" f/2.2 but they are doing very well at low light too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe they want to reduce bezels? Or make it bigger? SM-G9098 has very powerful CPU as well, actually it was the most powerful back in 2014..
They're ok in low light situations (partially thanks to decent image processing) but you can't trick physics.
majaczos said:
Maybe they want to reduce bezels? Or make it bigger? SM-G9098 has very powerful CPU as well, actually it was the most powerful back in 2014..
They're ok in low light situations (partially thanks to decent image processing) but you can't trick physics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
G9098 is 3.7" size while G9198 is 4.6", the different is big enough because there is no 4.6" size flip phone becoz when you put a 4.6" screen together with a physical keyboard, the phone will be very fat and large and customer will end up prefer to get a Note4/5 instead with similar size. But I like the good old day flip phone style, actually I want to see more coming out.
Thanks for all the help guys. Just thought I'd give an update if anyone is interested.
I still really dislike the z3c camera and was considering selling the phone and picking up a galaxy s6. I do however like the other aspects of the z3c, so I ended up buying a proper camera instead. I can use my wife's note4 for a quick snap if I don't have my camera nearby. It's a compromise, but I think it made more sense.