Related
Having used XZ's camera for some hundred pictures in various conditions, I have to comment on the very smart automatic mode. It does produce excellent results in identifying conditions and exposure and colour rendition are trully very good. However, photograhic quality is just not there. Detail suffers a lot from either noise or too much post processing. In some cases when viewing at 1:1 zoom, it reminds me the results of applying some of photoshop's artistic filters in a subtle yet identifiable way.
Sony must have had a reason to incorporate such heavy post processing. The Exmor RS module was originally designed to handle RGBW coding (white plus the traditional RGB). Apparently somewhere along the way, Sony changed their minds as they could not make it work to their "image quality standards" and reverted back to traditional RGB (1), (2). One can only make assumptions, but perhaps the rather heavy noise processing of the image and compression may have its roots to decisions taken to correct other issues, ie. degraded light performance and consequent noise through higher ISOs.
It would be interesting to see how the sensor performs in other phones. One example is the Oppo Find 5. Unfortunately the results are pretty much the same, ie. plenty of noise which brings down detail. (3), (4) Which can only mean that the root of the problem is either any firmware handling the signal of the actual image sensor or that the design itself is flawed.
It is rumoured that the same sensor will also be used in the new SGS4 (we will know soon enough) and the revised iPhone 5S. So let's wait and see what they can make of it. It would be disappointing to see two highly anticipated phones featuring worse cameras than the models they are replacing.
In photographic terms, the way to get better pictures is larger aperture and image stabilization. Letting more light in is the secret and there are two ways of doing it: larger aperture or longer exposure times. The latter results in shaky pictures which is counteracted to some extent though image stabilization. The former usually requires a longer camera+lens module. (in DSLRs larger aperture also means small DOF but this is not an issue for phone cameras where the sensor is so small). That's why incorporating a F/2.0 or F/2.2 aperture usually means thicker phone or a lump at the back. Sony also makes a F/2.2 module which is 5.5mm thick vs 4.2mm for the F/2.4 which was selected for the XZ, probably to keep its thickness to an impressive 7.9mm. (5) The larger aperture could also an excuse for the thickness of the Nokia Lumia 920 which its F/2.0 aperture lens. (6) However, Lumia 920 does pull it off and the result of a good sensor, the F/2.0 aperture and optical image stabilization is great photographic quality. Another approach is having less pixels, something HTC implemented in the One, which again features a F/2.0 aperture @ 9.3mm thickness. However this also has obvious disadvantages in losing detail and the ability to crop a photograph.
Higher pixel count, 13MP vs 8MP, also means that to get the same exposure with the same speed, aperture and ISO rating you need MORE light. (7) Thus, when 8MP is pretty good resolution for every day photography, increasing the pixel count just for the sake of it is the wrong way to go. I do not need to use my Canon 550D at more than 8MP, even when on holidays, even though it supports 18MP resolution.
What has the future in store for us? Well, Sony has made a large investment in the new assembly line and tools to produce the Exmor RS series and they want to see it through. So, I would expect to see revised editions of the module with significant improvements.
Many thanks for reading.
Sources
(1) engadget.com/2012/09/21/sony-exmor-rs-stacked-phone-camera-sensors-detuned-over-quality/
(2) droiddog.com/android-blog/2012/09/sonys-exmor-rs-sensors-downgraded-due-to-quality-concerns/
(3) gizmochina.com/2012/12/15/oppo-find-5-using-sony-cmos-exmor-rs-sensor-camera-component/
(4) gsmarena.com/oppo_find_5-review-880p8.php
(5) imaging-resource.com/news/2012/08/20/sony-exmor-rs-sensors-to-allow-slimmer-better-camera-phones
(6) nokia.com/global/products/phone/lumia920/specifications/[/url]
(7) wpcentral.com/thoughts-and-impressions-nokia-lumia-920s-pureview-camera
so XZ camera issue is due to a software?
For the Mp count, u mean that a DSLR like nikon D800 is not only useless but pointless DSLR.
Photographer use extra MP to take pics at RAW format then convert them the way the Photographer want.
Only the engineers at Sony know if the issue can be corrected with revised algorithms or indeed the sensor can't give anything more. My view is that if this was possible they would not have resorted to so much post processing in the first place. If anything Sony knows photography photography much more than Apple or Samsung.
Of course I am not suggesting that dSLRs have the same function as a camera phone. My personal view is that as a casual photographer I don't need more than 8MPs. Of course there have been instances were I choose to shoot in RAW but I doubt that in such a situation a 13MP camera sensor will bail me out anyway. A dSLR is another beast. My message was about finding the best balance for a camera phone.
Thank you
8MP on dslr is not the same 8MP on a phone.
The sensor in dslr is way bigger than the one i a phone.
Sent from my C6602 using xda premium
Hopefully this is not the result of the Sony camera division trying to hold back on their phones. It happened before with Sony Music trying to stop them from releasing a MP3 player, thats why they were stuck with the mini disk atrac bs for a long time and enter very later into the mp3 market. Too often things like this happened in the company where we see the left hand is trying to fight the right hand making the company so far behind the competitors. Makes no sense that their phone camera is still very mediocre where they make some of the best camera out there.
comparing to my Xperia X10i i get the feeling the color is to much yellow in iAutomatic!
https://picasaweb.google.com/114460...&authkey=Gv1sRgCOO5m9yRrqu1Vw&feat=directlink
btw: Your Opinion on this Topic ?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6777/understanding-camera-optics-smartphone-camera-trends
Is there anyway to make taken images stay at the size they are suposed to be? I mean i want to stop the compression of the image like I had on Xperia S and quality was much better (not better than on xperia Z tho )
Some articles stated that with Android L, devices will receive the capability to save photos in RAW .dng format, providing a far superior photo quality for shutter bugs. I have looked through the stock sammy camera app, but no RAW, and I was unable to find another app on play store to do this. Is there any camera app you guys can suggest that has that format? Please help, I don't mind if I have to pay for the app just give me a link or something, please
posedatull said:
Some articles stated that with Android L, devices will receive the capability to save photos in RAW .dng format, providing a far superior photo quality for shutter bugs. I have looked through the stock sammy camera app, but no RAW, and I was unable to find another app on play store to do this. Is there any camera app you guys can suggest that has that format? Please help, I don't mind if I have to pay for the app just give me a link or something, please
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might help.
It's a third party app from playstore Photo Mate
amk19 said:
This might help.
It's a third party app from playstore Photo Mate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man, but that app just lets me modify RAW pictures made by other cameras and then copied to the phone. I was looking for what the L Camera is supposed to do for the Nexus 5 and6 devices. Actually take pictures in RAW format with my N9005
posedatull said:
Thanks man, but that app just lets me modify RAW pictures made by other cameras and then copied to the phone. I was looking for what the L Camera is supposed to do for the Nexus 5 and6 devices. Actually take pictures in RAW format with my N9005
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try this Camera FV-5
amk19 said:
Try this Camera FV-5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bought it, tried, said our device doesn't support raw. Asked for refund
posedatull said:
Bought it, tried, said our device doesn't support raw. Asked for refund
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh. Okay. Sorry buddy.
RAW format isn't going to do much about the quality of the photographs on a mobile phone with a sensor this small.
The sensors in smartphones cameras are the lowest possible tier. Using a digital negative isn't going to improve that.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 2
ShadowLea said:
RAW format isn't going to do much about the quality of the photographs on a mobile phone with a sensor this small.
The sensors in smartphones cameras are the lowest possible tier. Using a digital negative isn't going to improve that.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply not true. The ability to capture RAW images has immensely improved camera performance on other devices.
troy2062 said:
That is simply not true. The ability to capture RAW images has immensely improved camera performance on other devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Do you actually know, without looking it up first, what the RAW format is for?
It is a digital negative. It contains all the data the sensor is able to capture.
The resulting JPG's quality is entirely determined by the compression format used by the camera app.
Shooting in RAW allows you more freedom to tweak the image before turning it into a JPG. It does NOT improve the camera performance. It does not increase the sharpness, decrease the noise and reduce blurring.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 2
troy2062 said:
That is simply not true. The ability to capture RAW images has immensely improved camera performance on other devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but this is just wrong.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
ShadowLea said:
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Do you actually know, without looking it up first, what the RAW format is for?
It is a digital negative. It contains all the data the sensor is able to capture.
The resulting JPG's quality is entirely determined by the compression format used by the camera app.
Shooting in RAW allows you more freedom to tweak the image before turning it into a JPG. It does NOT improve the camera performance. It does not increase the sharpness, decrease the noise and reduce blurring.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am a photography enthusiast and I do not appreciate your condescending tone. The XDA community at large has become far too hostile for my liking in recent years.
For all practical purposes, it does improve camera performance. When capturing in RAW using the camera2 API, you gain full manual control over shutter speed and ISO, as well as the ability to bypass the camera module's automated image processing. The resulting DNG is completely free of automated correction and you will have significantly more dynamic range to work with.
Despite the small sensor size of smartphone cameras, shooting RAW still yields significant benefits.
troy2062 said:
The XDA community at large has become far too hostile for my liking in recent years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wish I could agree with you on this more. XDA is floating with kids nowadays, some of them haven't even hit puberty yet
troy2062 said:
I am a photography enthusiast and I do not appreciate your condescending tone. The XDA community at large has become far too hostile for my liking in recent years.
For all practical purposes, it does improve camera performance. When capturing in RAW using the camera2 API, you gain full manual control over shutter speed and ISO, as well as the ability to bypass the camera module's automated image processing. The resulting DNG is completely free of automated correction and you will have significantly more dynamic range to work with.
Despite the small sensor size of smartphone cameras, shooting RAW still yields significant benefits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm glad you're not another one of those people who just heard a word used on a site and thinks they know everything. There are too many of those around, and they are the reason so many of the senior members are hostile towards others.
Particularly where the topic concerns photography. Too many bloody Instagrammers who think they're professionals. The most hilarious ones are the ones who don't even own a DSLR, but think their phone's camera can do the same thing. Or those idiots who complain about the camera quality, and leave the settings on auto.
Most apps have ISO control, even the stock camera.
Isn't that what I just said? "The resulting DNG is completely free of automated correction and you will have significantly more dynamic range to work with." is the exact same thing as "Shooting in RAW allows you more freedom to tweak the image before turning it into a JPG."
RAW mode only improves the resulting JPG. It can't improve the basic image. The lightbleed, stained glass details and oilpainting effect is a result of the sensorsize, not the JPG compression. The compression amplifies the problem, but it doesn't cause it.
And if an image is valuable enough to spend good time on taking the perfect shot, then taking it with a phone is a waste. If you're going to use BULB mode, you'll need a stationary. If you're going to drag the stationary along, might as well bring your DSLR and do it properly.
Was that condescending? I don't know, social cues aren't my area of expertise. But if you thought it was, you should've seen our Photo-Storytelling professor back at uni. That man made everyone afraid to even speak if there was a chance that your answer wasn't 100% accurate. Best class ever.
devilsdouble said:
Wish I could agree with you on this more. XDA is floating with kids nowadays, some of them haven't even hit puberty yet
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've seen 9 year olds act like they know everything and tell the professional developers how they should do their job.
I've seen a 15 year old attempt to tell Chainfire how Root works. *snicker*. Too bad that thread was deleted, it was pure comedy gold. :laugh:
The major problem is that many of the offended users treat XDA as a helpdesk. It's not. It's a developers website. People have a responsibility to Google before they come here to ask their questions. If they neglect that responsiblity, the community doesn't take it very well. It's like going onto a website for car modders and asking how to put gas in a car at a station.
I don't think Samsung did rewrite the Camera HAL and therefore no complete camera2 api support which is a very bad thing.
We don't get a lot of the goodies especially the performance improvement.
Currently there's a 1 second shutter lag on 3rd party apps comparing to stock Samsung camera.
ShadowLea said:
RAW format isn't going to do much about the quality of the photographs on a mobile phone with a sensor this small.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAW format will allow you to develop better quality images than out-of-camera JPEGs.
In-phone postprocessing is limited by its no-so-great software and also processing power (it needs to be able to process a lot of pictures quickly). If you just take RAW files from the phone and run it through dedicated software (Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Noise Ninja), I bet you'd get better images than what you OOC even without fine-tuning anything.
But the more importantly, it allows you to fine-tune a lot of stuff - fix white balance, exposition, find suitable contrast - besides creative control you will often get significantly better quality images.
ShadowLea said:
The sensors in smartphones cameras are the lowest possible tier. Using a digital negative isn't going to improve that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used to take pictures with way worse cameras (like Canon A410) than camera on Note 3 and RAW often made a big difference. RAW is actually more useful on poor sensors (and/or poor post processors) where you need to squeeze the maximum from the picture. On the otherhand, e.g. my Fuji X100 has good enough (APS-C) sensor and very good JPEG engine that I very rarely feel the need to shoot RAW.
Personally I always shot in RAW on a dlsr as I always tweak my photos, the freedom to change tweak exposure/white balance has become a necessity. I can't stand processed jpegs anymore, especially when I don't know what the processing is really doing but I know it ain't doing a good job.
I got the Note 3 a few weeks back and have been wondering about RAW capability as it's something that it's important to me and others who want the extended freedom with their pictures. I have not yet jumped into Lollipop to test it out, but is the Camera2 API included in the lollipop roms available now? Is that API a lollipop standard? If so there's no reason our device shouldn't be able to shoot in RAW.
eddiee said:
RAW format will allow you to develop better quality images than out-of-camera JPEGs.
In-phone postprocessing is limited by its no-so-great software and also processing power (it needs to be able to process a lot of pictures quickly). If you just take RAW files from the phone and run it through dedicated software (Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Noise Ninja), I bet you'd get better images than what you OOC even without fine-tuning anything.
But the more importantly, it allows you to fine-tune a lot of stuff - fix white balance, exposition, find suitable contrast - besides creative control you will often get significantly better quality images.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know how RAW works. I'm a professional photographer, I never use anything other than RAW. Which has some downsides.. I'm seriously running out of storage space on my harddrives
You're forgetting one very important factor. Given the size of RAW files, you can take about 40 pictures before you run out of space on your device, less if you have a decent amount of apps. L fixes the tight security that prevented apps to write to the SD in 4.4, but even then the space limitations are.. obnoxious. 13MP should translate to about 20-25MB per picture. Sure there are 128GB MicroSD cards, but unless you keep that clear of any other data (I have the entire LOTR Extended trilogy on there, for example.) it's still going to be a limitation. The 128GB cards are also quite pricey. I use 128GB SDcards in my camera, and on an average day I have to switch around at least once because it's full. And that's empty cards. Phone cards have data on them.
I used to take pictures with way worse cameras (like Canon A410) than camera on Note 3 and RAW often made a big difference. RAW is actually more useful on poor sensors (and/or poor post processors) where you need to squeeze the maximum from the picture. On the otherhand, e.g. my Fuji X100 has good enough (APS-C) sensor and very good JPEG engine that I very rarely feel the need to shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Evidently, as the A410 had dedicated camera hardware, as opposed to it just being an addition designed for random facebook pictures. And the JPEG conversion in 2005 was severely underdeveloped compared to modern day, and the hardware allows significantly more calculations. Even then the sensors in a modern-day cheap Compact camera are better than the ones in a smartphone, simply because those in smartphones are cut from the leftovers of the sensor plate.
Ah, a Fuji X100? It's one of the classic-style shell camera's, if I recall correctly. I played around with one a while ago, one of my colleagues is a hipster, so yea, he has one. :silly:
Funny little thing, pretty decent quality for something so small. It's not a system camera, though, so his arguments to convince me to get one were completely wasted. I'm a macro, landscape and architecture photographer; I need my different lenses.
My Canon EOS 70D can shoot in JPEG at ISO 6400 without noise. Doesn't mean I ever take it off the RAW+JPG setting. Even then I always edit my pictures in CameraRaw. JPG is good enough for preview, but I require PNG and TIFF for high-quality print. And shooting Macro and Landscape in JPG is simply a wasted effort. Those always require editing. So does architecture, because I'm too lazy to drag a technical camera along, so I have to do a lot of perspective correction. RAW is better suited for that.
There is one thing on which I do see the point of shooting in RAW with a smartphone. The lens is so utterly rubbish that the chromatic aberration is simply painful. Not to mention the overly obvious light flares if you try to shoot anything near a lightsource or white. It won't solve it, but at least you can tone it down a bit.
Still, I'd rather use my DSLR for those photographs. It also looks an awful lot less ridiculous than standing around with a smartphone taking pictures.
ShadowLea said:
You're forgetting one very important factor. Given the size of RAW files, you can take about 40 pictures before you run out of space on your device, less if you have a decent amount of apps. L fixes the tight security that prevented apps to write to the SD in 4.4, but even then the space limitations are.. obnoxious. 13MP should translate to about 20-25MB per picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
20-25 MB per RAW picture means 40-50 pictures per GB. Currently I have 9 GBs free on the phone and 21 GB on the card. That translates to about 1200-1500 pictures. That sounds quite OK.
Still, I don't plan to shoot exclusively RAW - there's no point in fiddling with RAW for simple point&shoot pictures. Personally I'd use RAW only when it's necessary - in challenging lighting conditions, important shots etc.
Storage won't be a problem for me.
ShadowLea said:
Evidently, as the A410 had dedicated camera hardware, as opposed to it just being an addition designed for random facebook pictures. And the JPEG conversion in 2005 was severely underdeveloped compared to modern day, and the hardware allows significantly more calculations. Even then the sensors in a modern-day cheap Compact camera are better than the ones in a smartphone, simply because those in smartphones are cut from the leftovers of the sensor plate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
JPEG conversion is bad in a lot of cameras even today (although Samsung's JPEG engine seems to be one of the better ones, in smartphones). The point was that RAW is useful both for good and bad cameras (sensors).
ShadowLea said:
Still, I'd rather use my DSLR for those photographs. It also looks an awful lot less ridiculous than standing around with a smartphone taking pictures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best camera is the one you have with you. DSLR is too big for me to drag around. That's why I bought Fuji - it's quite small and light while having very good IQ. Actually even the Fuji is too big and heavy (especially for the neck) on the longer hikes (30km) - sometimes I just leave it at home and go just with the phone. I eagerly await phone camera improvements (including RAW support) so I can leave my larger cameras at home.
eddiee said:
20-25 MB per RAW picture means 40-50 pictures per GB. Currently I have 9 GBs free on the phone and 21 GB on the card. That translates to about 1200-1500 pictures. That sounds quite OK.
Still, I don't plan to shoot exclusively RAW - there's no point in fiddling with RAW for simple point&shoot pictures. Personally I'd use RAW only when it's necessary - in challenging lighting conditions, important shots etc.
Storage won't be a problem for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've got a lot more free space than me. I've got 1GB on the phone left, and 2GB on my MicroSD (Out of 128, yea... The disadvantage of 1080p series. >.<)
Oh I've seen people do it; shoot in RAW then put it on Instagram. :laugh:
JPEG conversion is bad in a lot of cameras even today (although Samsung's JPEG engine seems to be one of the better ones, in smartphones). The point was that RAW is useful both for good and bad cameras (sensors).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well yes. But it still can't fix the problems caused by the bad sensor. It can decrease them because JPG conversion aplifies them, but it can't fix them. RAW can't fix hardware faults. (Oh if only it could..)
Best camera is the one you have with you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I both agree and disagree. Any camera is better than no camera, true.
But I had an EOS 500D before this, and it simply made bad pictures. For memories and snapshots the quality matters little (And it may even add to the photo), but it had a similar problem as the smartphones: it was a low-tier model and had a cheap sensor. All the editing in RAW couldn't fix the data that simply wasn't collected, and it can't add detail that isn't there. The same issue applies to smartphones.
(And before anyone tries to, don't even think of throwing out "The quality of the photograph is determined by the photographer". I hate that saying, and it's only ever said by those who can't afford a decent camera. That saying applies to the quality of the content, not the image quality. Someone usually ends up using that argument in any photography discussion, so consider this a pre-emptive strike.)
DSLR is too big for me to drag around. That's why I bought Fuji - it's quite small and light while having very good IQ. Actually even the Fuji is too big and heavy (especially for the neck) on the longer hikes (30km) - sometimes I just leave it at home and go just with the phone. I eagerly await phone camera improvements (including RAW support) so I can leave my larger cameras at home.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can get a bit heavy, yes. It's why I always use a backpack. True, it's still about 30-40 kilos, but as a backpack that's easily manageable. I've tried taking photo's with my phone on my trips, but I always end up wanting my macro, telezoom or wideangle lens. But I'm the weird one who stands around taking photographs of a floral arrangement while everyone else is photographing the Colosseum, and who takes a macro photograph of the leg of the Eiffel Tower, but not the tower itself. So perhaps I'm a bad example of the average photographer. :laugh: :silly:
But I had an EOS 500D before this, and it simply made bad pictures. For memories and snapshots the quality matters little (And it may even add to the photo), but it had a similar problem as the smartphones: it was a low-tier model and had a cheap sensor. All the editing in RAW couldn't fix the data that simply wasn't collected, and it can't add detail that isn't there. The same issue applies to smartphones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When shooting raw, images should be taken with post processing in mind and exposures set to take the most amount of the important data whatever it may be. Thus a picture looking good or bad in camera is totally irrelevant. The 500D takes good pictures, it's no 5D mk3 but good enough for semi-pro depending on what kind of stuff is being shot with it. A good lens on a lowish tier camera goes a long way, much more so than a good sensor with a mediocre lens.
Have you ever checked this folder /system/etc/camera? You can tune noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, hdr, night mode, light mode, nice food, scene recognition and many other algorithms as well. I have no knowledge and experience but if you want you can try and share your experience.
Sent from Honor 7
Spencer_D said:
Have you ever checked this folder /system/etc/camera? You can tune noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, hdr, night mode, light mode, nice food, scene recognition and many other algorithms as well. I have no knowledge and experience but if you want you can try and share your experience.
Sent from Honor 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL! Why did nobody recognized before??
There was a mod that tuned camera long time ago, but in a different way - https://forum.xda-developers.com/honor-7/development/mod-camera-mod-100-jpeg-compression-t3340978
Anyway, Honor 7 camera is amazing and highly underrated - mostly because of too much noise reduction and too big jpeg compression. Just by changing camera app to a third party one (like Snap Camera for example) that allows you to change jpeg output quality to something about 90-95% makes REALLY BIG difference. Stock camera app simply compresses files too much and in effect reduces quality and amount of details. Files from stock camera are like 5-7mb each, while the ones from third party app are like 14-20mb! One problem though - sometimes, when image photographed scene has actually too much detail and resulting image exceedes 20mb you get nothing. Probably some memory issue.
Thing is, Honor 7 had great potential (and camera was just a part of it), but the interest in this device was killed by Honor itself. People who owned it mostly already sold it as there are big issues in current software that will most likely never be fixed. Therefore i would not expect to get much developement in camera area as the userbase is now reduced. It wasn't big year ago and it's only getting smaller and smaller.
Not much replies here. Anyone oriented on this matter yet?
First of all, I tried third-party camera app (Open Camera) that gives me 100% jpeg quality option, but I haven't tested real life quality out yet. Definitely bigger file size.
Video is the one I'm trying to focus on, tho. Open Camera gives me options for bitrate. Tried 50 and 40 Mbps. With higher dynamics real life framerate didn't go over 14 fps. With locked and somewhat under adjusted exposure, it can handle 30fps on 1080p. But it's no good when trying to shoot "professional" video. Didn't check the real life bitrate either.
As supevixen stated there's some threshold on bitrate and/or jpeg compression buffer. Any idea why?
So what I'm trying to solve is;
- Why there's so low threshold on buffer and can it be optimized? Could it buffer better if I used fast external SD instead of internal?
- How to optimize buffer to match hardware maximum?
- Should I continue using third-party apps or should I try to optimize stock camera .xml files?
- How to reduce denoising? (xml optimization)
- How to lock frame rate and/or shutter speed on video recording? (xml optimization)
I'm not very familiar with jquery or imx230 or much about the Honor 7 SoC either. I'm fast learner and very interested on optimizing the camera.
Ok, here we go. I'd figure that: "/system/etc/camera/multidenoise" -> "multidenoise.xml" is for the "selfie camera" as it states attributes for IMX134 and IMX135. So this doesn't need optimization, if I'm getting this right. "/system/etc/camera/davinci/imx230" has "hdr.xml", "imgproc.xml" and "multiframe.xml" files. "imgproc.xml" I believe has everything to do with the image processing. "multiframe.xml" has everything to do with denoising and luma enhancing, I recon. How to properly reduce denoising? Should I also tinker with luma enhancement or image processing? Also, as I stated I'd like to lock down the shutter speed on video recording, with frame rate set to 25. "/system/etc/camera/bshutter/imx230/" -> "algo.xml" has algorithms for shutter behavior. Any way to optimize those?
Or should I simply throw this peace of crap out of my life? Camera has great potential anyway, would be shame to toss it away.
If there's someone with some knowledge on the matter, I'd be more than grateful. Thanks in advance.
anamorphica, i didn't try modding original camera app by editing various files as i don't wan't to lose warranty, but i've tried many different camera apps and best one i've found is Snap Camera which paid version i'm using right now. Why? Simply because it can save jpeg files with 100% and it makes HUGE difference. Just imagine - files saved by stock camera are about 5-6MB each where files saved by Snap Camera are about 16-20MB each! And difference is really BIG when you zoom just a little bit and as we have 20mpix camera sensor it actually does make sense to "zoom" by just cropping full image to desired part and gues what - it is possible with good quality images. Of course you can save jpeg's with different quality in most third party apps (like Open Camera or Zoom FX for example), but Snap Camera seems to work best for me (it's interface is ok, it does have many useful options) and it also has amazing HDR mode (three images with different exposure are stacked together for final one - there are other apps that work that way but believe me - results from Snap Camera are by far best)
There is however one downside - sometimes, when detail quantity is to big and output image exceeds ~20MB files are not saved. It happens rarely (really) but it has to be somehow connected with amount of memory needed to that amount of data (in RAW data it has to be much more than just compressed 20 megabytes) and that's probably one of the reasons why stock camera app saves such highly compressed images. Take note, that every other "creative" mode in stock camera doesn't output full res images (light painting and night mode - they're about 8 or 10mpix as i remember) and i'm pretty sure that's also connected with memory limitations (probably not whole RAM - just the part available at the moment for camera sensor and GPU)
As for video quality, there's probably not much we can do, as our Kirin SOC is limited. Where Sony smartphones with same IMX230 can record up to 4k and have OIS, we can do only 1080p with just electronic image stabilisation and pretty low bitrate. Slow motion is also pretty bad with framedrops...
Anyway, as for me, Snap Camera is the best and i'm not going to mess with stock one. Just when i need those light painting modes or night mode - it's ok. But in good light i'll stick with Snap.
Thanks for your reply.
I'd like to know if buffer is really low/restricted due to hardware limitation. As I see it, Kirin is overkill for the needed buffer and RAM should be more than enough.
Someone made 100% jpeg quality mod to "media_profiles.xml", but every bitrate etc. values were set to very odd numbers. It's just hard time to believe that this phone couldn't handle more than what it does now.
btw. I read somewhere that Honor 7 GPU would be plenty for OIS as it should be implemented on IMX230 and people was waiting for firmware update to fix much of those restrictions, well we all know that update never came.
Our Kirin is not that good actually. Not only it does have issues with energy management (that's why apps in background are killed on stock roms and why battery times are much less impressive with CM roms - without agressive app killer built in stock firmware) but it is also crippled on GPU part (no Vulkan compatibility) and not really video capable - like i've said, phones based on different SOCs with same camera sensor are more capable (different codecs etc.) Our phone can't even record perfectly fluent slomo video with stock app - just try it, it's never without freezes.
All in all, i don't think it's worth mess with internal configuration files - you won't get too much probably, at least on video part.
After google announced that they have no plans to bring RAW support to the device I was curious to see what sort of quality the DNGs would be. Unfortunately I've found that the RAW files from different apps provide different results.
Apps used
Stock Camera App JPEG
Camera NX
Camera FV-5
Test 1: Straight out of camera RAW quality
All camera applications were left on full auto with touch focus on the far buildings.
Stock
https://imgur.com/a/ae575
Camera NX
https://imgur.com/a/UlR4s
Camera FV-5
https://imgur.com/a/ANvw5
As can be seen the RAW from Camera NX though very noisy is pretty standard looking. On the other hand Camera FV-5 is just awful with a stupid amount of noise.
This is interesting as inspecting the photos shows that the ISO for FV-5 was the lowest at 400 whilst NX and Stock used ISO 875.
Test 2: JPEG vs RAW quality
For this test I tried to use Camera FV-5 but it refused to take any pictures in the low light. Based on the previous test it's pretty obvious it would have fared worst anyways.
In this test I have tried to show the dynamic range of the files. Both were brought into Adobe Camera RAW, sliders for shadows and blacks cranked to max with the brightness and whites to lowest. I have also applied some sharpening and noise reduction to both.
The edits to both are identical
Stock Edit
https://imgur.com/a/9WPSy
NX Edit
https://imgur.com/a/UDEs9
The resulting images show that the RAW file is brighter and retains more detail. This can clearly be seen in the roof where JPEG artifacts are visible and the brickwork where detail is lost.
This can more clearly be seen when I brighten the JPEG so that it matches the brightness of the RAW
Stock Edit Brighter
https://imgur.com/a/N7YFz
Conclusions
I'd grown used to shooting RAW on my S7 Edge, luckily the new Pixels fully support Camera API 2. However it is interesting to see that the RAW readout is different per app. In regards to quality I will definitely be shooting the Camera NX in the future when I want a RAW file; however the JPEG quality is very impressive and lives up to it's hype.
Edit: 26/11/17 (From reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/7fb9vu/technical_camera_test_raw_vs_jpeg/)
Test 3: LR vs Camera NX
Tried out LR in both 'Professional' and 'HDR' RAW modes. All photos have the same sharpening, noise reduction, white point applied. Blacks and shadows are maxed out with whites and highlights at minimum. LR HDR has exposure boosted to +2.65EV to match brightness.
NX Edit https://imgur.com/a/oUBhd
LR Professional Edit https://imgur.com/a/CsBa3
LR HDR Edit https://imgur.com/a/nuSNa
I was expecting LR RAWs to be significantly better. Unexpectedly the 'Professional' LR RAW looks similar to the FV-5 RAW, very blue with a whole bunch of noise.
The 'HDR' LR RAW looks much closer to the NX RAW, however there are some strange hot(white) pixels spread throughout.
Conclusions 2
I'll still be sticking with the NX RAWs for now, 'HDR' LR files are close but detail isn't any better and those white pixels are pretty noticeable.
Test 1 and 2 Full resolution and dng files: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e2_sD7D1IiOg9Ety_8IsHAfhcKAVf9Eq/view?usp=sharing
Test 3 Full resolution and dng files: https://drive.google.com/open?id=17EIhsPAX5efHXPiz_cfkov3AKaDkREvg
Anyone got suggestions for more apps for me to try?
For my aesthetically pleasing photographs please visit my Instagram
Interesting post, thanks for sharing. Have you considered doing stock v nx v LR v manual cam & compare in lightroom side by side? I know with my 5X the hdr auto was visibly worse wrt detail than hdr on, and dng was another step up to that, basically incredibly detailed.
Does nx raw use hdr with the new 8.1 update enabling the visual core? Or will say manual camera use hdr+enhanced in it's raw outputs?
randomhkkid said:
Anyone got suggestions for more apps for me to try?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting read thanks. Did you try open camera? I experimented a bit and found the dng offered more flexibility in fixing exposure and white balance but needed a lot of noise processing to be as good as the jpg. But have been shooting both just in case I wanted to post process anything. So far haven't.
It never occurred to me that raw differed by app. That seems just wrong.
Linwood.Ferguson said:
It never occurred to me that raw differed by app. That seems just wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It does seem wrong. RAW data should be just that, all the data from the camera before anything like an app tweaks it out. So yeah, it makes zero sense.
Hi, good thread!
I have somehow given up on RAW on Android because the implementations are so clumsy and the results are pitiful.
Indeed, to me too, the idea of having different quality raw from different cameras is plain stupid! Though I might admit it could be true given how lame the 3rd party Android cameras are. Such a shame a huge ecosystem such as Android cannot produce a fully featured and functional camera.
Btw you could also try one of the modified GCam versions with RAW enabled. Here is a nice page where you could fetch one such. Go for the stable ones, in red.
https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/android/google-camera/
Looking forward for your results!
You clearly don't understand what RAW is, or how ****ty phone cams are under the hood
The fact that you think that FV5 is the one giving bad results just shows that you don't understand what RAW files are supposed to be.
Phones, even our allegedly amazing DSLR killing wonders of today have ridiculously tiny sensors and take garbage photos. NO qualifications here, they take garbage photos.
Through magic, detail smearing software processing, we get some usable results.
Camera FV5 is outputting a real RAW file, complete with the stupid amount of noise captures by the tiny, crappy sensor in your phone.
Camera NX is evidently doing almost as much processing as the default engine and not outputting a real RAW file at all.
If you're wondering why Google downplays RAW support, it's because they know that for most people it will just reveal how crappy the camera really is and how much software trickery is going on.
Bingley said:
Interesting post, thanks for sharing. Have you considered doing stock v nx v LR v manual cam & compare in lightroom side by side? I know with my 5X the hdr auto was visibly worse wrt detail than hdr on, and dng was another step up to that, basically incredibly detailed.
Does nx raw use hdr with the new 8.1 update enabling the visual core? Or will say manual camera use hdr+enhanced in it's raw outputs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't tried since the 8.1 update. A little busy at the moment with my Master's unfortunately. I will try to do more comparisons in a few weeks after finals. For now I've updated the OP with some results from Lightroom's camera.
Linwood.Ferguson said:
Interesting read thanks. Did you try open camera? I experimented a bit and found the dng offered more flexibility in fixing exposure and white balance but needed a lot of noise processing to be as good as the jpg. But have been shooting both just in case I wanted to post process anything. So far haven't.
It never occurred to me that raw differed by app. That seems just wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pixelsquish said:
It does seem wrong. RAW data should be just that, all the data from the camera before anything like an app tweaks it out. So yeah, it makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't shoot the messenger! The RAW files are definitely different, unsure why, likely due to API differences and when the RAW files is read in the image pipeline.
dehnhaide said:
Hi, good thread!
I have somehow given up on RAW on Android because the implementations are so clumsy and the results are pitiful.
Indeed, to me too, the idea of having different quality raw from different cameras is plain stupid! Though I might admit it could be true given how lame the 3rd party Android cameras are. Such a shame a huge ecosystem such as Android cannot produce a fully featured and functional camera.
Btw you could also try one of the modified GCam versions with RAW enabled. Here is a nice page where you could fetch one such. Go for the stable ones, in red.
https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/android/google-camera/
Looking forward for your results!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CameraNX is the same as the modded Google camera with RAW support.
lordfarqaud said:
The fact that you think that FV5 is the one giving bad results just shows that you don't understand what RAW files are supposed to be.
Phones, even our allegedly amazing DSLR killing wonders of today have ridiculously tiny sensors and take garbage photos. NO qualifications here, they take garbage photos.
Through magic, detail smearing software processing, we get some usable results.
Camera FV5 is outputting a real RAW file, complete with the stupid amount of noise captures by the tiny, crappy sensor in your phone.
Camera NX is evidently doing almost as much processing as the default engine and not outputting a real RAW file at all.
If you're wondering why Google downplays RAW support, it's because they know that for most people it will just reveal how crappy the camera really is and how much software trickery is going on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah this is where you're wrong. The actual RAW files you seem to be talking about are not debayered or processed in any way, the RAW files we traditionally talk about (DNG, NEF, CR2) are all already processed by the app or camera logic in some way to be as flat and neutral as possible whilst containing more info in shadows, highlights etc.
That's why we see difference in the output, the apps are processing the RAW output differently. The camera in the Pixel is still a good sensor, just that the software magic makes it the best in the industry. There is still merit to shooting in RAW compared to the jpeg output.
I am surprised that you guys don't know the difference.
Google's HDR+ captures multiple images (allegedly up to 8 or 10) in order to improve the image quality(noise, colors, dynamic range). But when you take a raw photo with a 3rd party app, you get worse image quality because usually the raw file relies on a single image.
Adobe's HDR raw automatically combines raw files (probably two or three) for a better dynamic range.
The NX app is a modified Google camera app. Therefore the app contains Google's HDR+ algorithm. Apparently Google's camera app has the option to use HDR+ for the raw files (so multiple raw files are combined for a much better image quality), but Google hasn't activated the feature yet. But apparently the developer of the NX app found a way to activate it.
I hope that Google activates this feature soon, so then we don't need a 3rd party apk anymore.
Ah this is where you're wrong. The actual RAW files you seem to be talking about are not debayered or processed in any way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A raw file contains, or should contain raw, "undebayered" sensor data. The processing software (lightroom, camera raw, etc, does the demosaicing.
the RAW files we traditionally talk about (DNG, NEF, CR2) are all already processed by the app or camera logic in some way to be as flat and neutral as possible whilst containing more info in shadows, highlights etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's true that most camera makers probably mess with their raw data prior to some degree prior to saving the data, but it's not correct to say that the files are already processed by the app. Most apps will apply a default profile when you open the file, but nothing is processed until you, er, process it.
That's why we see difference in the output, the apps are processing the RAW output differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They certainly are, in that Camera NX is processing it to such a degree that it's can hardly be claimed to be a RAW file anymore, and FV5 is giving something that appears to have been barely touched, as it should.
The camera in the Pixel is still a good sensor, just that the software magic makes it the best in the industry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a good sensor compared to other smartphone sensors, but it's still a piece of garbage in absolute terms, which is why it only looks good with that software "magic".
There is still merit to shooting in RAW compared to the jpeg output.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that Camera NX is not giving better RAW output, it's not giving RAW output at all. And if you truly do want to see what the sensor is actually capturing, and work with that, only Camera FV5 in this comparison appears to be giving you that.
Should anyone be following this thread the new Pixel 3 camera apk is available and works on the Pixel 2 - it now has native raw support, and frankly it's great - jpegs still look ****e up close, whereas raw/dng files it produces are so clear it's amazing how Google manages to mangle the jpegs in cam!
At the club, at the bar, or just in your mom's basement, nighttime is when you come out to play. Rate this thread to express how the Huawei P40 Pro's camera performs when no or low light is present. A higher rating indicates that the camera sensor "sees" lots of light in dim conditions, and that the resulting photos have minimal noise. A higher rating also indicates that when the flash fires, the resulting photo is evenly-lit without any bright spots.
Then, drop a comment if you have anything to add!
Any experience regarding blur when capturing moving objects (pets, kids, people) indoor?
For me p40 pro doing night photos like a beast.
For low light shots, using normal "photo" mode seems better than using night mode. Example in attachments. First shot is night mode, second is photo mode.
I think night mode is better when you have a tripod. Although I havent tried that.
EDIT: After further testing, I think it really depends on the situation. In some situations, night mode will produce better shots. In others, it will produce worse shots than normal photo mode. So, just in case, always take at least two photos. One in photo mode, one in night mode.
Just a small low light comparison with Huawei Mate 20 Pro. Night mode used on both devices. As you can see on the photo taken with the Mate 20 Pro, the text "co engineered with Leica" isn't as clear as on the pic taken with P40 Pro. Huawei keeps improving their night mode, it's actually very impressive. ?
UXELLR said:
Any experience regarding blur when capturing moving objects (pets, kids, people) indoor?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do. A lot of pictures failed due do this. I expected a bit more from this phone on this point.
regarding low light, i had a few reviewers taking pictures in pitch darkness, yet the image comes out well. Just a point and shoot. is that in an update or its just fake? cause i have tried it, does not work
UXELLR said:
Any experience regarding blur when capturing moving objects (pets, kids, people) indoor?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Michael69300 said:
I do. A lot of pictures failed due do this. I expected a bit more from this phone on this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case, you need to expect a bit more from the fundamental laws of physics and optics.
Three approaches to low-light photos with a fixed aperture:
1) High ISO and short exposure - grainy pictures. The higher the ISO, the uglier the photo. Same with digital zoom, a real pestilence of modern times and death sentence of just any photo.
2) Low ISO and long exposure - in-motion unsharpness.
3) Multiple pictures taken with different ISO and exposure settings, "stacking".
That's it, eat or die. :/
Same with all digital cameras. There's no workaround to defy the laws of physics.
There's only one approach to taking low-light photos with a short exposure, thus being able to avoid in-motion unsharpness: High ISO, thus grainy pictures.
Taking high quality photos under bad lighting conditions always requires long exposures. And long exposures naturally cannot catch quick motions.
Okay, there's algorithms. But the worse the picture, the more the algorithms need to "guess". And guessing means "not knowing". Thus it's a kind of lottery if your low-light pictures showing moving objects turn out acceptable or bad.
If they're acceptable, be happy.
If they're bad, blame it on physics.
You are right about physics. Still there are difference between cameras/phones regarding blur. Pixel phones generally seem to capture movement better than, say galaxy phones. There has to be an acceptable weighting to faster shutter speeds, even if you end up with some grain. Its easier to fix grain afterwards than a light-trail-resembling face.
UXELLR said:
You are right about physics. Still there are difference between cameras/phones regarding blur. Pixel phones generally seem to capture movement better than, say galaxy phones. There has to be an acceptable weighting to faster shutter speeds, even if you end up with some grain. Its easier to fix grain afterwards than a light-trail-resembling face.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've got four options:
1) Use the Night mode, which will take several pictures with different ISOs and exposures, will then stack the pictures taken to achieve a kind of HDR picture for low-light purposes. Drawback: Not suitable for motion.
2) Use the regular Photo mode, which will try to get a sound balance of ISO and exposure, then use proprietary algorithms for making the best out of the mess taken.
3) Try the Pro mode, which allows you to set ISO, exposure and exposure value compensation ("EV", for brighening/darkening the photo a bit further) with less algorithms wreaking havoc on the picture. That way, you can experiment with the effects of different parameters like ISO and exposure time.
4) Use the Pro mode, but save the picture as a RAW file. It will look horrible without all the manipulations of the software algorithms. - Then grab a good PC tool for "developing" and postprocessing the RAW image. That way, you might be able to achieve better results because you bring in the "human factor", yourself, taking care of the things you prefer, not the software.
If you're heavily into catching quick movements, you need to force your P40 Pro into using short exposure times, then play with the other parameters to achieve a sound balance.
Two great PC tools for picture postprocessing:
1) "Luminar 4" by Skylum - this is your choice if you're new to image processing, don't wish to spend months with learning. That software gives you almost instant success with creating pleasant pictures.
2) "Affinity Photo" by Serif - that's your choice if you are an old-stager of image processing, and/or willing to spend weeks or months with the real steep learning curve of that software. It's the "swiss army knife" of everything out there. Utmost capable, can do just everything. But as said: Takes ages to master.
Both tools are massively supported by YouTube videos and tutorials, there's no evil subscription bondage as with Adobe, just give it a try.
I can almost guarantee you won't regret spending a few bucks - as postprocessing is one of the key factors for creating stunning images.
But I need to repeat: If you're new to this matter, go for Luminar, not for Affinity.
Additional note on that: As Huawei doesn't use the standard Bayer sensor matrix, RYYB instead of the "classic" RGGB, you might need to wait for the developers to implement some special algorithms/camera profiles dealing with that to achive real outstanding results. I did not try, yet, maybe it's okay already.
Each phone and camera and camera software has it's benefits and drawbacks. Some work great in a specific situation, less great in others. Plus, there's the "moment momentum": Exactly the same scene might result in a great or an ugly picture, slightest changes of lighting, field of view (affecting exposure metering and more) or temperature (sensor temperature is a common source of picture noise) might cause a mighty difference. It's just a bit unpredictable, no hardware/software combination is able to deal with each and every challenge, for each benefit you usually pay with a drawback.
Just like with everything in live.
Great post, thanks is given?Yes, one can achieve good results, even with less expencive mobile camera phones, if you are willing to invest time and work. The lack of HDR in pro mode, for instance is a big handicap when developing pictures yourself. Blown out highligts, as an example, cant be brought back if the data is not there. But again, great tips and workarounds for getting the best out of what you have!
jericho246 said:
For low light shots, using normal "photo" mode seems better than using night mode. Example in attachments. First shot is night mode, second is photo mode.
I think night mode is better when you have a tripod. Although I havent tried that.
EDIT: After further testing, I think it really depends on the situation. In some situations, night mode will produce better shots. In others, it will produce worse shots than normal photo mode. So, just in case, always take at least two photos. One in photo mode, one in night mode.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i´m agree with you, the normal photo mode es better than the night mode
Normal night mode without settings vs 100 iso (normal night mode)..
Ricardo_G said:
i´m agree with you, the normal photo mode es better than the night mode
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't agree fully.
Both modes work a totally different way - normal mode taking just one picture, night mode taking several pictures and combining ("stacking") them into one.
Thus both modes have their own usage scenarios, with the normal mode suitable for taking pictures in "medium" low light, night mode being able to take picture in almost completely dark environments.
You can also "abuse" the night mode for taking pictures of computer screens without that nagging moiré effect.
So both modes are specialists in their field, allowing you to choose the one best suited for different situations, with both of them having their own benefits and drawbacks.