Related
Today on my walk with the dog I was lucky enough to take a photo of him "Uwe" during run, I really like it but after back home and uploaded photo to the computer I've quickly notice there is a very bad pixelation all over the photo visible at 100% size with my 32'' 2560x1440 monitor
there is lots of hair / grass details destroyed by the huge pixels! so I am asking is this normal ??? photo was taken in HDR mode 5312x2988
there is the photo:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0P2w1W2D461i3L2E1V28/20141103_151549.jpg
and this is zip file with the original jpg taken from phone, this is probably the same as above quality but just in cast server side compression
http://cl.ly/2Q0A2M2v2C2l
This picture has to be considered excellent!
The N4 camera managed to capture the action and the focus is perfect on the dog.
Regarding your concerns, you can NEVER, and I say again, NEVER judge a smartphone (or even point&shoot) camera by looking at it on 100%.
This is because very heavy noise-reduction algorithms are applied to the picture, and this results in smearing of details when looked at 100%.
But I can assure you that if you print it as big as poster size (A3), the result will still be great!
Only cameras with big sensors can produce excellent quality at pixel level (when viewed at 100%).
So, rest assured that you own a phone with a very capable camera.
As a rule of thumb, always try to have as much light as possible in the frame, this will reduce this "smearing" effect.
I have to agree with the original poster. There's something odd going on with this camera. It's either over-compressed at higher resolutions or they're playing some kind of game to simulate a higher resolution than the camera can achieve clearly. Or maybe they have a really bad high-pass filter on these.
Also, I doubt that these will look good when printed at A3 but since I don't want to use the ink to find out, I won't argue that point.
One thing I've found is that the images are sharper and less mottled looking when I use a lower resolution. 5 or 8MP. It's also very sensitive to light levels. In typical Samsung fashion not all Note 4's are created equal. I've got the US T-Mobile SM-N910T. Other versions may behave better (or worse).
I'm putting together some comparison shots and will post when I'm finished. I've taken shots with the original Galaxy S, original HTC One and my Note 4.
A lot of my pictures look way over-sharpened.
Maybe another camera software could fix this, but I haven't played around with it yet.
Obecny said:
Today on my walk with the dog I was lucky enough to take a photo of him "Uwe" during run, I really like it but after back home and uploaded photo to the computer I've quickly notice there is a very bad pixelation all over the photo visible at 100% size with my 32'' 2560x1440 monitor
there is lots of hair / grass details destroyed by the huge pixels! so I am asking is this normal ??? photo was taken in HDR mode 5312x2988
there is the photo:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0P2w1W2D461i3L2E1V28/20141103_151549.jpg
and this is zip file with the original jpg taken from phone, this is probably the same as above quality but just in cast server side compression
http://cl.ly/2Q0A2M2v2C2l
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Next time try to turn off hdr so moving objects dont look blurry on the picture. I believe hdr takes multiple pictures to create final picture
Sent from my SM-N910T using XDA Free mobile app
darekz said:
Next time try to turn off hdr so moving objects dont look blurry on the picture. I believe hdr takes multiple pictures to create final picture
Sent from my SM-N910T using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, HDR is known to degrade the image quality if there's a lot of movement. I only use HDR for still scenes.
Sent from my SM-N910U
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.
I am aware that our Mix uses a 1/3.06" 16MP Omnivision Sensor with a Pixel size of the measly 1um. But the Huawei Mate 9 has a similar sized sensor (1/2.9" 12MP sensor with a pixel size of approx. 1.25um.) and shoots really great pics. Obviously Huawei may have used a latest generation Sony sensor with Leica's optics which will blow the Omnivision away. Even the cheapest Sony sensor would outperform an Omnivision any day.
My question is, will shooting images at a lower resolution like 12MP on the Mix give us better results? I'm not expecting Mate 9 like results as the phone's camera was never a priority when I bought this device. But would this help reduce noise or give us better results compared to shooting at 16MP? I am noticing lower noise when shooting at 13MP on Open camera compared to shooting at 16MP.
Does shooting at a lower resolution increase the Pixel size from 1um? Or is it strictly something to do with the sensor? Does the sensor behave the same either way and are we just getting cropped images when shooting at lower resolutions?
I've read in a few places that the sensor is fully utilized regardless but shooting at lower resolutions can reduce noise. If I can at least get half decent 12MP images compared to noisy unreliable 16MP ones, I wouldn't mind shooting at lower resolutions. Of course I am not expecting ground breaking image quality.
Some older Sony phones like the Xperia Z2 used to have a default mode which clicked images at 8MP even though the effective sensor resolution was 21MP. Sony claimed that the lower resolution gave batter images especially lesser noise. I am referring to something like this.
Hope someone can explain this.
@satishp did a search on dpreview.com
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2995010
The 2nd reply sums it up pretty well.
The answer to your question is no, reducing the resolution will not increase your image quality. The sensor always takes full-resolution image. Reducing resolution is a post-processing function and is no different than reducing resolution on the computer. Note that there are a few cameras with special low-resolution modes that are supposed to improve either the image or performance in certain ways. But when you have these modes you know it because they’re selling features of the camera.
There is now a significant amount of information available publically demonstrating that image quality depends on sensor size and sensor efficiency only. The number of pixels doesn’t matter. When printed at the same print size, images from the same sized sensor exhibit the same amount of noise regardless of resolution.
Thorin78 said:
@satishp did a search on dpreview.com
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2995010
The 2nd reply sums it up pretty well.
The answer to your question is no, reducing the resolution will not increase your image quality. The sensor always takes full-resolution image. Reducing resolution is a post-processing function and is no different than reducing resolution on the computer. Note that there are a few cameras with special low-resolution modes that are supposed to improve either the image or performance in certain ways. But when you have these modes you know it because they’re selling features of the camera.
There is now a significant amount of information available publically demonstrating that image quality depends on sensor size and sensor efficiency only. The number of pixels doesn’t matter. When printed at the same print size, images from the same sized sensor exhibit the same amount of noise regardless of resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for clearing this! So it may have been placebo that the images shot at 12MP seemed to be less noisy to me. Lol!
I use Open Camera which seems to produce brighter images compared to the stock camera. I'm sure these 3rd party apps aren't magically making the sensor capture more light compared to the stock app. I've noticed that these apps automatically crank up the display brightness to max as soon as they are launched. There may also be some real-time processing involved which makes the images appear brighter and slightly better compared to the stock app.
I am considering getting the Sony Alpha QX1 (with inter-changeable lenses) or the older QX100 which would make the Mix perfect! These lens style cameras attach to the phone and transfer images directly to the phone via NFC pairing. Just wondering whether the mix is too wide for the bracket on the lenses. The QX1 has the same APS-C sensor utilized on some of Sony's Alpha range and the QX100 has the 1" BSI sensor used on the RX100II. Only downside is that none of them can do 4K video.
Thanks again! Cheers!
satishp said:
I am considering getting the Sony Alpha QX1 (with inter-changeable lenses) or the older QX100 which would make the Mix perfect! These lens style cameras attach to the phone and transfer images directly to the phone via NFC pairing. Just wondering whether the mix is too wide for the bracket on the lenses. The QX1 has the same APS-C sensor utilized on some of Sony's Alpha range and the QX100 has the 1" BSI sensor used on the RX100II. Only downside is that none of them can do 4K video.
Thanks again! Cheers!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You will need this - https://www.amazon.com/SPA-TA1-Tabl...UTF8&qid=1483946210&sr=8-2&keywords=qx+tablet
The smallest one should work perfectly with the phone. I had the QX-100 and it didn't fit the note 4 out of the box.
emann56 said:
You will need this - https://www.amazon.com/SPA-TA1-Tabl...UTF8&qid=1483946210&sr=8-2&keywords=qx+tablet
The smallest one should work perfectly with the phone. I had the QX-100 and it didn't fit the note 4 out of the box.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to be quite expensive just for an attachment. If it didn't fit the Note 4, it most definitely won't fit the Mix. So I guess that attachment is a must and when you add the price of the QX1's body + Lens + the attachment, it doesn't seem to be worth it. Ofcourse, the images would blow away even the best of mobile cameras.
Only if it was priced right!
I have the QX-30, the tablet mount is a must unless you plan on not attaching it to the phone. It makes the overall portability not so great, you're probably better off just getting a full blown dedicated camera but the QX-1 might be good, just make sure to buy one of the lenses otherwise you can't do anything, the SELP1650 might be decent I think.
Also if you're thinking of getting the swiveling rotation mount, don't bother, it's not compatible with the tablet mount.
For those who haven't tried RAW capture yet, stock camera works perfectly fine after activating the camera2 api. Just thought I should mention that since it's not such an uncommon issue.
Camera
benziii said:
For those who haven't tried RAW capture yet, stock camera works perfectly fine after activating the camera2 api. Just thought I should mention that since it's not such an uncommon issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you do that. please give us instructions on how to.
jaime4272 said:
How do you do that. please give us instructions on how to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Add the line "persist.camera.HAL3.enabled=1" at the end of your build.prop, then reboot. It goes without saying you either need a build.prop editor or like me, just use the text editor that comes with Root explorer for example. Next get a camera app that supports RAW, like Open camera or Manual camera.
[Edit] Remember to mount as read/write when you are in system folder, or your changes won't stick. Our build.prop has two empty lines at the bottom, so if you have added something at an earlier time, make sure you have one empty line at the end.
benziii said:
For those who haven't tried RAW capture yet, stock camera works perfectly fine after activating the camera2 api. Just thought I should mention that since it's not such an uncommon issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only for my understanding
Does it only activate RAW mode or does it increase the picture quality for ordinary mode too?
vergilbt said:
Only for my understanding
Does it only activate RAW mode or does it increase the picture quality for ordinary mode too?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is more to it than just RAW. Read up on camera2 features and what an api is. But to answer your question, no, it does not increase quality.
Apps that support raw
benziii said:
There is more to it than just RAW. Read up on camera2 features and what an api is. But to answer your question, no, it does not increase quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I downloaded camera FV-5 which support raw the option said that this phone does not support RAW, any idea?
jaime4272 said:
I downloaded camera FV-5 which support raw the option said that this phone does not support RAW, any idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even though I know FV-5 has been praised for years, I've never bought it. I'm not a big snapper so I've often been content with manual modes on the stock cameras. But since I have recently gotten RAW capture going, I've contemplated loosely on paying for either Manual camera or Camera FV-5. All I've tried on the Mix so far, is Manual camera's compatibility app (which checks out), and taken some RAW pics with Open camera.
I'm going to check out some more apps soon.
Considering it is required for RAW capture, I reckon you have a paid version? I quickly tried the free one, and see only one instance of compatibility (under general photo settings). But there is nothing there. Do you get the message when you change picture output?
There is an option on the paid version but it's grayed out because of incompatibility, but there is
you don't improve the noise performance by taking a smaller resolution, you do that by downsizing from a large image.
I think the best method is to use a good manual setting, shoot in raw and then edit in post processing.
however I think the images aren't that reliable
I cannot Open the dng file
---------- Post added at 05:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 AM ----------
Snapseed and Lightroom cannot parse the dng File ....Amy Help?
gorillalaci said:
I cannot Open the dng file
---------- Post added at 05:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 AM ----------
Snapseed and Lightroom cannot parse the dng File ....Amy Help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On my desktop I use UFRaw and Gimp / Photoshop. But I haven't gotten any mobile apps to open my RAW images either. Weird.
I know this is a few months old, but I think this app needs to be better known:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=troop.com.freedcam
Yes, it works with DNGs and can handle our Mix Camera sensor. And yes, it's 100% FREE.
Also, it comes from a XDA dev, so even more kudos for him!!
codymamak said:
I know this is a few months old, but I think this app needs to be better known:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=troop.com.freedcam
Yes, it works with DNGs and can handle our Mix Camera sensor. And yes, it's 100% FREE.
Also, it comes from a XDA dev, so even more kudos for him!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Installed it, but crashing when try to tap to focus.. Autofocus doesnt work it self
I have it working, but I'm using the LOS 14.1 build 20.5.17 from here on XDA, not MIUI. Sorry but I didn't test stock ROM before flashing.
Also, you can contact the dev at this thread here at XDA: https://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/camera-freedcam-4-0-3-t3115548
Maybe he can help out.
Anyone used the RAW format with the camera? (if so, what software are you using to process them?)
The gallery app tells me the resolution of the RAW is 1040x780 when the jpeg version is 4160x3120. I don't currently have anything else to open RAW with in order to verify this is correct, but if that's the real resolution, it seems to be defeating the purpose!
I hope that the gallery app actually only is opening a small jpeg preview image embedded in the dng file.
I will answer my own question since I see snapseed can open RAW. It is indeed full resolution.
Photoshop express is also great as it has the noise reduction options that Snapseed doesn't have.
Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk
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!