Database Users

Galaxy Camera review and samples

This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy

I will check out the review later.
But, since you have played with the camera more than me, I have a question:
Is there a way to set manual focus? I wanted to record some equipment at work and as the equipment moves, the camera keeps refocusing. And it often focuses on part of the robot, not the part of the system I want to record. With other cameras you can set the focus and turn off auto focus.
floiancu said:
This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

You can always click on the screen on the part of the image you want focused or you can set it in expert mode and change the settings there manually (f, ISO, exposure, shutter speed etc)

I am recording videos, so I don't want to have to keep refocusing.
And the robot is moving while recording.
floiancu said:
You can always click on the screen on the part of the image you want focused or you can set it in expert mode and change the settings there manually (f, ISO, exposure, shutter speed etc)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

floiancu said:
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be great to see how it behaves in low-light and with/without using the flash. Samsung cameras are notorious to fail in their operations (focus, video etc) at Low Light levels.

To be fair I haven't taken any indoor low light photos, but you can see the exterior night shots in the shared Dropbox folder. I no longer have the camera, but I can ensure you the flash does a hell of a job and I can't see why you wouldn't use it.

Well... This guy is not very happy with the horrible cracking noise when zooming in/out, and another guy says he can't use the flash as a light while shooting video... So I don't know what to think about this $500+ "thing"...

My zooming was smooth and pretty silent, although you could notice it in the videos. You can't use the flash when filming because it's a discharge flash as opposed to LED flashes on mobile phones.

This is a really good review! I especially like the way you have incorporated the sample clips in the video with good examples also of the different settings.
---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------
floiancu said:
I no longer have the camera, but I can ensure you the flash does a hell of a job and I can't see why you wouldn't use it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How come you no longer have the camera??!

apprentice said:
How come you no longer have the camera??!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had it from Samsung for reviewing. You can check my Youtube account and my other posts on XDA to see other devices I've tested for them.

E:V:A said:
Well... This guy is not very happy with the horrible cracking noise when zooming in/out, and another guy says he can't use the flash as a light while shooting video... So I don't know what to think about this $500+ "thing"...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well... this is a photo camera which is also able to take video clips. If you want a video camera, get one.
If you want a touchscreen and Android on a point & shoot camera this is the one to buy. If you can live without them you can buy much cheaper cameras with the same picture quality.

Before buying the Galaxy Camera or even commenting on it you need to understand its purpose and specs / advantages.
It's NOT a DSLR. It doesn't aim to be a professional camera (although it gives you plenty of manual settings) and it certainly won't take pictures as good. It does offer the smart modes such as rich tones (for which you need filters on a DSLR), macro and light trace (which takes tweaking and setting on a DSLR as opposed to two clicks), 21x zoom without buying extra lenses etc.
It's NOT a regular compact camera. The price tag, build quality, specs and features stress that out pretty well.
The main purpose of the Galaxy Camera is the Android OS which means fast sharing, cloud integration, picture editting on the spot, not to mention all apps available for regular smartphones.
If you judge it on these terms and actually find out it's what you need, it's the perfect camera. Otherwise get a DSLR or a compact camera. Nobody will be upset

floiancu said:
Before buying the Galaxy Camera or even commenting on it you need to understand its purpose and specs / advantages.
It's NOT a DSLR. It doesn't aim to be a professional camera (although it gives you plenty of manual settings) and it certainly won't take pictures as good. It does offer the smart modes such as rich tones (for which you need filters on a DSLR), macro and light trace (which takes tweaking and setting on a DSLR as opposed to two clicks), 21x zoom without buying extra lenses etc.
It's NOT a regular compact camera. The price tag, build quality, specs and features stress that out pretty well.
The main purpose of the Galaxy Camera is the Android OS which means fast sharing, cloud integration, picture editting on the spot, not to mention all apps available for regular smartphones.
If you judge it on these terms and actually find out it's what you need, it's the perfect camera. Otherwise get a DSLR or a compact camera. Nobody will be upset
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Well Said. I love my camera!!

floiancu said:
This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice review.
On your drop box photos, one of them shows the white, black and red versions, where is the red version available please for customers to buy. I don't mean demo versions.
Does a 64 GB card work in ex fat or does it need to be in fat32.
Is there a video editor and can it edit the videos shot on the camera itself. Can't seem to find an official case. On amazon uk there is a deal for this camera to get a discount on the short manfrotto tripod. Do you think that tripod would be fine for video as well as photos or would one need a different head for that tripod. Just looking for tips on that count.
On amazon different people say sgs2 or sgs3 battery works. Any idea which one actually works. Guessing its the sgs2.
Does it have USB OTG functions. If so does it need sgs2 or sgs3 USB OTG cable. I know you don't have the camera but since you seem to be a Samsung mobiler I am hoping you know about this.
My Samsung note can shoot videos longer than 30 mins. I read on other posts on XDA that this camera can't record more than 29mins 59secs. Is there a setting to increase this limit?
Did any of the Samsung remote apps work from your phone to control the camera like mobile link or remote view finder etc. Does the DSLR controller or any similar app work with this camera by wifi or USB.

I don't know about the red (I would say pink) version, in Romania none are available yet.
I don't exactly know about the filesystem type required for 64 GB microSDs, but I'm sure it's the same as the SIII, whatever that is.
There is Video Wizard, an app similar to Photo Wizard for editing videos shot on it, it's pretty cool and has more than the functionality you need on a camera, but I would rather use my PC for that so I didn't cover it... Maybe I will do an extra video specifically for that.
The tripod hole is standard, I used mine without any problems.
The battery has the same capacity with the S II, however I don't know if it's exactly the same. I will ask.
Yes, USB OTG is supported.
I never tried to shoot videos longer than a couple of minutes, but being a dedicated camera I'd be surprised if it had a time limit (besides the storage space).
The remote viewfinder option was available in the menu of the camera app, but after an update to the latest firmware it's gone. I haven't tested any remote shooting modes besides voice commands (which works like a charm, but you need silence and you can't see what you're shooting). If there are dedicated remotes for Android (not necessarily made by Samsung), then they should work on the Galaxy Camera without issues.

Thanks. On the engadget post about covers for this they show covers in white black red pink and orange. So i assume those are the proposed colors to be released. But can only find white and black online for now.

The Moto G camera: noise reduction is the key

Here are some details I uncovered in regards to the camera of Moto G:
Camera specification:
- 5mpxl
- f/2.4
- 4mm focal length.
Most definitely a small sensor, (< 1/3.2' ), likely 1/4'. Also very likely won't have BSI for better low light performance.
Meanwhile there's no good teardown (yet) to find out the make of the camera module, by going through the spec sheets of many other phones, the sensor is likely to be same one you find in Lumia 625.
Most of you will probably agree that Moto G doesn't take good photos. Meanwhile the optic is the best it should be well capable of better.
Issue at the moment is that there's TOO MUCH noise reduction, which can cause a very 'water-paint' feel to the pictures, and destroying any form of sharpness.
From my test with stock and many other camera apps (Lenovo, focal, a better cam, etc etc), while they help with the compression, focus, white-balance and metering etc. and can help the quality of the photos. They don't fix the sharpness/noise reduction issue with the camera. It seems like it's been hard-coded into the software for the camera.
Are there anyone out there who will be able to fix this?

The Motorola camera app was updated today, has this improved the noise reduction?
Nuthin' but a 'Moto G' thang

cption said:
Are there anyone out there who will be able to fix this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google seems to be working on a completely overhauled Hardware Abstraction Layer for the cameras that will allow apps to tap more directly into the camera pipelines. They'll be able, for instance, to get RAW captures and and do their own custom demoisacing/debayering and the whole post- pipeline. That would probably fix any heavy-handed processing done by any of the OEMs.

AluKed said:
Google seems to be working on a completely overhauled Hardware Abstraction Layer for the cameras that will allow apps to tap more directly into the camera pipelines. They'll be able, for instance, to get RAW captures and and do their own custom demoisacing/debayering and the whole post- pipeline. That would probably fix any heavy-handed processing done by any of the OEMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAW just gives an uncompressed image, there's no real guarantee that no processing takes place..
I'm going to report my findings on the new moto camera update. From the look of it it's just a routine, general update that shouldn't make much difference.

bien irleeno
cption said:
RAW just gives an uncompressed image, there's no real guarantee that no processing takes place..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. RAW is much more than an uncompressed image, it's as close to the raw, unprocessed sensor output as possible. No demosaicing, no tone mapping/gamma, no conversion from (typically) 12 bits per pixel to 8 bits, no processing and no lossy compression. If any of this is done, then it isn't RAW.

For you which camera app is the best ?

el-marino said:
For you which camera app is the best ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
camera awesome is amazing and vignette its very good try with this app's u can get a better pic from stock cam

I think the original Android app takes better photos
The only problem with this app is the HDR
I installed the original app 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, none of them has the HDR
Any way to solve this?

I've just installed snap camera, I have to say it is streets ahead of stock moto cam.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

I wasn't able to post before/after comparison with the stock camera app as it updated itself. So far I'm not seeing any different image wise between the update.
I've done some comparison shots in between the cameras, and added in my Ativ S (GS3 WP8 alter-ego) as a bonus.
Snap Camera focus very well, and I was able to take good shots with my shaky hands. However, the blurring issue is very apparent with all camera apps..
N.B. The Focal photo was slightly blurred due to my shaky hands, sorry!

Just to clear it, you're talking about this paid app ?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.marginz.snap&hl=en

SlashGear have posted an article on the Camera software update released by Motorola.
This update does a tiny bit to improve all areas of shooting with manual controls, and shows sign that Motorola isn’t going to let this device fall by the wayside at all, whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
[SlashGear]

lost101 said:
SlashGear have posted an article on the Camera software update released by Motorola.
[SlashGear]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dunno Slashgear articles seems iffy...
Moto G ALREADY had the Exposure/Focal Ring tbh, seems they didnt notice or use it in their original review. This exposure/focus ring is the basis of their camera comparison it seems.

I did not find options to manual focus and exposure.

Psychoferno said:
I did not find options to manual focus and exposure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just the ring that you can drag around the screen to choose the point of focus and exposure. I'm sure that we (at least I did!) had this from the beginning on Moto G (maybe the X didn't and that's where the stories are coming from?) and the recent update was basically bug fixes for us.

Yes, the G Moto already had this function. Thanks for the clarification.

Kameo said:
Just to clear it, you're talking about this paid app ?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.marginz.snap&hl=en
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I just used the trial for the comparison.
Note that XDA compresses the image so it's very hard to tell from the photos I posted.
But the Moto-G is absolutely no match for the camera on my Ativ-S/GS3. Not sure if it will fair better if the noise reduction issues been fixed.
But Snap Camera seem to do the best job out of the apps I've tried, for my shaky hand of course. Not compared the HDR mode yet but stock camera do that quite well.

any comparison between s3?^

t-bon3 said:
The Motorola camera app was updated today, has this improved the noise reduction?
Nuthin' but a 'Moto G' thang
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Camera apps rarely make any significant difference in quality, unless they start passing different parameters/settings to the camera HAL.
Usually, if you see major changes in camera performance, it's HAL changes, which require a system firmware update.

Entropy512 said:
Usually, if you see major changes in camera performance, it's HAL changes, which require a system firmware update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing that we'll get the Camera HAL v3 with Kit Kat 4.5. I mean, that's the kind of feature that would justify a version bump. Hopefully the hardware will be compliant enough that it won't have to run in the Limited Semantics mode.

RAW Camera for N9005 Lollipop?

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.

Moto X Camera : Magic found to get best picture quality!!!

Hello friends. As everyone aware, Motorola cameras are usually infamous for delivering poor pictures whereas I have been using Motorola phones since long time and somehow found them better than the competitors in terms of delivering details in the pictures. Motorola usually applies very minor software filtering into the images which results into grainy pictures but at the same time, those pictures retain as much as possible details. Reason behind grain/noise is the tinny sensor.
Have been experimenting a lot on my Moto X camera since I bought it. Today I tested something different and that was lowering the resolution at the time of shooting. And the results were surprisingly positive.
The magic is, just download any other camera app which allows shooting in lower resolution like 8MP or 5MP. The software filtering algorithm applied by the camera software is not suitable for the 13MP pictures. Whereas it does magic on the 8MP or 5MP pictures. The pictures captured at 13MP come up with lot of artifacts and noise around edges of the objects. But if pictures are taken in lower resolution then they come out very nicely, the ugly artifacts are just gone and noise is also reduced.
Now those who are thinking that we will be loosing out data or details if we shoot in lower resolution then let me assure that it won't matter, atleast not in 99.99% cases. You won't be loosing any significant detail from the picture, rather the lower resolution will make pictures more desirable to store or print, they will be more cleaner and smaller in size to store.
If pictures would have been taken in some DSLR or any other camera having decent size sensor then capturing lower resolution images would have definitely caused in loss of details but it won't matter in the mobile camera, atleast not in the current generation mobile cameras.
I found 5MP more cleaner but 8MP is best compromise if anyone is doubtful about loosing out details over 13MP.
13MP = 3120 X 4160 pixles = 15.6 X 20.8 inches @ 200dpi print size
8MP = 2448 X 3264 pixels = 12.24 X 16.32 inches @ 200dpi print size
5 MP = 1944 X 2592 pixels = 9.72 X 12.96 inches @ 200dpi print size
So even if you capture 5MP picture, there is still more than enough data for a print around A4 paper size.
Now important notes:
1. Capturing images at 13MP and downsizing them into 8MP or 5MP in the image editor will not fix the issue because the internal software algorithm is applied at the time shooting and that is not suitable for the 13MP resolution, even if we use any 3rd party app. So capturing images in 13MP mode and downsizing them into 8MP/5Mp is not same as shooting in 8MP/5MP modes in case of Moto X. Results are different.
2. Stock camera app doesn't support low resolution captures. No, that 9.7 widescreen mode is not low resolution, that just crops the edges. You will have to download any other app for low resolution captures. Just set the 8MP or 5MP resolution in the camera app and shoot pictures, but it should 4:3 format, if you are interested in 16:9 ratio format then you will have to set the resolution accordingly which will be more lower.
To name a few good apps : Best is : Modified Motorola stock camera app which is usually named as Camera+, can be found on XDA. You can also control the noise filtering in the app if want more details at the cost of additional colorful grain. Others are - Google Camera, Open camera, A Better Camera (Night mode of this app is really wonderful, use it for low light shooting) etc.
These are 100% crops from a daylight capture. EXIF : 1/40Sec, ISO-50
Download them and zoom out and try to notice details and the ugly artifacts:
13MP
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
8MP
5MP
---------------------------------
These are crops from the same shot but upsized to 400% to magnify the pixel level details. Ugly artifacts ruining the image details can be noticed in the 13MP captures:
13MP
8MP
5 MP
-----------------------------------
These are crops form the same image but upsized to +400% to magnify the pixel level details:
13MP
8MP
5MP
----------------------------
These are low light shots of an advertisement in a magazine. Source of light was one CFL and window covered with blinds. Exif details : 1/33 sec, ISO-320.
100% crops:
13MP
8MP
5MP
------------------------------------
These are crops form the same image but upsized to +400% to magnify the pixel level details:
13MP
8MP
5MP
-------------------------------
Here is another shot. EXIF : 1/33 sec, ISO-500
100% crop.
13MP
8MP
5MP
Now you must understand why Apple is still giving only 8MP camera? Because anything over that is just plain marketing gimmick, nothing more than that and needlessly occupies extra space in the storage. Mobile phone camera sensors are very tinny in size thus they are not worth to push to capture anything over 5-8MP yet. I have seen pictures taken from the likes of Galaxy S5, S6 and Sony flagships and they were nowhere near to any true high resolution image. Their software are much more aggressive which clean up the noise and bump up the sharpness at edges more aggressively but at the same they end up eating lot of details and leave the water-painting kind of ugly effects all over the images. Thankfully such aggressive filtering is not applied by Motorola, atleast not in the daylight shots.
Would have loved if Motorola had provided Camera 2 API support, that would have given more RAW data. If no than atleast different resolution modes should have been supported in the stock camera app. Let's ask Motorola to do that, let's shoot emails to them
Request to moderators - please don't merge this thread with other existing camera threads.
If anyone else have more tips to improve picture quality then please share here.
Hope this thread helps :good:
***************************************************
***************************************************
UPDATE
Adding more samples:
Blind test:
100% crop
400% magnified of the crop
More details about the above crops:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=61549911&postcount=42
More posts with better samples and tests:
1. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=61552083&postcount=43
2. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=61553750&postcount=44
Answers: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=61566883&postcount=52

Will try to implement these great tips. Have you tried to use Camera 360 Paid version too? I was actually able to tweak some shutter speed in it. Had i understood more about it, it would have really helped a lot. Its only problem is that the app keeps running in the background causing huge useless battery drain.
I love Stock Android on the Moto X 2014 ?

grubber24 said:
Will try to implement these great tips. Have you tried to use Camera 360 Paid version too? I was actually able to tweak some shutter speed in it. Had i understood more about it, it would have really helped a lot. Its only problem is that the app keeps running in the background causing huge useless battery drain.
I love Stock Android on the Moto X 2014
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually there is some sort of internal software filtering which is applied at the time of shot capturing which you cant bypass unless the phone has got unlocked RAW shooting capabilities which Moto X hasn't got yet. So the damage is already done at the time of capturing itself which can't be reversed. The effective solution is to shoot in 8MP/5MP mode. If you have better camera app then it will be able to do more betterment since we are minimizing the internal damages caused by the flawed internal filtering in the firmware.
Please see the samples attached by me at 100%, you will get what I mean.

Ehhh the samples don't look very good. Best advice is to take pics at highest resolution and use imagenomic noiseware.

seabass950 said:
Ehhh the samples don't look very good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously, I did not capture the shots to submit into some photo contest, I was emphasizing on something different which I have explained in detail in the opening post. Whatever I have posted are cropped portions of the full resolution images
Best advice is to take pics at highest resolution and use imagenomic noiseware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noise removal tools will do magics if you apply them on 8MP/5MP shots instead of the 13MP. The max possible resolution is actually spoiling the pictures in the case of MotoX. It adds hell lot of artifacts in the 13MP pictures, thats what I meant by this post. To make things more clear, its not like typical downsizing to reduce the noise. Infact downsizing the 13MP shots into 8MP or 5MP won't reduce the artifacts, those will remain there but capturing the images directly into the 8MP/5MP modes yielding much different and better results.
Please test yourself if you don't believe me.
EDIT:
All of the images I posted were unedited except resizing and cropping.
Here is one comparo which shows the terrible artifacts ruining the pictures and they exist only in the 13MP shots:
400% upsized version:

See this image shot from the stock moto camera at 13mp with manual focus and manual exposure. Just added my signature in it! I think the camera app did pretty awesome in just a flash and macro mode even in low light! Surprisingly!

Here are crops from the few test shots I captured in 8MP mode today, no other editing except cropping.
Pictures are coming out much more clearer, no ugly artifacts, no need for any post processing to clean out the noise now.
Post processing has become a breeze now, earlier artifact were coming in the way of post processing if I wanted to add some effects or wanted to add more sharpness in the pictures.

Tl/Dr: use Google Camera at 5 or 8 mp, pictures automatically become better?

chrisrozon said:
Tl/Dr: use Google Camera at 5 or 8 mp, pictures automatically become better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Try yourself to belive it.
Shoot few different light condition shots at 13MP, 8MP and 5MP then see yourself the difference by zooming into the pictures, probably on computer monitor. You will find ugly artifacts only in the 13MP mode which won't be in the other two modes.

So true about megapixels not mattering much.
Here is a "famous" article from 2008 when the megapixel wars started in earnest. It was wriiten about DSLR's but applies here as well.
Interesting read if you like this kind of stuff:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

I'm using HTC Camera for a while now and after this thread I realize that the highest resolution from the app is 9.7MP.
With the best autofocus I've ever seen, this camera is the best.

I just did some limited testing of 13mp vs 5mp. Low light shooting a group of objects, some with text on them. 5mp definitely better. Object borders less blurred. Text easier to read in 5mp. I used the debug settings in the stock camera. Made accessible w/ the xposed module known as "moto checkbox"

Julianocas said:
I'm using HTC Camera for a while now and after this thread I realize that the highest resolution from the app is 9.7MP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is widescreen mode which is there in the stock camera app as well. Read the point number "2" in my opening post for detailed explanation. You will have to shoot in median (3840X2160 mode to get 8MP equivalent quality.
CUBENSIS said:
I just did some limited testing of 13mp vs 5mp. Low light shooting a group of objects, some with text on them. 5mp definitely better. Object borders less blurred. Text easier to read in 5mp. I used the debug settings in the stock camera. Made accessible w/ the xposed module known as "moto checkbox"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If using xposed then you must also see few options for noise filtering? If so then see if there is chcekbox for QC denoise or similar, if it is then turn it off. Now you can get more details in the 13MP but pictures will be grainy/noisy, especially in lowlight situations.
So if one wants decent quality pictures straight out of the camera then better to shoot in 5MP or 8MP resolutions.

Great work indeed jacky !!! You seem tonknow your images well and how to capture em .. way to go mate .
All the best
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

any way to fix the focus issue of the camera? i believe i'm not the only one facing issues while attempting to take macro shots not that it really matters much to me.. hardly use the camera but yeah. this phone would've been a lot more popular if the camera was on par with the rest!

bellick said:
any way to fix the focus issue of the camera? i believe i'm not the only one facing issues while attempting to take macro shots not that it really matters much to me.. hardly use the camera but yeah. this phone would've been a lot more popular if the camera was on par with the rest!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Believe me, this is one of the best cellphone camera I've come across. so far.
Have a look at these macro shots I posted earlier after following the majors I posted in the opening post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=61501824&postcount=7
About the focusing issue, have you tried enabling manual focus and turning off Auto HDR off? Also try out some other apps, please go thorough my opening post for hints on apps and other tips.
Only hardware problem this phone has got is that the lens is little bit misaligned at one corner so around 15-20% portion in that area always comes out blurred. Though most of other cellphone cameras also don't have perfect lenses all around the corners.

Thanks a lot for all the great analysis done! The study done by you should be forwarded to motorola for analysis and improvement! Now i am really getting great macro shots from the camera which i can boast about. Just one question, have u tried to revert back to earlier camera versions and done this analysis?
I love Stock Android on the Moto X 2014 ?

grubber24 said:
Thanks a lot for all the great analysis done! The study done by you should be forwarded to motorola for analysis and improvement!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I had spent whole day yesterday on the analysis and thread post, rather have been experimenting a lot since I bought the phone and almost tried all the good camera apps available in the market. Reason was it was getting hard to digest for me that my previous 8MP Motorola phone was delivering better results than the 13MP of MotoX which is from the 3 years old generation compared to the MotoX which has got one of the best sensor.
grubber24 said:
have u tried to revert back to earlier camera versions and done this analysis?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have lot of pictures captured from different stock camera app versions in different Android firmwares since Kitkat to 5.1 and all of those were captured in 13MP mode and all of them have ugly artifacts. I always thought to resize all of my MotoX captures into half but that downsizing also didn't help.
Only wish that the idea of capturing the photos in the low resolution would have come earlier in my mind, I would have had all of my previous captures in this new found better quality.
Now I am not using the stock app since it doesn't allow changing the resolution. Only wish we could set other app of our liking as default which can be launched using voice command and twist wrist gesture.

Jack Sparrow xda said:
Yeah, I had spent whole day yesterday on the analysis and thread post, rather have been experimenting a lot since I bought the phone and almost tried all the good camera apps available in the market. Reason was it was getting hard to digest for me that my previous 8MP Motorola phone was delivering better results than the 13MP of MotoX which is from the 3 years old generation compared to the MotoX which has got one of the best sensor.
I have lot of pictures captured from different stock camera app versions in different Android firmwares since Kitkat to 5.1 and all of those pictures have ugly artifacts. I always thought to resize all of my MotoX captures into half but that downsizing also didn't help. Only wish that the idea of capturing the photos in the low resolution would have come earlier in my mind, I would have had all of my previous captures in this new found better quality.
Now I am not using the stock app since it doesn't allow changing in resolution. Only wish we could set other app of our liking as default which can be launched using voice command and twist wrist gesture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I loaded the xposed moto checkbox module and with the dev options for camera turned on you can change picture size to:
4160x2340
3840x2160
3264x1836
2592x1458
1920x1080
1280x720
Would this not work for the methods your recommending? Or am I missing something?

adm1jtg said:
I loaded the xposed moto checkbox module and with the dev options for camera turned on you can change picture size to:
4160x2340
3840x2160
3264x1836
2592x1458
1920x1080
1280x720
Would this not work for the methods your recommending? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That will definitely work, just make sure that you are capturing in 5MP/4:3 ratio or 8MP/4:3 ratio, not the 9.7MP/16:9 ratio mode. Please see my post number 13.
grubber24 said:
Thanks a lot for all the great analysis done! The study done by you should be forwarded to motorola for analysis and improvement!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If we can reach to Motorola then I have more ideas to share with them, but that looks highly unlikely. They look least interested in the camera, look at the terrible picture quality 20MP camera of Moto Droid Turbo produces. And hopes are more down after knowing that the company is now owned by new Chinese parent Lenovo.

[PSA] RAW quality vs JPEG Tests

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!