shadowwalker

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Works as a Tech dabbler
Joined on Apr 8, 2019

Comments

Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

shadowwalker: Plus: Price, decent size, small symmetrical bezels, 90Hz refresh, decent battery, decent performance.

Minus: cameras need a serious upgrade, Mid-range performance

Notice performance is in both categories? For a mid-range phone, it's decent, but compared to other Pixels, it's a major step down. On the whole, it's probably good enough for me. I don't play games, so don't need the fastest SOC, and the pictures it takes are probably okay. If I want good pics, I use a dedicated camera.

On the whole, Google will probably sell a lot more phones in the mid-range than they ever did while trying to compete at the elite level.

And yes, I am sure about the fifty percent performance. Look at the benchmarks of the SOCs in the Pixel 4 vs Pixel 5. Do the math yourself. Some tests are worse than fifty percent. Some tests are a little better. But on the whole, yeah, fifty percent is close. Also, Pixel 5 doesn't have the graphics coprocessor from previous Pixels. The SOC can do the work on its own so that isn't a huge hit, but now the SOC has to do the work, instead of offloading it and doing something else.

But this isn't unexpected The Pixel 4 and 4 XL were intended to be top tier phones. The Pixel 5 is a mid-range phone. That's reflected in the SOC, the screen, the construction, and ultimately the price.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2020 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

shadowwalker: Plus: Price, decent size, small symmetrical bezels, 90Hz refresh, decent battery, decent performance.

Minus: cameras need a serious upgrade, Mid-range performance

Notice performance is in both categories? For a mid-range phone, it's decent, but compared to other Pixels, it's a major step down. On the whole, it's probably good enough for me. I don't play games, so don't need the fastest SOC, and the pictures it takes are probably okay. If I want good pics, I use a dedicated camera.

On the whole, Google will probably sell a lot more phones in the mid-range than they ever did while trying to compete at the elite level.

Who said 99%? Nobody in this thread did.

I specifically said that it was about a 50% performance hit, but was probably good enough for my needs. I didn't mention 99% or even anybody besides me.

I'm perfectly good with getting dinged when I say something stupid, but not for things I don't say. If you have reading comprehension issues, ask for clarification. But comment on what is written. Don't make things up.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2020 at 04:47 UTC
In reply to:

shadowwalker: Plus: Price, decent size, small symmetrical bezels, 90Hz refresh, decent battery, decent performance.

Minus: cameras need a serious upgrade, Mid-range performance

Notice performance is in both categories? For a mid-range phone, it's decent, but compared to other Pixels, it's a major step down. On the whole, it's probably good enough for me. I don't play games, so don't need the fastest SOC, and the pictures it takes are probably okay. If I want good pics, I use a dedicated camera.

On the whole, Google will probably sell a lot more phones in the mid-range than they ever did while trying to compete at the elite level.

If you play graphics-intensive games, or if you do any kind of heavy processing you will see a difference in the speed. The processor in the Pixel 5 is about half the performance of the one in the Pixel 4, and that is significant.

Reread my original post, where I say, "On the whole, it's probably good enough for me. I don't play games, so don't need the fastest SOC." No offense intended, but in that context, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2020 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I am sorry to see the Pixel drop its class-leading computational photography emphasis it had in the first four models. Among other things, it spurred the competition to catch up. I don't believe Apple would have ever incorporated automatic stacking or Night Mode had it not been for the Pixel, and we would be stuck with additional insufferable gimmicks like Live Photo, Animojis, and Slowfies instead.

Just curious, what did they drop?

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2020 at 16:53 UTC

Plus: Price, decent size, small symmetrical bezels, 90Hz refresh, decent battery, decent performance.

Minus: cameras need a serious upgrade, Mid-range performance

Notice performance is in both categories? For a mid-range phone, it's decent, but compared to other Pixels, it's a major step down. On the whole, it's probably good enough for me. I don't play games, so don't need the fastest SOC, and the pictures it takes are probably okay. If I want good pics, I use a dedicated camera.

On the whole, Google will probably sell a lot more phones in the mid-range than they ever did while trying to compete at the elite level.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2020 at 22:24 UTC as 23rd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

juntoalmar: How come is it "universal" if it comes in two sizes depending on the lens diameter?

Uhhh…parallel universes?

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2020 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Foskito: Any current iPhone is better, simpler to use, sleeker, and easier to use. Besides, they offer the whole ecosystem benefits. Just wish they have a tad bigger sensor.

That is an incredibly subjective opinion, and I respect that you love your iPhone. But for me, iPhones suck.

iPhones, and to a lesser extent iPads, are locked into a very restrictive home screen layout, even in the announced IOS 14, with no way to change it. They are very also restrictive in default apps. I want to be able to pick which app is used for which purpose. Again, IOS 14 gives you the ability to do this for two purposes. Why not all the others? Finally, IOS is locked into the incredibly restrictive app store. Totally ignoring the questionable legality of the monopolistic and unfair app store, I want to control what's on my phone. I don't need Apple's questionable censorship and won't support it. Every time I'm forced to use an iPhone, I feel claustrophobic and limited.

So, while I might agree that it is simpler to use because of being limited and censored, I have to take exception to your comment about being better.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2020 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

DBHC: Alone the crappy 108 MP camera which takes worse photos than a Galaxy s7 edge and has lost the on sensor phase detection focus makes this phone undesirable. Note 10 is definitely the better choice although it still misses the jack stick.

It's the same camera as in the S20 Ultra so many, many people have tested it.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 21:53 UTC

I tried some pics of various clothes, and had very little luck, except for black t-shirts. Even then it only picked out high-contrast items when I stretched the shirt over them.

What's cool, though, is the clear glass or plastic effect. Here is a pic of my inductive cooktop with the color filter camera: https://photos.app.goo.gl/EGNMtkgrrVEGNejR6

Pretty cool, but so far I haven't found a practical use for it.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2020 at 18:07 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

cdembrey: "Freedom of the Press. The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from Censorship."

A simple idea, that both *police departments* and *presidents*, fail to understand.

Then you challenge a bad or illegal law in court! Police, Feds, sheriffs, or whoever is enforcing the laws, don't interpret them. They enforce the laws and ordinances that are handed to them. That's why there are trials after an arrest or citation. The police, apparently, believed they had probable cause and so they enforced a law that is currently in effect. These are the facts.

You can argue all day about should be or could be or I believe. But don't argue with facts.

You can (and should) fight to change unjust laws, and if they are bad, you have a good chance to succeed. I suspect that we would agree on a lot of points about how things should be.

But this is a story about a law that is currently on the books and how the police enforced it. Not a big shock (at least it shouldn't be).

The eventual trial might be interesting, though.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: "Freedom of the Press. The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from Censorship."

A simple idea, that both *police departments* and *presidents*, fail to understand.

So, you believe that reporters are free to break laws as long as they are gathering information? Does that include breaking into your home or hacking your personal information for a story?

Just curious about where you draw the line.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2020 at 21:57 UTC

Or, to put it more succinctly, read and understand the EULA rather than just click through it. If it concerns your business, read it twice!

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2020 at 16:56 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I wish smartphone manufacturers would offer a user option to get your a bokeh effect relying only on their distance estimates given their dual cameras' computations. Instead they also try to guess/figure out what is supposed to be forefront and what is not. Those guesses are often off by a bit -- yes, often just by, literally, a hair -- but it makes the result pretty much unusable. You also lose the opportunity to get a true soft roll-off of focus as you move further back.

Since many like the way it is done now, I would be fine having it simply as an option buried deep within the Settings menu.

And that's the difference. The Pixel app is using the the data estimates that were used to construct the original image. The distance blur, bokeh, etc. is using the original data and algorithms.

The camera app saves two copies of each portrait image. The first is the plain image and the second is the depth blurred image with all of the depth info included. Because of the additional data, the images with background blur are about half again the size of the plain image.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2019 at 04:52 UTC
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I wish smartphone manufacturers would offer a user option to get your a bokeh effect relying only on their distance estimates given their dual cameras' computations. Instead they also try to guess/figure out what is supposed to be forefront and what is not. Those guesses are often off by a bit -- yes, often just by, literally, a hair -- but it makes the result pretty much unusable. You also lose the opportunity to get a true soft roll-off of focus as you move further back.

Since many like the way it is done now, I would be fine having it simply as an option buried deep within the Settings menu.

On the Pixel phones, you can refocus pictures taken in portrait mode by touching the spot you want to be in focus. This way you can choose the focal point of the image. There is also a slider to adjust the amount of bokeh.

This has been available since they introduced portrait mode on the Pixel 2

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2019 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: I was intrigued until I saw the word Kickstarter.

That's a non-starter.

Agreed.

But sometimes you just have to go for it.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2019 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: "At such long exposure times hot pixel can become a problem. The system identifies them by comparing neighboring pixels within the same frame as well as across a sequence of frames recorded for a Night Sight image. If an outlier is detected its value is replaced by an average."

Stareater confirmed, totally unusable this camera 😂

Hopefully, you're joking and I'm not subtle enough to pick it up. There's an astronomical difference between hot pixel removal and noise reduction.

(see what I did there?)

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2019 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: I was intrigued until I saw the word Kickstarter.

That's a non-starter.

I'm already in.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2019 at 16:58 UTC
In reply to:

Goodmeme: The portraits looks great, and I don't see any obvious blur errors, like with the previous one.

I'd love to pick up one of these but the lack of a micro sd card for storing kids movies (homemade backups, great for emergency childcare on journeys without wifi) is a big turn off, and keeps me with Samsung.

Don't forget that these are Android phones with a real USB port and an OS/filesystem that lets you access them for general use. For the occasional times that you need additional storage, you can plug in a USB card or even a flash drive (yes, you can get both with USB-C).

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

jxh: I hope it's not cheating, but I've split this comment because of length.

There is a psychological mistake in the unfortunate term 'smartphone', due only to historical accident. Phoning is a trivial component (taking up very little of the device's or the user's resources).

It more accurately should be considered the most personal of personal computers. Despite the common name, it's first and foremost an extremely powerful digital engine, connected to a vast computational network. Take away the 'phone' part and you've lost almost nothing as long as there is the data connection. In some very real respects, aspects of a smartphone's data processing actually exceed what was on some super computers of 20 years ago. What it does, and does really well is anything compuational, whether photography, audio, transaction processing, navigation, interfacing with other digital equipment and so on.

Very nice.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2019 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

MhtLion: Notches are just TOO BIG!! I hope it takes a good pic at least.

What notch?

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2019 at 15:41 UTC
Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »