Moment Pro adds HDR+ with support for Pixel 2&#39;s Visual Core hardware

"I don't have Google Pixel 2 anymore, but gave a try on my Galaxy S9+. The app is pathetic, reduces the resolution of the camera and front camera is pathetic. "

Not really the fault of the app. More the fault of the current state of Android. It's either native app or Pixel 2 at this point.

7 months agopermalink

timberD

I am not saying that IOS is better I just don't want Google getting hold of my pictures ....that is it !!

7 months agopermalink

Chayagrahak

How it is not the fault of the app? There are many third party apps including Lightroom running well on Android without any bugs. Front camera capturing images like in VGA camera and increases the brightness by around 5 points than what was seen in preview - can this be justifiable? Maybe the camera is just meant for Pixel 2, but the app developer doesn't say that or looking for a confirmation from Pixel 2 users on their experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current state of Android. Android is matured over the years and in many ways exceeded what Apple is offering.

7 months agopermalink

Too bad it can't be used with "all" Android phones. Though, this move allowing third-party apps to use HDR+ at all is a huge step forward.

7 months agopermalink

jim seekers

Does this app make for better background blur like the pixel can or not, I know there is a great app called FABBY that does it but it really only works well outside in daylight.

7 months agopermalink

Pixel 2XL is hands down the best camera on a phone atm.

It's also a great phone. So there's little reason I can see to purchase anything else if you're the type to shoot stuff with your phone when IQ doesn't matter as much or you don't have a real camera handy.

7 months agopermalink

timberD

there is one reason not to buy a Pixel ....Android .....!

7 months agopermalink

I don't get it. What's wrong with Android?

I'm not the type of guy to fuss over operating systems or fan a particular brand, I've no vested interest in any of the companies and tbh, can't find a point of difference to any two OS's that makes one better than the other.

I find only fanboys of any particular brand will vote one over the other.

I own both the iPhoen X and Pixel 2XL, the Pixel is clearly the superior camera and, to a lesser extent, the more efficient phone (for my business style use).

7 months agopermalink

onlyfreeman

Nothing is wrong with it, well, compared to iOS anyway. Comments like that are probably implying something about iOS's "better" security, or whatever.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

"Pixel 2XL is hands down the best camera on a phone atm."

No, I would say that Goggle's photo department is simply doing the best job on the software side.

7 months agopermalink

Impulses

And the software side is kind of integral to most of the innovation going on with smartphone cameras.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Sure, but it's important to distinguish between the camera hardware and camera software.

7 months agopermalink

Why? The vast majority care absolute zilch about whether hardware or software doing the job. They simply want good photos.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

People on this site discussing this topic are not the vast majority of people. We want better than what phones are currently producing.

7 months agopermalink

desertsp

And software is how they do better. Unless you just want big ILP (interchangeable lens phone).

7 months agopermalink

You can't have one without the other, so when someone says "the best camera" I'd say it's safe to assume they mean the combination of hardware + software, and that combination is currently arguably best on the Pixel.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

That's a flawed assumption based on a flawed association.

7 months agopermalink

Flawed is in the eye of the beholder. It's a damn shame standalone cameras aren't embracing the software side of things. Looking extremely ugly for them when considering anyone but professionals.

7 months agopermalink

I tell you what Phil, you go out and buy any camera you like, strip it of all the software and come back here to tell us how well it works ;-)

7 months agopermalink

desertsp

@PhilDunn - Can a device be considered a camera if it's functionality ends at producing voltages corresponding to photo-sites on the sensor?

Or, do you think a camera needs to create actual digital RAW files (and perhaps also translate them into JPEG so they can be viewed)?

If your definition of a camera includes the later, then your definition includes software.

Certain smartphone developers have simply moved beyond the rudimentary software used in "traditional" cameras. Instead of opening the shutter once and turning the resulting voltages into digital files, they open it multiple times and combine the results into a file having various improved qualities. This is how you improve the end-result without breaking the laws of physics or adding a gigantic lens and sensor to what's supposed to be a pocketable device. And of course they ARE improving the true hardware (lenses, sensors) at the same time - that aspect has not stagnated at the expense of software development.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

"Flawed is in the eye of the beholder."

Facts are not flawed. They simply are.

"tell you what Phil, you go out and buy any camera you like, strip it of all the software and come back here to tell us how well it works ;-)"

You're confused. Read more carefully what I was responding to.

"Can a device be considered a camera if it's functionality ends at producing voltages corresponding to photo-sites on the sensor?"

Ditto my previous comment.

7 months agopermalink

I'm not confused in the slightest. The guy was complimenting the camera, of which the software is an integral part. If anything I'd say it's possibly you getting a bit confused.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

This was the exchange. Read more carefully.

"Pixel 2XL is hands down the best camera on a phone atm."

I responded with: "No, I would say that Goggle's photo department is simply doing the best job on the software side."

The takeaway from that is the importance of software in getting the best out of similar hardware, especially since it's all computational what is going on with improving smartphone image quality.

Again, read more carefully.

7 months ago*permalink

There's nothing more I can do here than shake my head in dismay and walk away. Have a good day.

7 months agopermalink

"Facts are not flawed. They simply are."

If you believe like that, you have a massively long way to go, Phil.

7 months ago*permalink

(unknown member)

I don’t live in an alternate reality where facts are subjective. Apparently you do. Good luck with that.

7 months agopermalink

desertsp

“especially since it's all computational what is going on with improving smartphone image quality.”

Not to belabor the point, but hardware is being improved as well, and synergistically with the software. HDR+ wouldn’t be possible without high-speed sensor readout at full resolution. And I’m sure advances have been made in lens design too; they seem pretty sharp these days. Some phones even have multiple lenses. Many (all?) use pdaf for fast focusing.

So I don’t think it’s entirely fair to imply that all the advances are on the software side. I would be that the software devs work closely with the hardware devs at these mega companies, because they’re producing a singular product.

7 months agopermalink

All digital photography has a computational element.

So is this a debate about how much processing Google are carrying out?

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Except the computational element going in with smartphones is at another level compared to what goes on with traditional cameras. It has to be due to the obvious limitations such tiny cameras have hardware wise.

7 months agopermalink

So it's this particular next step in software you have na issue with?

I like it, I can sometimes achieve a similar look to my FF sensor with it. The iPhone X does the 'same' thing, but it never looked good, 100% of the time the computational work was always very obvious and took away from the image, the Pixel though, 50% of the shots are acceptable and 10-15% of the time most people cannot tell which images are the pixel and which are the A7R.

I'm looking forward to adjusting DOF in post and other enhancements on some of my images in about 5-10 years time.

7 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

What makes you think I have an issue with the software side in order to maximize image quality? Go back and see what I was responding. It has nothing to with me being against it in any way. On the contrary, it’s shameful that the traditional camera manufacturers haven’t taken the lead on such a thing.

7 months agopermalink

bzzz

You can have one without the other! I have a Samsung Galaxy S7 using a Google Camera port, and the results are brilliant. The particular port I'm using is for the S7 and S8 models. Someone did a comparison between the S8 (basically same camera as S7) with this port vs. an actual Pixel 2, and the S8 was actually slightly better. I have HDR+, HDR+Enhanced, portrait mode, can stack as much as 20/24 pictures, etc. The hand held photo I took at night in the mountains last night was amazing - nice flower details in the dark foreground with minimal noise, high dynamic range with the still light sky in background.

7 months ago*permalink

Great news

But it is also time that android fixes that. If you use Snapchat/ Instagram etc... on an Iphone you just get the normal camera app quality. For android users that is not the case, because camera software lives on another API level in android.
And that matters. I know people who just bought an Iphone because the camera quality in snapchat is better on it. (And yes it is pretty abysmal on most android phones)

The Pixel 2 is the first phone that fixes that. But there needs to be a more general fix for all android devices

7 months agopermalink

You use a phone to take photos and post to SnapChat and Instagram and you're, no offense, worried about image quality?

7 months agopermalink

Impulses

You take the time to comment on an article clearly aimed at mobile users who care about their camera performance and you're, no offense*, shocked that they care?

*You take the time to interject a 'no offense' when your tone and subtext is obviously full of distain, no offense, and you still have the gall to frame it as a question?

7 months agopermalink

Impulses

In all seriousness, I think his point wasn't strictly about Snap but about any app that lets you pull up the camera within the app, why not get the best quality possibly from it?

To the average user it's not inherently obvious that you'll get a better shot by backing out of the app, shooting, and then attaching the pic in the app... It's sloppy (or at least a little half assed) design to not have a working API for this from the start so your camera works equally well no matter how it's accessed.

I'm a happy Pixel (1st gen) user FWIW, and it's not my only camera.

7 months agopermalink

@Impusles Thanks

@DamianFl You obviously never used snapchat. The in app camera is your only option. You cannot post pictures taken with other apps

7 months agopermalink

onlyfreeman

I don't get it, why can't the apps get the same quality as the default camera app?

7 months agopermalink

@onlyfreeman

There are two problems here. The first is a simple one. Here is the way an image goes on a normal android phone

Hardware(Camera) -> API -> Image Processing -> Storage

Third party apps can access images at the API level, which is before processing. But processing is the important step in smartphone cameras. The pixel for example stacks 9 images to get better IQ. Other smartphones combine images from two cameras etc...

So what the visual core does is allowing third party cameras to access the image after the processing magic.

Another problem is that some third party manufacturers didn't even bother to access the image at the API level, because that does require some amount of modification for each phone. Instead they basically just "took a screencapture of live view" and got terrible IQ because of this

7 months ago*permalink

This guy got it.

If you read my other posts in reply to this article I use a phone often and am happy with some of the images.

7 months agopermalink

onlyfreeman

@Panther fan, that is quite interesting, and also strange that this deficiency still exists in Android. Maybe there is a workaround? Can't third party apps utilise the default camera app to take a photo which is then processed and saved to storage, then extract it from storage to use in the app?

7 months agopermalink