Google publishes gallery from upcoming Pixel smartphone

Like a delectable fried snack, these manage to be both soft and crunchy at the same time...

I jest. They are actually really good, but with the tell-tale overprocessing of smartphone shots. They do look better than anything I've yet seen from the iPhone, I'd say.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

AJE87

I disagree. These are not better than the iPhone. Both phones are very close in quality. Too close to call one better than the other in my opinion. They are both excellent for smart phone cameras and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Now, you may like Google better than Apple but don't let that cloud your judgement.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

The Google pixel received the highest DxOMark Mobile score.
The HTC 10 or Xiaomi Mi 5S ...... not, all three of them carry the same IMX378 sensor.
Is DxOMark owned by Volkswagen ?

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Chengis

DXOMark was given for the camera not the sensor. So there is the lens, in camera processing and few other factors that might sway the grade. Cheers.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

(unknown member)

DXOMark was given a Google camera made by HTC, with an identical sensor and in camera processing and some other factors that makes no difference and gets the highest ranking . DxOwagen. Cheers to you too !!!

Oct 11, 2016permalink

agentrandom

The HTC 10 doesn't use that sensor. It would be a little early for them to have that one. No, they used the IMX377, which is what the Nexus 5X and 6P used. They had a later version which has OIS, but their software processing made the images worse than the 5X and 6P.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Well in that case we might see Xiaomi Mi 5S together with Google Pixel in the " highest DxOMark Mobile score" (skip the HTC)
-Thanks for the info-

Oct 13, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

The problem I have with phones is that above base ISO the amount of detail quickly melts away and they use poor quality plastic lenses. You can see it here just like every other phone.

Biggest hurdle for me is I don't like the shooting experience. I have an S7 Edge which is as good as the Pixel or better but using just a touchscreen is frustrating and not gratifying.

Still, they're useful for taking quick photos of my dog.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/12733-6914-150430-Telephoto-l.jpg

You're right that higher ISOs cause significant detail reduction, but that's a fault of the sensor size, not the lenses. Smartphone lenses are remarkably impressive pieces of optical engineering. The quality is anything but poor.

When was the last time you ever saw aspherical elements this complex in a large sensor interchangeable lens camera?

The answer is never, and the reason is that the technology used to produce this kind of geometry is not easily scalable to larger lenses. You can bet that the optical engineers at Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax and all the rest would give their first-borns to be able to manufacture that for a sensor larger than 1".

Oct 11, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

I never said the lenses are causing the noise, but I do think the lenses are bad. Smartphones don't come close to utilising their megapixel counts with the lenses they have.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

My 16MP LG G4 can produce pixel-sharp DNGs on par with 16MP ILCs. Obviously the dynamic range is limited, the quality is only good in bright light, and I have no control of DoF. But as far as detail goes, when it's not being smeared by terrible JPEG algorithms, modern smartphones that can shoot RAW do a very good job.

The softness that I do notice is simply the areas past the focal plane and the inherent limits of diffraction that prevent stopping down (besides the lack of the aperture mechanism to even do so, of course).

Oct 11, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

I don't know what camera & lens combos you were using to get that result as my S7 Edge (the best phone camera out now) still doesn't come close to the Fuji X100 I have.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8120/29554482501_53a0173d81_o.jpg

I don't know from the X100, but I'd put this 16MP up against the detail retention of any X-Trans Fuji sensor like the later X100S and X100T...

Fur and leaf detail galore and no smearing to be seen. In the plane of focus, of course...

Oct 11, 2016permalink

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smillsishere/26845811373/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/

@lukecookphoto

I think you should consider to read up on Rayleigh diffraction.

There is a LIMIT to how small details can be with a specific aperture and wavelength. Even with a theoretical perfect lens.

I tried to stack some info together here http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/?p=12

In this context the main rule of thumb to remember is this one:
F * √N < W
With N number of sensors in Mpixels, W sensor width in mm, red light and F numerical aperture.
(It is a numeric coincidence that the formula is this simple)

So with the given info it can not offer more than 10Mpixels resolution...
(1.55/1000 * 4096 /2.0)²

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Serenity Now

Who is suggesting you use a phone for situations where those issues become problematic? Put in historical context the photgraphic and video capabilities of a contemporary smartphone are nothing short of amazing. That said - I'd use your DSLR to photograph your dog and your imagination when your out and about with your phone.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

smillsishere

@Androole, in the plane of focus, there is still waste on the pixel level. When I take an f4.0 shot with my x100S (probably the sharpest the camera gets in the focal plane), you do not see the high degree of chromatic aberration present in the picture you shared. I will concede that the x-trans sensor means textures and greens tend to have a painterly effect as you zoom in (at 100% or more), but otherwise, the images are far sharper, with aberration from the small lens/sensor combo becoming present far sooner than the x-trans fuzz on an x100S/T.

On close focus green (green tone manipulated):

On sharpness (best to download the original then zoom right in to pixel level, especially on the water by the dog):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smillsishere/16176241303/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/

The x100S/T with 23mm is a very sharp combination.

Oct 13, 2016*permalink

tom1234567

A lot of noise picture 1 and others not much better
Tom G

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Tom Goodman

When I only have my cellphone with me and I see something that intrigues me visually my first reaction is one of regret I do not have a quality camera with me and my second reaction is to wonder whether or not I could phone home and have that camera delivered!

Oct 11, 2016permalink

fullstop

Looks like the camera guys are starting to take the mobile photo gizmos seriously.😜

Oct 11, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Definitely good enough for everything I wouldn't shoot with my dedicated cameras. Enough said.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

technotic

I thought they would show how the Pixel can capture a photo of an exploding Note 7. Ouch.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

AlexRo

Why didn't DxOMark guys don't test Lumia 950 cam yet? It has 20 MP and does very good images, even in low light. They would have given give "the best mobile cam" award to this phone for sure.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

elefteriadis alexandros

As every other top smartphones. Heavy noise reduction even at base ISO and over sharpness. Wait for raw samples.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

SimenO1

As expected - this piece of hardware is optimized for making calls, not images.

- Quite a lot of noise even at low ISOs
- Blown out highlights
- Hyperactive noise and detail-cancelling algorithms, almost rasterized/dithered many places

But in its defense, its maybe the best images I have ever seen from a modernized Graham Bell invention.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Terry Breedlove

What this is not a DSLR but is actually a phone with a camera built in ! What will they come up with next

Oct 11, 2016permalink

SimenO1

Maybe a toaster with a camera built in?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it clearly don't have photography as its primary function. The sad truth is that some think phone cameras have improved the image quality to the level of DLSRs and causing DSLRs to be a dying technology. To some extent phones have replaced much uf the usage, especially when measured posts on online image sharing services, but that is due to easier sharing options and better communication functions, not image quality. These test images are a good reminder why DSLRs still have its place in the market.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

King Penguin

Let's hope they are not using Samsung battery technology!

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Stu 5

Although it is overheating I do wonder if it is what is causing it to overheat is not the real problem.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Emacs23

It is not battery technology, it is crappy samsung software.
I have S7 and it happened once I put this lagging crap on wireless charger: after about an hour I take it to do something. It was HOT and actually lost charge, i.e. it didn't charge a bit. If it would be on wired charge it would explode for sure. Reload solved the issue. So, it is definitely samsung crapware.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

sh10453

@Stu 5,
Most likely it is the real problem, and it was a matter of time before something like this happens, not just to Samsung, but to any other similar product.

Lithium battery manufacturers have been pushing the limits by making the batteries thinner and thinner while adding more "juice" to them.
The result is that the positive and negative terminals have gotten too close to each other (internally), and eventually touching each other, as in the case of the Note's battery, causing an internal short circuit, and that causes the excessive heat that results in a battery explosion, or fire (or both).

Another cause for battery explosion or overheat is an incorrect charging system design (hardware, software, or both) that could cause excessive over-charging.
Unfortunately, Samsung handled this case very poorly, and their reputation, which they have spent $Billions on building, is badly tarnished.
They have now stopped production, not just sales, of the Note 7.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

King Penguin

I'm surprised they recalled them......they should get rid of them in a fire sale 😀😀

Oct 11, 2016permalink

sh10453

They recalled over 2.5 million units!

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Matthias R

There is something that bugs me about all these smartphone pictures galleries... pictures sure look attractive, I I will not argue against a good photographers's ability to do good photographs with a halfway decent smartphone.
Now, I regularly see casual pictures snapped by friends and families with their latest iPhones, and boy, these pictures do not look good. Inexistent contrast, blobby noise reduction everywhere in anything less than bright sunlight, flares, you name it. Quite possibly they would get better results if they bothered to clean the lens from time to time. And I know for a sure thing (i.e. I've seen it happen regularly) that these people in the exact same conditions would have gotten vastly better picture with a halfway decent point and shoot.
Whatever is happening there, dedicated cameras clearly are much more forgiving of their user's shortcomings than smartphones.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Did you see their 15x10 cm (6x4 in) prints from 20 years ago shot with compact film camera? Do you think things got better or worse with phones?

PS iPhone in particular has quite average camera. I think it is mostly US folks falling over it as Apple is the only credible US brand. Outside of US iPhone is snobby low end phone...

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

@Kiril Karaatanasov
When you said "brand", i'm sure you meant "brand" that produces products that YOU care for ( or products that you can see)
Also, I don't think " US folks" are the only folks fall over Apple products.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Matthias R

@Kiril Karaatanasov. Oh yes I remember compact film cameras. "Fondly" would be a misrepresentation... but this is a different debate.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

@onemoreguy it is only in USA where Apple is dominant player by far and phone pretty much equates with iPhone. Everywhere else I have been Apple is one of the phone vendors along side Samsung, Sony, LG, HTC, Xiaomi, OnePlus, Microsoft etc.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

@Matthias R I meant that phones today are filling pretty much the same niche as those compact film cameras did. People need to take casual photos of kids, vacations. Learning about apertures, lenses and so on is not their priority at all. Most people probably realize that great pictures need bigger more sophisticated camera and also a experienced educated photographer.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

@Kiril Karaatanasov
"it is only in USA where Apple is dominant player by far and phone pretty much equates with iPhone. Everywhere else I have been Apple is one of the phone vendors"
That's a lie. You have nothing to back up but your feeling
Take a look at this
http://uk.businessinsider.com/iphone-market-share-by-country-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

And speaking of feeling, take a look at this OS-share chart in your own country. Apple IOS share is about 40% of Bulgaria's phone,tablet market. Also, mind you that, all of those Operation Systems are American's "products", except for Linux.

Oct 12, 2016*permalink

https://www.statsmonkey.com/sunburst/13009-bulgaria-operating-systems-os-market-share-usage-statistics-2014.php

Oct 12, 2016permalink

@onemoreguy these stats are BS. Did you care to look at them? Apple had 2% market share hahaha.....this is ridiculous.....are you trying to say iPhone is world dominating - well it is not.....really inappropriate.... pathetic

Oct 13, 2016permalink

Nah, you are just BS

"Did you care to look at them? Apple had 2%"
WOW! You are not very bright haha.

"Are you trying to say iPhone is world dominating" Uh yeah. Some reason it makes you angry ;)

Oct 14, 2016permalink

eno2

The pictures from this phone are RAW converted, are OK but definitely not the best out there but much better than Iphone's images!

Oct 11, 2016permalink

LukeDuciel

The beach scene is actually quite good, almost as good in color retention as my RX100 in similar condition .

But, when phone company, camera hype, photo gallery, are mixing, I prefer wait and see whether it's another "mis placed" bigger camera outputs.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Wild Light

Looks ok but still rough. The beach scene is quite impressive though. I just don't use my phone as a camera though. The times I have done i've been so disappointed in the IQ. I just take a small, real camera with me everywhere - I don't understand why a photographer wouldn't.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

TFLO Photography

nothing to see here folks. Even at the lowest ISOs, the images are garbage when viewed at full size. They look fine as small jpegs. Just like any mobile phone I guess. All of these mobile phone creators are dopes. How hard is it to jam in a 2/3 sensor which is slightly larger, but manageable if Nokia can shove that giant sized 41MP sensor into a phone. Then you keep it down to 8 or so MP and forget about 4K video. Simple, that camera would crush every mobile phone around. But no some idiot would want it to be 30MP and we would be right back where we started. I would dump my mobile phone if any maker would do something like this. I would jump ship for something so simple.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

badi

"the images are garbage when viewed at full size" ... really? No seriously, who would have thought? :)

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

dbo

"While we can't be sure if any processing...."
Hahahaha, hohohoho :-)

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Richard Murdey

The processing in modern smartphone cameras is really something. Each individual leaf or rock is analyzed and redrawn according the the edge detection algorithms, then filled in with a color of the average detected hue.

While the fine textural information is lost, the image does look good when viewed from a reasonable distance.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Clyde Thomas

How does this GoogaPixel compare to the Lumix CM-1 Android with the 1 inch sensor? I picked one up and absolutely love the image quality. From DPR's review here:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-cm1-camera-review

"With its 1-inch image sensor, adjustment dial and comprehensive manual settings and image options the Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 offers image detail and operational control that is unheard of on more conventional smartphone cameras."

"The Panasonic CM1 captures the best image detail of all smartphones in bright and low light, with well-balanced noise reduction and sharpening."

"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 is clearly a niche product and the closest thing we have seen to a 'photographer's smartphone'."

Never saw much press on this little gem. That's why they can be found on eBay for under $500. Crazy price drop. Just search eBay for Lumix CM-1.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

MyReality

Good question. I can only guess it is because Lumix is not known as a cellphone company. Apparently, their marketing is more dedicated to cameras.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Clyde Thomas

Yes it's odd. Panny actually makes a version of this camera without a phone.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

obsolescence

It's nice to see improvements in IQ for devices with portability and connectivity. However, for serious photography, I find that a smartphone camera is not a satisfactory substitute for a decent dedicated camera, except when I have neglected to bring the latter with me. There may be exceptions such as add-ons or bulkier units, but these are hardly more convenient than a compact camera and far less versatile for the specific task of shooting. It may have something to do with the handling where I instinctively feel like the results will be throwaways. Just my 2¢

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Shift4g

"except when I have neglected to bring the latter with me."

And that right there is the point I believe. Not to replace dedicated tools. Some people (myself included) forget to bring, choose not to bring, or didn't expect the need for their real camera in certain situations. Modern cellphone image quality is highlighting that it's not the end of the world now if you only have that with you, or in some cases, you choose not to stress over the prospect of taking pictures.

I'm more happy about the fact that increasing numbers of people who aren't critically into photography will be posting and sharing pictures with enough quality that my eyes don't bleed.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

cheetah43

Photo 1 verticals? Not out of camera photo?

Oct 11, 2016permalink

marike6

As JPEGs, they look worse than a P&S from 10 years ago. For a smartphone, they aren't in the same universe as Nokia 808 images from several years ago.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

bloodycape

The Nokia also had a larger sensor 2/3", it would make sense it be better. I recently looked at some images from my Canon S2IS, which has a smaller 1/2.5" vs the Pixel(and 5x/6P) 1/2.3" sensor. I don't imagine the Canon being that much better at the same focal length in day light. It be interesting to compare night shots, but I suspect the newer processing engine in the Pixel, or even Nexus 5x/6P would have the slight advantage noise wise, while the Canon will be a tad sharper.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Ooxus

It looks good, if you do not compare with the iPhone 7 :)

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Richard Murdey

Even if you do. The Pixel results are slightly better.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Emacs23

iPhone 7 camera is barely better than iPhone 6s one and no match for Samsung S7.
And Pixel is a bit ahead of S7 in camera performance.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

KameraFever

Looks damn good.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

shigzeo

Duly impressed. Talented photographers with good eyes, and good hardware like this are exciting combinations.

Good job Pixel.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

zachchen1996

Agreed, IQ seems promising indeed.
But what about SQ? ;)

Oct 11, 2016permalink

shigzeo

I assume that you're an audiophile. I also assume you know quite a bit about the quality of modern SOCs to translate digital to analogue vis-a-vis DAPs with discrete hardware.

I shoot, measure, and write about audio gear (portable mainly) for a living, and have yet to encounter a high-end DAP that, when normalised to listening levels, measurably has any foothold [over] a good modern smartphone. Yes, that includes your 3500$ AK380 and 1000$ DP-X1, both of which I have written about and had direct experience with.

I keep coming back to the iPhone for simple reasons: only good modern OSs allow true gapless playback, and are hooked into devices with good battery life, not to mention speedy and intuitive control schema.

True, you get SPDIF out of some higher-end DAPs, and some have lower noise floors than high-end smartphones- not to mention higher theoretical SNR results. But at the ear, at 85-100dB average volume, measurable differences are minimal.

The rest is personal. [edit]

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

desaint

For a phone i'm impressed!
much better than my iPhone..

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Peiasdf

Than your iPhone what?

Oct 12, 2016permalink

desaint

Oct 12, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

For a phone, those are pretty darned good! If my phone took pictures like that I would be very happy. One question though - why are the skateboard's wheels square? Is that rolling shutter in action or some other anomoly?

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Minecraft IRL.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

yortuk

They actually look that way in person. It's an interesting optical illusion. You can get a better look at https://sharkwheel.com/

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Dave Sanders

Damn, those wheels are way cooler than the phone.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Adrien S

Those comments on Google Photos with people doing their best to point out flaws is a whole new form of internet cancer.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Well, google asked for it by declaring that this is the best phone camera ever - without really elaborating on in what ways it would be better than the competition.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

fatbaldandhappy

I think DxO Mark ran the test which gave Google license to make the claim. While the value of lab tests can be debated- the claim certainly isn't baseless.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

That, of course, assumes that DxO has tested all relevant phone cameras - which they have not.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Peiasdf

Google gave DxOMark a phone that's not released to test and score. No other OEM ever did that. I wouldn't trust DxOMark's number for a phone that's given special treatment and tweaked to score high.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

Uh, there is something wrong with the import to the DPreview gallery....

e.g. look at the tomato-picture. The colour of the table is obviously wrong. If you use the loupe it is correct though!?!?

Compare with originals from the google link above

Oct 10, 2016*permalink

Scott Everett

Not seeing the issue, do you have a screenshot of what you are seeing? Here is a side by side, DPR on the left, Google Photos on the right, Chrome browser:

http://i.imgur.com/A3BdUNU.png

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Sure, having trouble uploading it though. It is the same with the colour of the tomato, and the greenery in the canyon.

ADD: Same colour error on Chrome and FireFox

EDIT: Uploaded to my own blog...
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP.jpg

(These are from chrome)

Oct 10, 2016*permalink

@Everett, Can you reproduce it? (edited post above with a link)
It is 01:30 here local time, so turning in. Just delete this post when read :)

Oct 10, 2016*permalink

Scott Everett

Interesting, I am not able to reproduce the color cast you are seeing in any browser, let me check around the office and see if anyone else can get it.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

EskeRahn, I get exactly the same thing. I'm on Win10 with the latest Chrome with an AdobeRGB monitor. Is your monitor sRGB or Adobe?

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Barbu

Ditto. The small version is having a hue shift towards magenta, while the loupe and the 100% details are identical to the originals.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Barbu, what OS/browser/monitor colour space are you using?

Either we (or I) have our monitors set up incorrectly, or the some of the images or aren't tagged with the correct colour spaces.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

@RPJG Well when the loupe and 100% is correct on the same monitor, I would rather say that maybe Dpreview ONLY respects the monitor settings in the Loupe and 100%???

I'm on a Thinkpad Yoga (model 20CD) with an external Phillips BDM4065UC (connected through OneLink Pro and DP), WinX AU.
The problem is on both monitors, and on both Chrome and Firefox.

I also tried on my BB Priv on 6.0.1 sept. with Firefox, but the loupe is not available so difficult to check. Unfortunately Dpreview does not support the "Request desktop mode" correctly - despite the screen being Qhd, so plenty of resolution. So forced to use the mobile version.
On a subjective feel, the images in the mobile view does not seem to have the hysterical hue I see on the PC

ADD: I have noticed the difference earlier, but just thought it was the loupe function that was incorrect - but apparently it is the other way round.

ADD: @Barbu, Yes you are right the 100% is also correct, thanks - edited above :)

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Yep, for me, the loupe view gives the same colours as as the original.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Browsed a bit through older posts, and here is another one with exactly the same issues, from a month ago:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1058978743/gone-fishing-olympus-tg-4-gallery-updated
Loupe and 100% are fine, but all scaled versions have a severe magenta tint.

Oct 11, 2016*permalink

Hmm. It would be nice if DPR got back to us about the colour-space tagging on these images, or whatever else they can find out.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

@RPJG
Yeah would be nice.
In the other gallery where I found it, it is most visible in image 17/54 called "P7250161" at the top left where the scaled view shows the water as completely magenta, though much more blue in 100%.
Here is a cut of a screendump
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP2.jpg

Would be interesting to see how far back this bug goes? But it is certainly NOT there in ALL galleries. I tried a score or so of sample galleries from camera-tests but did not find it.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

I still can not upload with
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/upload
So added another one where it is also very visible here
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP3.jpg
(where I moved in the meta-data block)

ADD It can also be seen in the gallery from the same camera July 2015 here
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/6335287350/olympus-tg-4-real-world-sample-gallery
e.g. 10/54

...And the previous models one and two year before:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7286234063/olympus-tough-tg-3-review-samples
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9350823002/olympus-tough-tg-2-review-samples

...And back in 2011
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0477244490/olympus-tough-tg-810-review-samples

Oct 12, 2016*permalink

....And it is even there all the way back ...

2001:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5342209799/olympus-e-10-review-samples
See the example here:
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP_2001.jpg

And your very oldest one from 2000 too
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4791552335/canon-digital-ixus-review-samples
That can be seen here
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP_2000_1.jpg
As soon as I expand the browser-window to contain the full image it is fine
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CaptureDP_2000_2.jpg

...so it is definitely a bug of some sort in the shrinking.

I have seen similar issues with some PNGs elsewhere where blue turns to magenta, where it seems to be related to the alpha-layer. If this can help you in finding the bug.

Oct 12, 2016*permalink

Downloaded these looks IDENTICAL in 'any' photoviewer:
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RGB_1.png
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RGB_2.png

In a BROWSER (FireFox or Chrome) the blue turns magenta on the first one. This does NOT happen with Neither newest IE11 or Edge.

The issue in DP does NOT appear in IE or Edge either.
So I'm pretty sure this is related!

Here is how the files are created in windows
1) Open Paint, New
2) Select "Edit colours", and select a pure blue (0,0,255)
3) Paint something including the pure blue
4) Save as PNG - this is the problematic file
5) Save as BMP 24 bit (file never used)
6) Save as PNG - this is slightly larger, and displays correctly

If you later open the second PNG with Paint, edit anything and attempt a save-as, you get a warning:

! "Any transparency will be lost if you save this picture."

This is why I think the issue is related to the alpha-layer of the shrunken image you create.

Oct 12, 2016permalink

Barbu

My specs (someone asked):
1) Win10/32, Chrome 53.0.2785.143 (up to date); no specific settings modifications, all the drivers and software are in their clean state, no modifications whatsoever. This is a work computer, so I want it to stay as out-of-the-box as possible to avoid any quirks.
2) Home computer: Win10/64, Chrome and Firefox, both with the latest updates; AMD driver (OEM manufacturer) for the videocard, and everything else is exactly as Microsoft installed/updated.
I can confirm each and every example given by EskeRahn; he did a marvelous job of bugfinding, now it's DPR's turn to fix that. Pretty clear, it's some problem about the image resizer.
On a photo equipment site, having problems with the hues is a major issue; I don't really wanna switch to IE11/Edge to browse the samples.
Keeping my fingers crossed that the fix will be an easy one; best of luck to the DPR programmers! :)

Oct 12, 2016permalink

Here I have checked what it does to 120 < HUE < 200, (i.e.'blueish' between aqua and purple) in more details:
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hue_1.png
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hue_2.png

I then took a screendump of the wrong one from FireFox and merged it with the correct one.
And then checked what colour each ended as. And it seems to keep the correct saturation and luminance, but distorts the Hue?
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hue_1_2_cmp.png

Oct 12, 2016permalink

If I RIGHT click the scaled image, and select "Copy Image location" and then open this in a new tab, e.g.
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1800x1200~sample_galleries/0409860841/6539790563.jpg
Then I can see that it does NOT display correctly in neither FireFox nor Chrome, But DOES display correctly in Both IE 11 and Edge (Or if I download it to my pc)

So it is NOT the on-the-fly scaling, but the pre-saved scaled helper images that has the issue...

The total file
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS4048x3036~sample_galleries/0409860841/6539790563.jpg
does display correctly on all viewers.

By the same method mentioned above, I made two tiny 16x16 PNGs called Blue_1 and 2 (available at the same place).

If I open these as text, I see that the problematic one has a slightly larger header with a "sRGB" in it, (but has less bytes per pixel on the other hand).

In the problematic jpg header (but not the full), I also see the "sRGB" tag, so this must definitely be a clue....

Oct 12, 2016*permalink

Unfortunately it is not only the blueish colours that are affected....
See this file for examples all over the spectre.
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ColourChart_1_2_cmp-1024x489.png
from
http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/?p=1566

Oct 14, 2016permalink

***WORK-A-ROUND for FireFox***

Over at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1135380 Glenn Randers-Pehrson lead me to a work-a-round:
You can DISABLE FireFox CMS (Colour Management System), by entering

about:config , accept the warning and find and change
gfx.color.management.mode to 0 (ZERO), it is default 2
(Close and reopen browser)

That fixes it!
(I do not know what the equivalent workaround for Chrome would be)

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Hmm... we don't *want* to disable colour management, it's there for a very good reason?

Oct 16, 2016permalink

@RPG, indeed it has unwanted side effects. ;(
See e.g. this with or without CMS: http://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/

So it is not a SOLUTION but a workaround when using dpreview.... ;(

I'm currently getting more info on this whole thing and will post back, it seems to be related with the colour profiles for our displays in windows also... This is why not everybody sees it. The sRGB tag contains a reference to a profile..

Oct 16, 2016permalink

I think the correct answer should be:

1. browsers (and all other apps) should always be colour-managed
2. all images need to be tagged correctly, to avoid issues like this

In other words, we shouldn't disable an essential function like colour management, to cover up a problem in a different area. Or am I missing something obvious?

Oct 16, 2016*permalink

@RPJG
Well the problems seems to be that when the image is tagged with sRGB, the CMS of the browser in conjunction with the display profile tries to display it correctly / but fails on our displays - so the big question is what is wrong with our profiles?

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Who knows? :-)

Is it possible to PM staff like Scott Everett, do you know?

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Hurrah!
FINALLY I got it solved!
After a long back and forth in the mozilla thread above, Emanuel Hoogeveen gave me a clue that worked.
In about:config the string gfx.color_management.display_profile
enter the correct profile - for my display that is
* C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color\BDM4064.icm
And close and reopen the browser, and BINGO!

The strangest thing is that setting it back to blank it still works - see the thread

Yesterday I tried to change the profile in windows, both removing it and setting it to something, but even after boots, that did not help (both the user profile and the system default).

But you might need to fiddle with BOTH this and FF to get it to work.

....It is still a dpreview bug that the reduced images should have a sRGB tag if and ONLY if the original has one, not ALWAYS as now, but usually the difference would be so small that no-one would notice the bug.
But the bug on my system, allowed me to spot the dpreview bug...

Oct 17, 2016permalink

RedFox88

This is a HTC phone with the name Google on the back, right? Google doesn't make phones.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

psamleet

They have a hardware department now, so i guess this actually might be made by the Goog itself

Oct 10, 2016permalink

aretheregods

It's a Google phone in the same way an iPhone is an Apple and not a Foxconn product. HTC is to Google in this case what Foxconn is to Apple. It's just the case that Foxconn doesn't also sell their own branded products. But the relationship is functionally the same.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Ryan_Valiente

And it is using a Sony camera sensor.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

RedFox88

No this article says it's a HTC phone but doesn't say it on the phone anywhere. They used to make phones but that came and went when they quickly bought then sold Motorola.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

dennis tennis

Insert "meh" comments below. Submit... Find other pics, reviews, tech explanations and insert "meh" comments to those. Repeat.. Repeat

Find comments agreeing with your "meh" comments and grudgingly approve of them as being worthy to stand beside you.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Slouch Hooligan

This shows that even the simplest algorithm can result in complex annoyances.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

alexzn

This is truly impressive for a smartphone.

LarsV- surely you cannot be serious.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

I'm serious - there are other truly great phone cameras out there. I didn't say these sample photos are bad, just that if you claim to be the best ever then the bar is pretty high.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

bloodycape

Would make sense seeing as it has a 1/2.3" sensor, but has been paired with better than average jpeg engine. Sony has been also using for years(since the Z1) a 1/2.3" but you know their jpeg engine isn't the best. HTC 10 also has a similar senor(actually the same on in the 5x and 6P), but paired with a faster f1.8 lens w/ OIS. Their downfall too is the jpeg engine.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

Retzius

The images look like but they look very processed to me.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Umm.. where's the challenge in those scenes?
Not sure what I should be impressed by.
OK, the sunset sky was a bit of a challenge, which the camera failed spectacularly by blowing the saturated highlights.

Oct 10, 2016*permalink

Graham Austin

I think you'll have a hard time finding many people that wouldn't be incredibly happy at getting a shots like these from their smartphone's

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Oh I agree they look great. However Google claims it's the best phone camera ever. That's not obvious from these photos.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

(Before any judgement, check the originals at the google link, something has happened to the colours importing them to the dpreview gallery)

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Colors are exactly the same here,
as are the files down to the last byte.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

@M Jesper
See the dialogue above, some sees the difference, some does not. But if you use the Loupe it seems to display correctly, so for now I suggest using that in here to evaluate the colours,

Oct 11, 2016permalink

SimenO1

@Graham: I think the key words in your post are "from their smartphone's".

Unfortunately, many people don't have any experience with anything better so they don't know what to expect from a better camera. Most people commenting on DPR probably does.

Oct 11, 2016permalink

steelhead3

Another Sony camera...why doesn't Canon or Nikon follow the money?

Oct 10, 2016permalink

XeroJay

um... what?

Oct 10, 2016permalink

PhotoUniverse

Wrong article!!!!

Oct 10, 2016permalink

It probably is a Sony though.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

XeroJay

HTC, no?

Oct 10, 2016permalink

The sensor dude, the sensor.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

Jeff Keller

Pretty sure it's a Sony sensor... just not sure which one.

Oct 10, 2016permalink

steelhead3

Doesn't Sony sell the whole camera module as a package to the phone makers?

Oct 10, 2016permalink

XeroJay

I have no clue, but the HTC 10 is likely the same one as in the Galaxy S7, as the specs match up. Same resolution and Dual Pixel AF.

Oct 10, 2016*permalink