6 ms·

as a social network whose main feature is taking photos, why wouldn't you want that to be in the best quality possible?

mynameisvlad 9y ago
The main feature is not "taking photos", it's "capturing memories for quick sharing". The additional time it takes to focus/take the photo (which, judging by certain built in camera apps, could be seconds) makes or breaks the in the moment feel. In the end, these photos are meant to be looked at for max 10s with stickers/drawings/text superimposed. You don't need a high quality shot for that.
- distantsounds 9y ago
  I think you are overstating the delay involved in taking a photo and having it process inside Android. Whether or not you're taking a screenshot of the viewfinder or properly processing the photo, the moment you press the shutter button is the exact moment that Android captures what the camera sees. The processing that goes inside may take a second or so (if you're using the camera API) but it's fairly negligible in the long run. Any other app on Android that properly uses the camera - whether it's a built-in camera app or something third party like Facebook, Instagram, OpenCamera, Snapseed, etc - it's not like you're waiting 15 seconds for an image to process. It's all fairly quick and seamless. The excuse of "oh it's just for quick sharing so we don't have to focus on quality" is a strawman argument that doesn't really work, because the tech is there to allow it to function both beautifully and quickly - they just don't put the resources into making it happen.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    I think it can take a hundred milliseconds or more to actually capture. It has to switch the camera from preview mode to capture, which involves a change in resolution, encoding and perhaps recalibrating white balance and automatic gain. So press the button and hold for a beat, or when you release the button you make shake/blur the image at the moment of capture.
    - distantsounds 9y ago
      None of these performance hits sound like they negatively affect the purpose of the app though, at least not detrimentally to the point where poeple would complain about it. I am but one person, but there are far more complaints about the quality of the photos, than the milliseconds of lag you see hitting the capture button.
  - recursive 9y ago
    Using the stock camera app on my unmodified LG G6, this is just not true. There's about a second of lag between pressing the button, and actually capturing photons. Trying to capture my son in a specific pose is basically impossible. Maybe I'll download an app that screenshots a live video, rather than using the camera API, or whatever it's doing.
    - distantsounds 9y ago
      Try the Google Camera app that's in the store.
otachack 9y ago
Depends on what you mean by "high quality" If you're talking about >1MB photos, that can be a hefty payload to upload for a subset of users with poor connections. Keeping the photos lean enough but where it still looks great on the wide variety of phones is probably a better approach. That being said, I'm not sure if they get that kind of quality just from a viewfinder screenshot.
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  It would be the same amount of data if they scale the image on the client and transfer it. The problem isn't compression quality or resolution, it's that it doesn't properly autofocus or adjust for very bright or low light conditions.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
The main feature is absolutely not taking photos. Snapchat's product fit is high volume low effort communication. In fact, I'd say the low quality pics is almost a feature, because most of the times people put stickers or one of those dynamic face manipulation 'sunglasses' or 'crown' on the picture, and those (inherently low res) would look ridiculous if they were put on very high res images.

The main feature is not "taking photos", it's "capturing memories for quick sharing". The additional time it takes to focus/take the photo (which, judging by certain built in camera apps, could be seconds) makes or breaks the in the moment feel. In the end, these photos are meant to be looked at for max 10s with stickers/drawings/text superimposed. You don't need a high quality shot for that.

distantsounds 9y ago
I think you are overstating the delay involved in taking a photo and having it process inside Android. Whether or not you're taking a screenshot of the viewfinder or properly processing the photo, the moment you press the shutter button is the exact moment that Android captures what the camera sees. The processing that goes inside may take a second or so (if you're using the camera API) but it's fairly negligible in the long run. Any other app on Android that properly uses the camera - whether it's a built-in camera app or something third party like Facebook, Instagram, OpenCamera, Snapseed, etc - it's not like you're waiting 15 seconds for an image to process. It's all fairly quick and seamless. The excuse of "oh it's just for quick sharing so we don't have to focus on quality" is a strawman argument that doesn't really work, because the tech is there to allow it to function both beautifully and quickly - they just don't put the resources into making it happen.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I think it can take a hundred milliseconds or more to actually capture. It has to switch the camera from preview mode to capture, which involves a change in resolution, encoding and perhaps recalibrating white balance and automatic gain. So press the button and hold for a beat, or when you release the button you make shake/blur the image at the moment of capture.
  - distantsounds 9y ago
    None of these performance hits sound like they negatively affect the purpose of the app though, at least not detrimentally to the point where poeple would complain about it. I am but one person, but there are far more complaints about the quality of the photos, than the milliseconds of lag you see hitting the capture button.
- recursive 9y ago
  Using the stock camera app on my unmodified LG G6, this is just not true. There's about a second of lag between pressing the button, and actually capturing photons. Trying to capture my son in a specific pose is basically impossible. Maybe I'll download an app that screenshots a live video, rather than using the camera API, or whatever it's doing.
  - distantsounds 9y ago
    Try the Google Camera app that's in the store.

otachack 9y ago

Depends on what you mean by "high quality" If you're talking about >1MB photos, that can be a hefty payload to upload for a subset of users with poor connections. Keeping the photos lean enough but where it still looks great on the wide variety of phones is probably a better approach. That being said, I'm not sure if they get that kind of quality just from a viewfinder screenshot.

squeaky-clean 9y ago
It would be the same amount of data if they scale the image on the client and transfer it. The problem isn't compression quality or resolution, it's that it doesn't properly autofocus or adjust for very bright or low light conditions.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

The main feature is absolutely not taking photos. Snapchat's product fit is high volume low effort communication. In fact, I'd say the low quality pics is almost a feature, because most of the times people put stickers or one of those dynamic face manipulation 'sunglasses' or 'crown' on the picture, and those (inherently low res) would look ridiculous if they were put on very high res images.