5 ms·

Interesting, but a tad rich with puffery. Pre-OIS Google did this with image stacking which was a ghetto version of a long exposure (stacking many short exposu

Interesting, but a tad rich with puffery. Pre-OIS Google did this with image stacking which was a ghetto version of a long exposure (stacking many short exposure photos, correcting the offsets via the gyro, was necessary to compensate for inevitable camera shake). There is nothing new or novel about image stacking or long exposures. What are they doing here? Most likely it's simply enabling OIS and enabling longer exposures than normal (note the smooth motion blur of moving objects, which is nothing more than a long exposure), and then doing noise removal. There are zero camera makers who are flipping their desks over this. It is usually a "pro" hidden feature because in the real world subjects move during long exposure and shooters are just unhappy with the result. The contrived hype around the Pixel's "computational photography" (which seems more incredible in theory than in the actual world) has reached an absurd level, and the astroturfing is just absurd.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
windexh8er 8y ago
While I'd like to believe pulling off these levels of photos is as easy as you proclaim (because I would have a lot of old shots that are usable) the level of discounting you assert here is unfortunate, because it's simply not true. The proof is in the reality that nothing has done this good of a job to date. If you do have examples that match or exceed please share and I will be in line to buy.
- endorphone 8y ago
  Just to be clear, I've been a serious photographer (amateur, not professional, but with all of the gear) for two decades, and actually made a pretty popular computational photography app for Android. I honestly don't know which part you're doubting. Long exposures? Do you doubt that other cameras can do long exposures? Do you doubt that they can do noise reduction? Do you doubt that OIS allows for hand-held long exposures, especially on wide-angle lenses? What are you doubting, because these are all trivial things that you can validate yourself. As to examples, you're wide-eyed taking a puff piece with some absolutely banal examples and exaggerated descriptions -- and zero comparable photos from other devices -- by someone who apparently knows very little about photography. How should I counter that? I can find millions of night streetscape photos that absolutely blow away the examples given. Generally if you're going to pander to a manufacturer, you at least talk about things like lux. In this case it's just "look, between this setting and that setting it's different, therefore no one else can do it".
  - windexh8er 8y ago
    I don't doubt it's at all possible and that's really great you're a serious photographer with dev skills to write a camera app. But the reality here is it's not something that has been done and packaged up so well to be easily repeatable by those not as elite as yourself with regard to photography. We all understand stacking photos (HDR) is a thing and long exposure is likely as old as photography itself. But you clearly don't see the value in making it usable by anyone, at any time, in a device you carry with you that does many other things well. To give Google credit for advancing smart phone photography is very fair and very deserved. While they may not have advanced pro-level equipment, process or technology if that's what you're looking for you've completely missed the obvious point. I said it last year in a similar post. I have a very viable camera that shoots amazing and consistent photos and videos without having to lug around my DSLR gear. And it's ready in seconds when I pull it out... Are they award winning shots? Nope. But they're priceless to me since I can capture my family and life moments with increasingly better results with less user awareness or input. Do I enjoy manual photography? Sure do - that's not the point and I feel as though you've missed that.
  - shaklee3 8y ago
    I think it's already been said many times to you, but it's not just long exposure. They take many exposures, throw out the over-exposed (which slrs don't do), and use AI to do smart color mapping in very dark regions. There are no cameras or software out there that produce results like this. Period. There are now plenty of night sight pictures compared next to the new iPhone. The iPhone looks objectively terrible compared to the pixel. Is that because the pixel has a much better sensor? No. Apple would buy it if so. It's computational photography, and there's nothing Apple or Samsung can do in the short term to match it.
    - endorphone 8y ago
      There are no cameras or software out there that produce results like this. Period. The Huawei P20 has a night mode that in many cases is superior. So much for the "period". Further it's gimmicky and has downsides that make it pertinent for a tiny percentage of pictures. Which is why it's hidden behind a "more" option. Apple doesn't have it because Apple is about making everything easy for the 99%. Image stacking is not difficult. It is not new. Image stacking is effectively a long exposure (I've said this probably a dozen times, but still it's like people are correcting me), with some unique advantages, and some unique disadvantages. In every one of the examples given it is indistinguishable from a long exposure.
ehsankia 8y ago
If it was so simple to take handheld long exposure photos, how come no other phone had done it yet? I think you are overly simplifying this. At a high level it might be a simple concept, but clearly getting it working in practice isn't simple otherwise every company out there would've added it years ago.
- endorphone 8y ago
  Lots of other phones do let you do it, usually in pro or manual setting. It requires a pre-requisite of good OIS (which paradoxically the Pixel 1 didn't have, claiming that it wasn't necessary -- because of some magic AI sauce or something -- and seeing that noise repeated across the tubs. They added it with 2 and 3) and usually it is hidden behind an interface. Why? Because 99.9999% of smartphone photos in real use (e.g. not in a review), give or take 100%, are of people. People move. Long exposures just lead to bad outcomes and blurred people. I mean seriously search the net for Pixel 3 night mode. It's like the Suit Is Back. They're even using the same verbiage across them. And the uproarious nonsense about Google using AI to colourize is just...well a place like HN should just be chuckling at it.
  - gst 8y ago
    > Lots of other phones do let you do it, usually in pro or manual setting. It requires a pre-requisite of good OIS (which paradoxically the Pixel 1 didn't have, claiming that it wasn't necessary -- because of some magic AI sauce or something -- and seeing that noise repeated across the tubs. Night Sight works perfectly fine on the Pixel 1. > Why? Because 99.9999% of smartphone photos in real use (e.g. not in a review), give or take 100%, are of people. People move. Long exposures just lead to bad outcomes and blurred people. I tested Night Sight with pictures of people and it also works fine in those cases. Even pictures takes with the front camera (without a tripod, etc.) look great.
    - endorphone 8y ago
      The very article linked notes that moving subjects like people turn into a blur. Of the various submarine stories about this, I've seen a single picture of a kid, and the kid is blurred (despite standing as still as they can). Your Pixel 1 likely sets a ceiling on the exposure time. The results may be great to you, but I doubt they compare to a Pixel 3. And of course in all of these cases about these great photos, there are zero examples from any other devices. Just with and without on a Pixel device.
mediaman 8y ago
I can see your point: this basically just looks like long exposures, or stacked exposures, which is basically the same thing of letting more photons hit the sensor, aligned using OIS. Any thoughts on why Apple, as the other leading phone maker with a heavy emphasis on camera quality, has not implemented anything like it? Not to discount the difficulty, but OIS aligned long exposures kind of seems like low hanging fruit. Instead, they keep trying to open the aperture more.
- modzu 8y ago
  well to be fair google hasnt implemented it yet either. there could be significant reasons for that, like results could be worse than default except in specific situations
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  Well, Apply has dropped the ball on camera quality some time ago.
dgacmu 8y ago
I'm sorry, but while you may be a photography fan, you don't know what you're talking about here. Stacking is quite the opposite of a "ghetto" version of a long exposure - it's the fundamental building block of being able to do the equivalent of a long exposure without its associated problems (motion blur from both camera and subject, high sensor noise if you turn up the gain, and over-saturating any bright spots). Stacking is the de facto technique used for DSLR astrophotography for exactly these reasons -- see https://photographingspace.com/stacking-vs-single/ https://photographingspace.com/stacking-vs-single/ However, you're ignoring the _very substantial_ challenges of merging many exposures taken on a handheld camera. Image stabilization is great, but there's a lot of motion over, say, 1 second on a hand-held camera. Much more than the typical IS algorithm is designed to handle. The techniques are non-trivial: http://graphics.stanford.edu/talks/seeinthedark-public-15sep16.key.pdf http://graphics.stanford.edu/talks/seeinthedark-public-15sep... There's a lot going on to accomplish this. It starts with the ability to do high-speed burst reads of raw data from the CCD (so that individual frames don't get motion blurred, and raw so you can process before you lose any fidelity by RGB conversion), and requires a lot of computational horsepower to perform alignment and do merging. I don't know what the Pixel's algorithms are, but merging of many images with hand-held camera motion benefits from state of the art results in applying CNNs to the problem, at least, from some of the results from Vladlen Koltun's group at Intel (who I'd put at the forefront of this, along with Marc Levoy's group at Google): http://vladlen.info/publications/learning-see-dark/ http://vladlen.info/publications/learning-see-dark/ I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the technical meat behind state of the art low-light photography on cell phones.
- endorphone 8y ago
  "you don't know what you're talking about here" You literally repeated exactly what I said image stacking was, yet lead off by claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about. Classic. The goal of both is to achieve the exact same result -- more photons for a given pixel. Stacking is a necessary compromise under certain circumstances -- lack of sufficient stabilization, particularly noisy sensor or environment, etc. Further, this implementation is clearly long exposures (note the blur rather than strobe).
Jyaif 8y ago
Seems pretty damn slow if it's only stacking multiple images.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

windexh8er 8y ago

While I'd like to believe pulling off these levels of photos is as easy as you proclaim (because I would have a lot of old shots that are usable) the level of discounting you assert here is unfortunate, because it's simply not true. The proof is in the reality that nothing has done this good of a job to date. If you do have examples that match or exceed please share and I will be in line to buy.

endorphone 8y ago
Just to be clear, I've been a serious photographer (amateur, not professional, but with all of the gear) for two decades, and actually made a pretty popular computational photography app for Android. I honestly don't know which part you're doubting. Long exposures? Do you doubt that other cameras can do long exposures? Do you doubt that they can do noise reduction? Do you doubt that OIS allows for hand-held long exposures, especially on wide-angle lenses? What are you doubting, because these are all trivial things that you can validate yourself. As to examples, you're wide-eyed taking a puff piece with some absolutely banal examples and exaggerated descriptions -- and zero comparable photos from other devices -- by someone who apparently knows very little about photography. How should I counter that? I can find millions of night streetscape photos that absolutely blow away the examples given. Generally if you're going to pander to a manufacturer, you at least talk about things like lux. In this case it's just "look, between this setting and that setting it's different, therefore no one else can do it".
- windexh8er 8y ago
  I don't doubt it's at all possible and that's really great you're a serious photographer with dev skills to write a camera app. But the reality here is it's not something that has been done and packaged up so well to be easily repeatable by those not as elite as yourself with regard to photography. We all understand stacking photos (HDR) is a thing and long exposure is likely as old as photography itself. But you clearly don't see the value in making it usable by anyone, at any time, in a device you carry with you that does many other things well. To give Google credit for advancing smart phone photography is very fair and very deserved. While they may not have advanced pro-level equipment, process or technology if that's what you're looking for you've completely missed the obvious point. I said it last year in a similar post. I have a very viable camera that shoots amazing and consistent photos and videos without having to lug around my DSLR gear. And it's ready in seconds when I pull it out... Are they award winning shots? Nope. But they're priceless to me since I can capture my family and life moments with increasingly better results with less user awareness or input. Do I enjoy manual photography? Sure do - that's not the point and I feel as though you've missed that.
- shaklee3 8y ago
  I think it's already been said many times to you, but it's not just long exposure. They take many exposures, throw out the over-exposed (which slrs don't do), and use AI to do smart color mapping in very dark regions. There are no cameras or software out there that produce results like this. Period. There are now plenty of night sight pictures compared next to the new iPhone. The iPhone looks objectively terrible compared to the pixel. Is that because the pixel has a much better sensor? No. Apple would buy it if so. It's computational photography, and there's nothing Apple or Samsung can do in the short term to match it.
  - endorphone 8y ago
    There are no cameras or software out there that produce results like this. Period. The Huawei P20 has a night mode that in many cases is superior. So much for the "period". Further it's gimmicky and has downsides that make it pertinent for a tiny percentage of pictures. Which is why it's hidden behind a "more" option. Apple doesn't have it because Apple is about making everything easy for the 99%. Image stacking is not difficult. It is not new. Image stacking is effectively a long exposure (I've said this probably a dozen times, but still it's like people are correcting me), with some unique advantages, and some unique disadvantages. In every one of the examples given it is indistinguishable from a long exposure.

ehsankia 8y ago

If it was so simple to take handheld long exposure photos, how come no other phone had done it yet? I think you are overly simplifying this. At a high level it might be a simple concept, but clearly getting it working in practice isn't simple otherwise every company out there would've added it years ago.

endorphone 8y ago
Lots of other phones do let you do it, usually in pro or manual setting. It requires a pre-requisite of good OIS (which paradoxically the Pixel 1 didn't have, claiming that it wasn't necessary -- because of some magic AI sauce or something -- and seeing that noise repeated across the tubs. They added it with 2 and 3) and usually it is hidden behind an interface. Why? Because 99.9999% of smartphone photos in real use (e.g. not in a review), give or take 100%, are of people. People move. Long exposures just lead to bad outcomes and blurred people. I mean seriously search the net for Pixel 3 night mode. It's like the Suit Is Back. They're even using the same verbiage across them. And the uproarious nonsense about Google using AI to colourize is just...well a place like HN should just be chuckling at it.
- gst 8y ago
  > Lots of other phones do let you do it, usually in pro or manual setting. It requires a pre-requisite of good OIS (which paradoxically the Pixel 1 didn't have, claiming that it wasn't necessary -- because of some magic AI sauce or something -- and seeing that noise repeated across the tubs. Night Sight works perfectly fine on the Pixel 1. > Why? Because 99.9999% of smartphone photos in real use (e.g. not in a review), give or take 100%, are of people. People move. Long exposures just lead to bad outcomes and blurred people. I tested Night Sight with pictures of people and it also works fine in those cases. Even pictures takes with the front camera (without a tripod, etc.) look great.
  - endorphone 8y ago
    The very article linked notes that moving subjects like people turn into a blur. Of the various submarine stories about this, I've seen a single picture of a kid, and the kid is blurred (despite standing as still as they can). Your Pixel 1 likely sets a ceiling on the exposure time. The results may be great to you, but I doubt they compare to a Pixel 3. And of course in all of these cases about these great photos, there are zero examples from any other devices. Just with and without on a Pixel device.

mediaman 8y ago

I can see your point: this basically just looks like long exposures, or stacked exposures, which is basically the same thing of letting more photons hit the sensor, aligned using OIS. Any thoughts on why Apple, as the other leading phone maker with a heavy emphasis on camera quality, has not implemented anything like it? Not to discount the difficulty, but OIS aligned long exposures kind of seems like low hanging fruit. Instead, they keep trying to open the aperture more.

modzu 8y ago
well to be fair google hasnt implemented it yet either. there could be significant reasons for that, like results could be worse than default except in specific situations
TheForumTroll 8y ago
Well, Apply has dropped the ball on camera quality some time ago.

dgacmu 8y ago

I'm sorry, but while you may be a photography fan, you don't know what you're talking about here. Stacking is quite the opposite of a "ghetto" version of a long exposure - it's the fundamental building block of being able to do the equivalent of a long exposure without its associated problems (motion blur from both camera and subject, high sensor noise if you turn up the gain, and over-saturating any bright spots). Stacking is the de facto technique used for DSLR astrophotography for exactly these reasons -- see https://photographingspace.com/stacking-vs-single/ https://photographingspace.com/stacking-vs-single/ However, you're ignoring the _very substantial_ challenges of merging many exposures taken on a handheld camera. Image stabilization is great, but there's a lot of motion over, say, 1 second on a hand-held camera. Much more than the typical IS algorithm is designed to handle. The techniques are non-trivial: http://graphics.stanford.edu/talks/seeinthedark-public-15sep16.key.pdf http://graphics.stanford.edu/talks/seeinthedark-public-15sep... There's a lot going on to accomplish this. It starts with the ability to do high-speed burst reads of raw data from the CCD (so that individual frames don't get motion blurred, and raw so you can process before you lose any fidelity by RGB conversion), and requires a lot of computational horsepower to perform alignment and do merging. I don't know what the Pixel's algorithms are, but merging of many images with hand-held camera motion benefits from state of the art results in applying CNNs to the problem, at least, from some of the results from Vladlen Koltun's group at Intel (who I'd put at the forefront of this, along with Marc Levoy's group at Google): http://vladlen.info/publications/learning-see-dark/ http://vladlen.info/publications/learning-see-dark/ I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the technical meat behind state of the art low-light photography on cell phones.

endorphone 8y ago
"you don't know what you're talking about here" You literally repeated exactly what I said image stacking was, yet lead off by claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about. Classic. The goal of both is to achieve the exact same result -- more photons for a given pixel. Stacking is a necessary compromise under certain circumstances -- lack of sufficient stabilization, particularly noisy sensor or environment, etc. Further, this implementation is clearly long exposures (note the blur rather than strobe).

Jyaif 8y ago

Seems pretty damn slow if it's only stacking multiple images.