3 ms·

Software is a problem because software is what lets the dinky smartphone camera get a near-mirrorless-level result. If the mirrorless body had the smartphone's

Software is a problem because software is what lets the dinky smartphone camera get a near-mirrorless-level result. If the mirrorless body had the smartphone's software, the image quality would be mindblowing.

aikinai 4y ago
Smartphones are nowhere near mirrorless level. Maybe if you only look at the thumbnail? Actually even then they would only be similar in extremely bright environments. I agree mirrorless cameras could do more, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the compromises (power, cost, etc). The cameras don’t need all the processing since they have plenty of real signal to work with. If they did use a bunch of processing, it would need to be entirely new techniques from what phones do since those are pointless when you already have a quality image.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? That would also provide more artistic control, which is desirable on a professional/prosumer device. (I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)
- Zak 4y ago
  The main software tricks phones are using are HDR and noise reduction by means of stacking. Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod or a very good image stabilizer, though I imagine some software can align and perspective-shift them enough to get decent results.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Funny you mention that. I recently stumbled onto software that does just that [1]. It implements Google’s stacking algorithm that it uses for the pixel line. It’s Mac only, but fantastic. Even a two photo stack produces much better noise reduction than I could get from software. [1] https://burst.photo/ https://burst.photo/
    - totoglazer 4y ago
      It’s neat. I think it falls short on the comparison to the Google paper where they provide comparisons. However they get major points for the clarity and honesty on the tech.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        It's hard to tell exactly since while their comparison image is the same (the taxi cab) it looks like they've increased the exposure on their comparison. The app also says it uses a "simplified" version of the approach google lays out, but doesn't provide more details about what was simplified out. (and I haven't dived through the code)
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    > Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod Yeah, since I don't have a tripod I've found it to be basically useless (although it's very possible I haven't found the right software). I have always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the camera's physical shutter prevented getting shots in as quick succession as a phone. The thing is, the camera has enough dynamic range I don't feel like I need more than one shot anyway.
    - Zak 4y ago
      Some mirrorless cameras do this better, offering very fast burst rates with electronic shutter and good enough stabilization for easy stacking.
- dboreham 4y ago
  > Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? I'm not sure if this was a ironic comment, but assuming not: all serious cameras have been able to do this for 20 years.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    I thought maybe GP was referring to something more complex than your standard RAW capture. No idea what that would entail.
- squokko 4y ago
  The phone's camera hardware is different. It captures a short burst of photos at high frame rate, and also integrates the data from the gyroscope to cancel out the effects of camera shake.

aikinai 4y ago

Smartphones are nowhere near mirrorless level. Maybe if you only look at the thumbnail? Actually even then they would only be similar in extremely bright environments. I agree mirrorless cameras could do more, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the compromises (power, cost, etc). The cameras don’t need all the processing since they have plenty of real signal to work with. If they did use a bunch of processing, it would need to be entirely new techniques from what phones do since those are pointless when you already have a quality image.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? That would also provide more artistic control, which is desirable on a professional/prosumer device. (I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)

Zak 4y ago
The main software tricks phones are using are HDR and noise reduction by means of stacking. Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod or a very good image stabilizer, though I imagine some software can align and perspective-shift them enough to get decent results.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  Funny you mention that. I recently stumbled onto software that does just that [1]. It implements Google’s stacking algorithm that it uses for the pixel line. It’s Mac only, but fantastic. Even a two photo stack produces much better noise reduction than I could get from software. [1] https://burst.photo/ https://burst.photo/
  - totoglazer 4y ago
    It’s neat. I think it falls short on the comparison to the Google paper where they provide comparisons. However they get major points for the clarity and honesty on the tech.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      It's hard to tell exactly since while their comparison image is the same (the taxi cab) it looks like they've increased the exposure on their comparison. The app also says it uses a "simplified" version of the approach google lays out, but doesn't provide more details about what was simplified out. (and I haven't dived through the code)
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod Yeah, since I don't have a tripod I've found it to be basically useless (although it's very possible I haven't found the right software). I have always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the camera's physical shutter prevented getting shots in as quick succession as a phone. The thing is, the camera has enough dynamic range I don't feel like I need more than one shot anyway.
  - Zak 4y ago
    Some mirrorless cameras do this better, offering very fast burst rates with electronic shutter and good enough stabilization for easy stacking.
dboreham 4y ago
> Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? I'm not sure if this was a ironic comment, but assuming not: all serious cameras have been able to do this for 20 years.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I thought maybe GP was referring to something more complex than your standard RAW capture. No idea what that would entail.
squokko 4y ago
The phone's camera hardware is different. It captures a short burst of photos at high frame rate, and also integrates the data from the gyroscope to cancel out the effects of camera shake.