Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Smartphone photography
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is with our definitions of "more than good enough for typical WEB presentation". I see problems with image at 1080p. Displayed at the same size on 4k monitor, these differences would be more obvious.

What is a "typical web presentation", anyway? Phone screen, tablet, 24" 1080p, 4k? LOL


PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
The problem is with our definitions of "more than good enough for typical WEB presentation". I see problems with image at 1080p. Displayed at the same size on 4k monitor, these differences would be more obvious.

What is a "typical web presentation", anyway? Phone screen, tablet, 24" 1080p, 4k? LOL


A typical WEB presentation is the maximum picture size of 2048px on the long side as limited by Facebook and alike...
I think I have already mentioned this earlier in this thread.

Once more: Before uploading pictures either in FB or even in this forum I'm downsizing them to 2048px anyway, irrespective whether they are coming from my smartphone, an APS-C or even my A7R II 42MP FF camera.
Otherwise Facebook will do the downsizing and I've found out that the FB compression quality is worse. That's comparable with the applied compression in this forum: Only if you click on the presented pictures to enable 100% view in a newly opened browser you will see usually a better quality.
This is what I consider as "typical WEB presentation". In Lightroom and other programs there is a built-in standard function to export for WEB-presentation to achieve that.

OK, but I accept that I know now at least 2 people which might have some problems with my presented pictures if they are shot with my smartphone. Wink

The rest of the world is not even able to spot any difference if the pictures are presented without EXIF information in the same size. I've already tested this several times....

The other story is how the pictures are presented and what you consider as the same size. There is a difference if you look onto a picture within a browser (scaled picture) or download the picture to view it in a photo-app unscaled; i.e. in original size and original quality. IMHO that's the only acceptable method to really judge the quality and possible quality differences. In this case the size of the screen, the resolution of the screen and of course the viewing distance play an very important role.
Bottom line: You have to make sure to compare always the same input size at the same output size.

There is an ongoing rumor that the A7 III with 24MP sensor has better low light capabilities compared to the A7R II with 42MP sensor because people compare the small 24MP picture with the large 42 picture both at 100% view. However, the truth is that if you downsize the 42MP to 24MP (same size) before that comparison the A7R II is clearly the winner also at highest possible ISO settings, although in 100% 42MP view the noise is higher due to the higher pixel density.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey fellows, a couple of years passed since the last majour update of this thread. I wonder if you noticed a major improvement in your smartphone photography after having updated the phone of the software.

Some friends showed me their shots taken with Pixel phones and I was impressed with a pretty succesfull imitation of film reflex quality and with a smart out-of-the-box PP done by the program layers of the phone, usually reached by human maniplation. Meanwhile pricing stared from 550 and the lack of PP choice remaining to you, as "everything" is already done by the machine, seemed to me negative factors.

I've recently got a Redmi Note 10 Pro (with a 1/1.5" main sensor), basing on positive reviews. Having it in my hands, I was pretty positively impressed by the close field out-of-the-box photography (among other things, I think the phone lifts the level of blacks thus giving the shots a kind of "pro" feeling) and negatively shocked by ugly square effects of shapes rendered close to infinity. Algoithms of my older Moto, having a smaller sensor (1/2.5"), rendered infinity in a more natural way, even though always slightly veiled. Trying to deal with my shock, I set myself to reading and quickly acknowledged that Xiaomi phones make 1 effective pixel of every 4 physical ones to produce RAW files, thus rendering a 12Mp real resolution (instead of the declared 108Mp). But that was not the whole story. I was still convinced that the algorithm was the key.

So I installed a GCam mod with some libraries and tweaks proposed at XDA forums. Such a customisation worked pretty well. I have now less ugly squares at fine detail (at a price of the file weight), even though I am still not totally satisfied with the way the setup translates sensor dots into jpeg shapes. But if you disregard such infinity issues (and, more generally, fine detail approximation), the overall feeling of close and mid-range shots is pretty impressive as for detail and pop. Night shots are also good overall. Some shots look pretty close to Pixel while not that "perfect" thus leaving to me a certain degree of freedom with PP at my taste.

Here are several samples SOOC jpeg at various distances (click to see them in original size).

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


I would be interested to hear of your latest experience.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, yes and one more thing. I started having a suspicion that latest phone cameras are physically optimized to take best shots at close distance, just like some of older manual lenses. This could explain why Redmi grasps much better detail in near field than at infinity. An old Canon S90 has a similar sensor size, but it seems to deal better with infinity than Redmi and several other models whose samples might be found online.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
I wonder if you noticed a major improvement in your smartphone photography after having updated the phone

your samples look like a joke to me, especially in the tree foliage (over processed)
but the best camera is the one you have with you, so smartphone is indeed smart and pano stich algorithm are quite good and fast


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
your samples look like a joke to me, especially in the tree foliage (over processed)


That's exactly the issue! And even a 100% jpeg quality set in-phone does not help too much. Where from comes my suspicious idea that the phone camera is no more optimized for the whole range of distances, but for close range shots, in order to satisfy the most widely used type of photography: self, friends and pets.

If you look in EXIF, even in shots manually focused at infinity, the phone says the distance of 13m. Which is a bit too little for infinity, I guess, even with a sensor this size.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
poilu wrote:
your samples look like a joke to me, especially in the tree foliage (over processed)


That's exactly the issue! And even a 100% jpeg quality set in-phone does not help too much. Where from comes my suspicious idea that the phone camera is no more optimized for the whole range of distances, but for close range shots, in order to satisfy the most widely used type of photography: self, friends and pets.

If you look in EXIF, even in shots manually focused at infinity, the phone says the distance of 13m. Which is a bit too little for infinity, I guess, even with a sensor this size.

13m is more than enough for infinity if you use the wide angle of your phone. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the tip, Calvin.

So this is mostly algorithm to blame. I find it a real pity that growing sensors in smartphones do not result in better IQ through the distance range.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Thank you for the tip, Calvin.

So this is mostly algorithm to blame. I find it a real pity that growing sensors in smartphones do not result in better IQ through the distance range.


If you want better IQ from a smartphone, they would need to be quite a bit thicker (at least when using conventional optics).

With the small sensor size, they are just working too close to the limits of the laws of physics of conventional optics to allow much operational freedom (aperture settings, DOF control, diffraction limits etc.) Hence most will need to be done/simulated with post-processing algorithms, extracting the required combined information from simultaneous shots taken with multiple lenses (if more than one lens is available).

Even if they make the sensors a little bigger, that results in quite a few compromises in the optics as long as they insist on the current camera location/orientation in those phones.

Perhaps one day a smartphone designer will have the enlightened idea to use a foldable feature to incorporate a mirror system in the optical path to enable both a bigger sensor as well as longer optical imaging path (a bit like the old foldable Polaroid cameras).

Given the small size of the current optics in smartphone cameras, I cannot understand why they don't incorporate the camera in a rotatable/flippable corner unit so you can take waist-level or ground-level macro shots whilst seeing the screen...


PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That must be a tight competition between the strive to render phones as compact as possible and the quality of photo. I imagine that phone producers would always go for compactness, trying to resolve IQ issues with computational means.

Adding more lenses and sensors is one solution. Could another one be transforming back panel into one large sensor (while the technology gets cheaper) and capturing light particles, then processing them into visual shapes?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
That must be a tight competition between the strive to render phones as compact as possible and the quality of photo. I imagine that phone producers would always go for compactness, trying to resolve IQ issues with computational means.


Well, thinness perhaps. I don't know if you have noticed but whilst smartphones have been getting thinner, they are simultaneously increasing in size. Soon the distinction between tablets and smartphones will become blurry...

alex ph wrote:
Adding more lenses and sensors is one solution. Could another one be transforming back panel into one large sensor (while the technology gets cheaper) and capturing light particles, then processing them into visual shapes?


That would definitely require some non-conventional optics. I suspect it would take quite some time of R&D to come up with something that gives a better IQ that way...


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You correct me right, smartphones become certainly thinner, not more compact in surface. Three years ago I acknowledged that if you wish a smaller screen size, like in the previous generation, you pay more and not less. Strange times. I wonder if media producers do not subside smartphone producers to create larger screen devices.

As for the future development of R&D smart cameras, I imagine that one day there must be a break with the original model of film reflex in imaging model. Micro lenses, like those present on sensor surface, might be used to fous and capture light. So, instead of one (or three) optic lenses focusing light on a sensor, there might be light capturing surfaces processing light directly.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
You correct me right, smartphones become certainly thinner, not more compact in surface. Three years ago I acknowledged that if you wish a smaller screen size, like in the previous generation, you pay more and not less. Strange times. I wonder if media producers do not subside smartphone producers to create larger screen devices.


I think it simply represents people's browsing habits and commuters watching streaming services on the way into work that are driving the popularity of bigger screens.

alex ph wrote:
As for the future development of R&D smart cameras, I imagine that one day there must be a break with the original model of film reflex in imaging model. Micro lenses, like those present on sensor surface, might be used to fous and capture light. So, instead of one (or three) optic lenses focusing light on a sensor, there might be light capturing surfaces processing light directly.


Possibly. That will place other limitations on e.g. how much DOF control can be achieved optically rather than in post-processing (not that smartphones provide much in the way of optical DOF control as it is...)


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 small


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which smartphone app for photo making do you recommend?


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Which smartphone app for photo making do you recommend?


I only have experience with the iPhone, but when I want more control I tend to use the Halide app. It offers far more manual control (exposure, focus, white balance) but it has an annoying habit of forgetting the chosen white balance setting when you close the app or switch between the lenses Rolling Eyes

Despite its quirks, as a photographer I find Halide much preferable to Apple's own Camera app, which offers neither manual focus nor white balance control.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which smartphone app for photo making do you recommend for Android phones?


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use GCam mods (original Google (Pixel) Camera tweaked by expert persons for autonomous use). Current mods are deriving from GCam 8.4, if you are on Android 11 or 12. I may recommend LMC GCam 8.4 which is pretty fine and stable, especially with appropriate settings (XML files diffused by enthousiasts) which you may readjust to you taste.

You may render yourself to XDA developers forum which is specialized in Android modding, enter your phone model in the search string and see which software camera apks and GCam mods are available and recommended for your phone.

If you are a Moto user, a Moto 2 Cam is pretty good, and it is ported by Nemesis team for custom ROMs. in Xiaomi univers Miui cam is appreciated, even though GCam mods are more flexible and tweakable.

As for in-phone PP, try Snapseed which is a really impressive tool, a kind of free Android Photoshop without troubles. It was once developed by Google, then the development stopped, but you still find it working in Android 11 and 12.

A combination of a free GCam mod + Snapseed is a real pleasure.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As my Xiaomi Mi9 was too cumbersome for my motorbike excursions (not waterproof) I decided to acquire a new smartphone which will fulfill both my requirements.
1. waterproof to be used as a navigation system on my motorbike and
2. providing good pictures.

Therefore, I've got the OnePlus 9 Pro which I already took on my recent excursion through the Dolomites in Northern Italy.

Here are some example pictures, straight from the camera, just downsized for presentation (clickable for best quality viewing):

#1


#2


#3


IMHO there is no need to carry any separate camera for my bike excursions. Very nice picture quality, particularly for landscapes.

Cheers,


PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
As my Xiaomi Mi9 was too cumbersome for my motorbike excursions (not waterproof) I decided to acquire a new smartphone which will fulfill both my requirements.
1. waterproof to be used as a navigation system on my motorbike and
2. providing good pictures.

Therefore, I've got the OnePlus 9 Pro which I already took on my recent excursion through the Dolomites in Northern Italy.

Here are some example pictures, straight from the camera, just downsized for presentation (clickable for best quality viewing):

#1


#2


#3


IMHO there is no need to carry any separate camera for my bike excursions. Very nice picture quality, particularly for landscapes.

Cheers,

Great results for a smartphone! Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
As my Xiaomi Mi9 was too cumbersome for my motorbike excursions (not waterproof) I decided to acquire a new smartphone which will fulfill both my requirements.
1. waterproof to be used as a navigation system on my motorbike and
2. providing good pictures.

Therefore, I've got the OnePlus 9 Pro which I already took on my recent excursion through the Dolomites in Northern Italy.

Here are some example pictures, straight from the camera, just downsized for presentation (clickable for best quality viewing):

...

IMHO there is no need to carry any separate camera for my bike excursions. Very nice picture quality, particularly for landscapes.

Cheers,


Like 1 nice shots!

Optimal conditions for use of a smartphone here:

- excellent light
- large DOF desired
- sun not in or near the frame


PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you!

@RokkorDoctor

Indeed, the conditions have been optimal and it helps a lot when you have some ideas about photography. Wink
However, the result is important for me and as I already stated before: For me it's a very good compromise between portability and picture quality when on tour; i.e. it will not replace my camera equipment.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for sharing, Thomas! Those are very nice landscapes.

One of the nice things you have, they are looking natural, without evident procession artifacts jumping to the eyes. And this is still not a banal thing in modern smartphone photography.

Do you have by chance a tree shot, while the tree was at distance of 7-10 meters from the camera of your phone?

I am looking through various setups for my smartphone, searching for a more natural appearance of natural shapes. The problem from which suffer many otherwise interesting setups is resampling of spontaneously diffused dots of light into squares or regular dotted patterns even in jpgs at 100% of non-compression. This drives me crazy.

For the moment I have to chose between a more contrasty but "dottier" resulting image and a more naturally looking and dreamier one. These crops is more or less what I mean chosing among the best available setups.



I wonder if you have more naturally looking foliage and complex shapes-and-edges brought to light by the algorithms of your model.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Thank you for sharing, Thomas! Those are very nice landscapes.

One of the nice things you have, they are looking natural, without evident procession artifacts jumping to the eyes. And this is still not a banal thing in modern smartphone photography.

Do you have by chance a tree shot, while the tree was at distance of 7-10 meters from the camera of your phone?


Maybe this one meets your requirements, I'm not too sure. Original EXIF included.
This is the JPG in original size straight from the phone. For optimal judgement, you may have to download the picture to view it in original size.



PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the full-res shot! That is what I'd like to see.

The spontaneous distribution of light spots and shadow dots in your shot is chaotically pleasing. Your jpg approximation algorithm leaves them quite irregular. I'd wish it was the same in mine.

By the way, Dolomites is a tremendous zone of visual and bodily comfort. I imagine you've got a deep sensual reset during your bike trip.