Related
Hi to all.
I'm curious to see any sample photo taken with Touch HD. Someone can post here any photos?
...they are too big to be included in the forum (VGA limitation)
host on photobucket, imageshack, or tinypic.
I have been waiting for the sample pic for a long time
we have all been waiting for the sample pics
hope they post them soon
in the test on http://www.areamobile.de they also postet some sample pictures
Photo Quality
Can anyone who has the HD comment on the quality of the camera?
From reviews I've read it seems it's not as good as other 5mp devices, but I would think it would be a massive improvement to that of the Touch, Cruise, Diamond... (in respect to frame rate and photo quality, not just increased size)??
mradaml said:
Can anyone who has the HD comment on the quality of the camera?
From reviews I've read it seems it's not as good as other 5mp devices, but I would think it would be a massive improvement to that of the Touch, Cruise, Diamond... (in respect to frame rate and photo quality, not just increased size)??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can not compare it to the Diamond, but to recent Nokia phones, the Iphone and my LG Viewty. And i personally think, the pictures are better and have better colours. also when taking pictures in a room, where the light is not that good for cams it seem to take bright and clear pictures. (you may remember the pictures they took on this french site one month ago. the Iphones pictures where pretty dark and red, while the same pictures taken by the HD where bright and clear)
Eitum said:
in the test on http://www.areamobile.de they also postet some sample pictures
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have used a cheep plastic lens....
So typically HTC.. they want to make a phone with all the top feautures on paper... and spend a lot of money on parts to do that.... while trying to save some money on the not so important parts (according to Htc) and then they ruin a lot of the performance of the phone because they want to save a few bucks....
I posted part of this in charnsingh_online's 780p thread, but I feel it's more appropriate to post here instead so that everyone sees it, so here goes -
The biggest problems with the Nexus One's video recorder are the mediocre audio recording format (AMR 8kHz) and the low frame rates in decent lighting conditions. This is not acceptable, because the Nexus One is Google's so-called "superphone" and we have seen the iPhone and Droid produce good quality video recordings (ie. constant frame rates, good audio) on arguably lower hardware specs.
Here's a link to a Google feature request that a Nexus One owner posted way back in January:
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6156
"Issue 6156: Adding support for more audio and video encoders in Android."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please visit the page I have linked, and if you have a Google account (I am sure you all do!), click on the star at the top left (and leave comments too!) so that it increases the number of stars and thus brings it to the attention of the Google team.
It may be a longshot that they do something about it, but it doesn't hurt to at least let them know about it!
EDIT: The issue above is actually a general Android feature request, but for the Nexus One you could also visit a similar thread in the Nexus One help forum:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/android/thread?fid=5f7b0b7d99eff9310004892474249fa2&hl=en
I do have to say, though, that the framerate reduction is a very positive thing for low-light videos compared to the Milestone/Droid. My N1 can take beautiful videos of performances in nightclubs and on outdoor nighttime stages by slowing down the framerate to capture enough light. Under the same conditions, my Milestone produces a high-framerate video of... total darkness punctuated by a few bright lights.
But it would be nice to have some more fine-grained controls over this.
cmstlist said:
I do have to say, though, that the framerate reduction is a very positive thing for low-light videos compared to the Milestone/Droid. My N1 can take beautiful videos of performances in nightclubs and on outdoor nighttime stages by slowing down the framerate to capture enough light. Under the same conditions, my Milestone produces a high-framerate video of... total darkness punctuated by a few bright lights.
But it would be nice to have some more fine-grained controls over this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Image quality is all fine and dandy, but when you are only getting 9fps in a lit room then the video is garbage anyway. In the same conditions with the Milestone the frame rate is at a constant 24 fps and the picture is a bit grainy due to the increased ISO(?), which is still acceptable still (plus you can use the LED light to add some more brightness).
dsixda said:
Image quality is all fine and dandy, but when you are only getting 9fps in a lit room then the video is garbage anyway. In the same conditions with the Milestone the frame rate is at a constant 24 fps and the picture is a bit grainy due to the increased ISO(?), which is still acceptable still (plus you can use the LED light to add some more brightness).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, but under the conditions I described (dark room with stage lighting, basically), Milestone fails completely and N1 succeeds. The LED light will not help under these circumstances - the stage lighting is plenty bright, but the Milestone simply fails to capture anything at all.
Here's an example N1 video in a nightclub - one of my favourite Vancouver drag queens in fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc4Kk0h4cL0
Yes, the frame rate isn't great and the audio sucks... but the colours are absolutely brilliant. I didn't have my Milestone yet at the time I filmed this but I've tried using it in similar conditions. All the Milestone produces is complete darkness with a few tiny flashes of light. Not even grainy... absolute darkness.
Thanks for this. Im so sick of hearing about the cruddy things about the nexus that arent hardware related. If it doesnt have the hardware i understand the limitations, but it seems like google just didnt really try with this damn phone. I mean fps sucks and we couldve had 720p recording? What the **** is going on over there at android headquarters? Whos in charge of quality control? And they didnt even think 720 was POSSIBLE? Talk about bush league.
Good idea...have visit the link and left my comments
Star added!
Thanks for doing this.
IMO, 720p is over-rated. 480 @ 16:9 (or 16:8 or w/e) is more file-size effiecient anyway. I think the biggest issue is audio. 8k?! That's insanely low. Un-necessarily low. We need a fix to this seriously badly.
yes 720p is over-rated. id rather have a high quality (high bitrate/high framerate) 480p... its like an upscaled DVD vs a low bitrate 720p movie rip from piratebay
Agreed with both of you. Personally, I don't think it's such a big deal to have 720p when the frame rate and audio is so mediocre in the first place. Takes up too much storage too. We need to fix the bigger issues first.
BTW the link to the entire Issues list is found on the "Issues" tab in that URL I showed in the first post. Or you can access it through here: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
When I first posted this thread, the video encoder issue was only at 29 stars and it was on page 3 of the Issues list... now it has 74 stars and we are at page 2! Thanks everyone.. we need more people though!
You're going to have more luck posting this in the nexus forums than the android forums.
You will not be seeing support for propietary codecs on the Android base OS.
The only way you will see it is at the device level. Licensing issues prevent it from being incorporated into Android, but not into specific devices.
This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
I will check out the review later.
But, since you have played with the camera more than me, I have a question:
Is there a way to set manual focus? I wanted to record some equipment at work and as the equipment moves, the camera keeps refocusing. And it often focuses on part of the robot, not the part of the system I want to record. With other cameras you can set the focus and turn off auto focus.
floiancu said:
This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can always click on the screen on the part of the image you want focused or you can set it in expert mode and change the settings there manually (f, ISO, exposure, shutter speed etc)
I am recording videos, so I don't want to have to keep refocusing.
And the robot is moving while recording.
floiancu said:
You can always click on the screen on the part of the image you want focused or you can set it in expert mode and change the settings there manually (f, ISO, exposure, shutter speed etc)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
floiancu said:
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be great to see how it behaves in low-light and with/without using the flash. Samsung cameras are notorious to fail in their operations (focus, video etc) at Low Light levels.
To be fair I haven't taken any indoor low light photos, but you can see the exterior night shots in the shared Dropbox folder. I no longer have the camera, but I can ensure you the flash does a hell of a job and I can't see why you wouldn't use it.
Well... This guy is not very happy with the horrible cracking noise when zooming in/out, and another guy says he can't use the flash as a light while shooting video... So I don't know what to think about this $500+ "thing"...
My zooming was smooth and pretty silent, although you could notice it in the videos. You can't use the flash when filming because it's a discharge flash as opposed to LED flashes on mobile phones.
This is a really good review! I especially like the way you have incorporated the sample clips in the video with good examples also of the different settings.
---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------
floiancu said:
I no longer have the camera, but I can ensure you the flash does a hell of a job and I can't see why you wouldn't use it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How come you no longer have the camera??!
apprentice said:
How come you no longer have the camera??!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had it from Samsung for reviewing. You can check my Youtube account and my other posts on XDA to see other devices I've tested for them.
E:V:A said:
Well... This guy is not very happy with the horrible cracking noise when zooming in/out, and another guy says he can't use the flash as a light while shooting video... So I don't know what to think about this $500+ "thing"...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well... this is a photo camera which is also able to take video clips. If you want a video camera, get one.
If you want a touchscreen and Android on a point & shoot camera this is the one to buy. If you can live without them you can buy much cheaper cameras with the same picture quality.
Before buying the Galaxy Camera or even commenting on it you need to understand its purpose and specs / advantages.
It's NOT a DSLR. It doesn't aim to be a professional camera (although it gives you plenty of manual settings) and it certainly won't take pictures as good. It does offer the smart modes such as rich tones (for which you need filters on a DSLR), macro and light trace (which takes tweaking and setting on a DSLR as opposed to two clicks), 21x zoom without buying extra lenses etc.
It's NOT a regular compact camera. The price tag, build quality, specs and features stress that out pretty well.
The main purpose of the Galaxy Camera is the Android OS which means fast sharing, cloud integration, picture editting on the spot, not to mention all apps available for regular smartphones.
If you judge it on these terms and actually find out it's what you need, it's the perfect camera. Otherwise get a DSLR or a compact camera. Nobody will be upset
floiancu said:
Before buying the Galaxy Camera or even commenting on it you need to understand its purpose and specs / advantages.
It's NOT a DSLR. It doesn't aim to be a professional camera (although it gives you plenty of manual settings) and it certainly won't take pictures as good. It does offer the smart modes such as rich tones (for which you need filters on a DSLR), macro and light trace (which takes tweaking and setting on a DSLR as opposed to two clicks), 21x zoom without buying extra lenses etc.
It's NOT a regular compact camera. The price tag, build quality, specs and features stress that out pretty well.
The main purpose of the Galaxy Camera is the Android OS which means fast sharing, cloud integration, picture editting on the spot, not to mention all apps available for regular smartphones.
If you judge it on these terms and actually find out it's what you need, it's the perfect camera. Otherwise get a DSLR or a compact camera. Nobody will be upset
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Well Said. I love my camera!!
floiancu said:
This is a review I made for the Galaxy Camera after a week's use. It's stunning and completely incomparable to other high end compacts.
A few features that I love: the smart modes (especially rich tones, light trace and burst shot), the slow motion video recording and of course, the Android 4.1.1 which is perfect for such a device.
Here's my Dropbox folder for the camera photo and video samples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ocgbtdcra4zm8q/LjNTonk7PR
What you should check out: the difference between normal shots and rich tones (taken at the same time by the camera, the second one is HDR) to see just how much better it is than anything else, the slo-mo shots of seagulls on Dambovita river in Bucharest, the light trace pictures (some are taken without using a tripod) and the macros.
I'm available for any type of question, don't hesitate to ask! Enjoy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice review.
On your drop box photos, one of them shows the white, black and red versions, where is the red version available please for customers to buy. I don't mean demo versions.
Does a 64 GB card work in ex fat or does it need to be in fat32.
Is there a video editor and can it edit the videos shot on the camera itself. Can't seem to find an official case. On amazon uk there is a deal for this camera to get a discount on the short manfrotto tripod. Do you think that tripod would be fine for video as well as photos or would one need a different head for that tripod. Just looking for tips on that count.
On amazon different people say sgs2 or sgs3 battery works. Any idea which one actually works. Guessing its the sgs2.
Does it have USB OTG functions. If so does it need sgs2 or sgs3 USB OTG cable. I know you don't have the camera but since you seem to be a Samsung mobiler I am hoping you know about this.
My Samsung note can shoot videos longer than 30 mins. I read on other posts on XDA that this camera can't record more than 29mins 59secs. Is there a setting to increase this limit?
Did any of the Samsung remote apps work from your phone to control the camera like mobile link or remote view finder etc. Does the DSLR controller or any similar app work with this camera by wifi or USB.
I don't know about the red (I would say pink) version, in Romania none are available yet.
I don't exactly know about the filesystem type required for 64 GB microSDs, but I'm sure it's the same as the SIII, whatever that is.
There is Video Wizard, an app similar to Photo Wizard for editing videos shot on it, it's pretty cool and has more than the functionality you need on a camera, but I would rather use my PC for that so I didn't cover it... Maybe I will do an extra video specifically for that.
The tripod hole is standard, I used mine without any problems.
The battery has the same capacity with the S II, however I don't know if it's exactly the same. I will ask.
Yes, USB OTG is supported.
I never tried to shoot videos longer than a couple of minutes, but being a dedicated camera I'd be surprised if it had a time limit (besides the storage space).
The remote viewfinder option was available in the menu of the camera app, but after an update to the latest firmware it's gone. I haven't tested any remote shooting modes besides voice commands (which works like a charm, but you need silence and you can't see what you're shooting). If there are dedicated remotes for Android (not necessarily made by Samsung), then they should work on the Galaxy Camera without issues.
Thanks. On the engadget post about covers for this they show covers in white black red pink and orange. So i assume those are the proposed colors to be released. But can only find white and black online for now.
I have a sports publication and we do interviews with athletes and coaches. My writers currently use handheld video cameras such as the Flip or Kodak lines to do these videos and then we upload them to our system. Obviously the quality isn't great but we still get nice clean videos that our customers enjoy. Is anyone here able to compare the quality of the video from this camera to something along the lines of what we are using?
Also what are the options currently for live streaming? I assume since most Android apps can be used I could continue using USteam for live video? Again I understand this camera isn't going to replace a high end camcorder but if we can get decent quality I think it would be a good purchase for me.
With the camera still being rather new I'm having trouble finding many sample pics and videos so any links to those would be greatly appreciated and what I would really like to find is some sample streaming videos. Thanks!
scmobileman said:
I have a sports publication and we do interviews with athletes and coaches. My writers currently use handheld video cameras such as the Flip or Kodak lines to do these videos and then we upload them to our system. Obviously the quality isn't great but we still get nice clean videos that our customers enjoy. Is anyone here able to compare the quality of the video from this camera to something along the lines of what we are using?
Also what are the options currently for live streaming? I assume since most Android apps can be used I could continue using USteam for live video? Again I understand this camera isn't going to replace a high end camcorder but if we can get decent quality I think it would be a good purchase for me.
With the camera still being rather new I'm having trouble finding many sample pics and videos so any links to those would be greatly appreciated and what I would really like to find is some sample streaming videos. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's quite capable of shooting short videos but being built as a camera may not be easy to hand hold if you are primarily going to use it for video capture since there is no proper hand grip.
The picture and video quality are very acceptable but it's not a cheap device.
If your writers have smart phones they can just link the Galaxy Camera to the Hot Spot of the smart phone without having to add a data plan to the camera for uploading or streaming the video?
You should go try out one at your local dealer and see for yourself if it suits your needs.
scmobileman said:
I have a sports publication and we do interviews with athletes and coaches. My writers currently use handheld video cameras such as the Flip or Kodak lines to do these videos and then we upload them to our system. Obviously the quality isn't great but we still get nice clean videos that our customers enjoy. Is anyone here able to compare the quality of the video from this camera to something along the lines of what we are using?
Also what are the options currently for live streaming? I assume since most Android apps can be used I could continue using USteam for live video? Again I understand this camera isn't going to replace a high end camcorder but if we can get decent quality I think it would be a good purchase for me.
With the camera still being rather new I'm having trouble finding many sample pics and videos so any links to those would be greatly appreciated and what I would really like to find is some sample streaming videos. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android apps work just as well as on an SGS3, zooming apparently doesn't work in some 3rd party apps, but a review mentioned it's being worked on. It won't replace any pricier camcorders or SLR's, but if you get it at a fair discount from its usual over £400 price tag, it's an ok find. If you want good video and Wi-Fi check out Sony's NEX series.
You could always use Youtube for live streaming as well as UStream or similar. The camera has optical image stabilization which is quite good from what I've seen, it compensates nicely even at maximum zoom.
This video might be shot thru a window, looks a bit like that, but still a nice example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7jOJt7rqM
There are some images from an xda member at http://s628.beta.photobucket.com/user/DC-IT/library/Samsung Galaxy Camera Images
What do you guys think? Pixel 2 suffers in low light but other than that, its very good.
Mods can you move this to real life reviews? I cant make a thread there for some reason
MODERATOR NOTICE: YOUTUBE VIDEO DELETED
Per the forum rules:
5. Create a thread topic or post a message only once, this includes external links & streaming media.
As a large forum, we don't need unnecessary clutter. You're free to edit your message as you like, so if you do not receive an answer, revisit your message and see if you can describe your problem better. Not everyone is online at the same time so it might take a while before you receive an answer.
You can bump your unanswered question once every 24 hours
Duplicate threads and posts will be removed
Always post in an existing thread if a topic already exists, before creating a new thread.
Use our search function to find the best forum for your device.
Links to an external source are only allowed if relevant to the topic in hand. A description must be included, no copy & pasting from the original source.
Self-promotion is forbidden, this includes blogs, social media and video channels etc. Random links will be removed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Videos may be added to a post with meaningful descriptive content. Posting to point people to your YouTube videos or channel will be considered spam, have their links removed, and will be closed. Duplicate posts will be deleted.
What do you guys think?
The review, as mostly 99% of all camera reviews on YouTube - and specifically the Indian ones, is a mess (to be diplomatic about it!).
There is absolutely no details about the settings that guy used. I presume he only used out-of-the-box / automatic settings on both iPhone X and Pixel 2 XL which is ... lame.
iPhone is very restrictive in terms of what a user is allowed to do with camera settings and the night shots, while improved over the previous generations iPhones, they are still messy. Somehow following the trend, Google has emasculated the camera of some real balls but still has kept to aces in his sleeve: HDR+ and HDR+ Enhanced.
Provided the reviewing guy would have really wanted to squeeze the most of the two smartphone camera he might have gone with the Pixel 2 XL HDR+ for the night and the results would have been really different.
Don't get me wrong. Pixel 2 can be awful for night shots if one's using the defaults in the camera but can also produce wonders with the HDR+ Enhanced mode. Not to mention that there ar community custom versions of Google Camera APK which for the night shots can yield stunning results with way longer exposure times, yet a tripod would be needed to stabilize the beast.
I have attached a sample of nearly dark scene from my Pixel 2 shot, handheld, with Camera_v3.8c_test.apk.
Without looking at it, in the prior comparisons I've seen, I generally prefer the opposite, of iphone X photos for daylight and Pixel 2 for low light. I also tend to prefer the colors of the Pixel photos. And then it is mixed for special situations like close ups and landscape shots.
So it probably is a matter of comparing really good cameras at this point versus the old ones where there would often be a clear winner in most categories. But I'll watch and see how this is done.
Edit: Ok, so I haven't changed my mind after watching the review, except the way he took low light photos did look much worse. But I've seen dim light comparisons where the Pixel 2XL pictures look better.
Definitely a bit of eye of the beholder in the review. It is very hard to compare photos within a video, versus having the actual photos to pull up. His first comparison where he says they look basically the same, I would say the iphone was much clearer. i.e. the sign is clearer and plants in the background have more detail.
I would prefer if he used one of those setups with the phones mounted to something side by side (other than close up shots). Instead he seems to do one, then the other as some have very different angles. Even in the video where he has them somehow mounted, the video does not seem to be locked together. Like it isn't a very solid mounting arrangement. I know there is image stabilization going on, but it just doesn't look like the phones are moving in lock step.
The videos have to be stop framed as he moves around way too much. From that, I think most of the time the Pixel is much better, but at times the iphone video looks better, and usually when it is darker. But he's also combining them in software to make the youtube video, so it would be again nice to have the actual videos rather than and edited together one.
Oddly, the iphone photos look less blue, but video looks more blue and more muted colors in general.
I found this other comparison. Doesn't do low light outside though.
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/iphone-x-vs-pixel-2-photos-are-two-cameras-better-than-one/
Voicebox said:
Without looking at it, in the prior comparisons I've seen, I generally prefer the opposite, of iphone X photos for daylight and Pixel 2 for low light. I also tend to prefer the colors of the Pixel photos. And then it is mixed for special situations like close ups and landscape shots.
So it probably is a matter of comparing really good cameras at this point versus the old ones where there would often be a clear winner in most categories. But I'll watch and see how this is done.
Edit: Ok, so I haven't changed my mind after watching the review, except the way he took low light photos did look much worse. But I've seen dim light comparisons where the Pixel 2XL pictures look better.
Definitely a bit of eye of the beholder in the review. It is very hard to compare photos within a video, versus having the actual photos to pull up. His first comparison where he says they look basically the same, I would say the iphone was much clearer. i.e. the sign is clearer and plants in the background have more detail.
I would prefer if he used one of those setups with the phones mounted to something side by side (other than close up shots). Instead he seems to do one, then the other as some have very different angles. Even in the video where he has them somehow mounted, the video does not seem to be locked together. Like it isn't a very solid mounting arrangement. I know there is image stabilization going on, but it just doesn't look like the phones are moving in lock step.
The videos have to be stop framed as he moves around way too much. From that, I think most of the time the Pixel is much better, but at times the iphone video looks better, and usually when it is darker. But he's also combining them in software to make the youtube video, so it would be again nice to have the actual videos rather than and edited together one.
Oddly, the iphone photos look less blue, but video looks more blue and more muted colors in general.
I found this other comparison. Doesn't do low light outside though.
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/iphone-x-vs-pixel-2-photos-are-two-cameras-better-than-one/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your observations are sharp on. Indeed the review is off by margins from a relevant one.
Here is another night shot, out of the camera, but I can't remember if I used the Google Camera or the modified one... Anyway the images speaks truth about camera's capabilities with Google's magic algorithms.
dehnhaide said:
The review, as mostly 99% of all camera reviews on YouTube - and specifically the Indian ones, is a mess (to be diplomatic about it!).
There is absolutely no details about the settings that guy used. I presume he only used out-of-the-box / automatic settings on both iPhone X and Pixel 2 XL which is ... lame.
iPhone is very restrictive in terms of what a user is allowed to do with camera settings and the night shots, while improved over the previous generations iPhones, they are still messy. Somehow following the trend, Google has emasculated the camera of some real balls but still has kept to aces in his sleeve: HDR+ and HDR+ Enhanced.
Provided the reviewing guy would have really wanted to squeeze the most of the two smartphone camera he might have gone with the Pixel 2 XL HDR+ for the night and the results would have been really different.
Don't get me wrong. Pixel 2 can be awful for night shots if one's using the defaults in the camera but can also produce wonders with the HDR+ Enhanced mode. Not to mention that there ar community custom versions of Google Camera APK which for the night shots can yield stunning results with way longer exposure times, yet a tripod would be needed to stabilize the beast.
I have attached a sample of nearly dark scene from my Pixel 2 shot, handheld, with Camera_v3.8c_test.apk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't know what you're talking about. HDR+ Enhanced does NOT work better at night. The ONLY thing that mode is to be used for is, very rarely, better dynamic range. The difference was more noticeable in the 2016 Pixels. In the 2017 phones, HDR+ On and HDR+ Enhanced make the same result the vast majority of the time. HDR+ On (default mode) is BETTER at night because it captures more frames and reduces noise. The Pixel is noisier than the iPhone in lowlight photography... but has much better dynamic range, and typically better detail. If you don't like the noise, smooth out the noise (and detail as a result) in post processing.
this is a good comparison video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m70Fuoz2cxw