[endorphone]

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.

[dgacmu]

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/

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-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/

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the technical meat behind state of the art low-light photography on cell phones.

[endorphone]

"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).

[dgacmu]

Sorry, but no - stacking is as much about dynamic range adaptation as noise, and that's why I'm arguing against your terming it a "ghetto version of a long exposure". It's not. A long exposure has a fundamental problem with saturation, as well as noise. It's not just about lack of stabilization, there's also the motion of the subject. Computational approaches can compensate for subject motion - long exposures cannot. Computational approaches can do dynamic range adaptation to avoid blow-out due to CCD pixel saturation. Long exposures cannot.

If you read the slides from the Levoy talk I cited, you'll note that they explicitly choose to under-expose the individual exposures to minimize motion blur and blowout.

(Marc is now at Google continuing his work on computational photography, and his group contributes to many of the cool things you see on the Pixel series.)

[endorphone]

"Computational approaches can compensate for subject motion"

But they don't. They don't in this example. Moving subjects are a blur. As an aside, of course stacked photo frames are underexposed because it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Computational photography can do interesting things and holds a tremendous amount of promise. However every single example that I can find of this mode -- across the many astroturfed pages -- show a longer exposure than what the stock app normally allows. And with that the requisite blurring of any moving subject.

[hug]

Are you arguing that EIS over a series of burst photos is incapable of making things better?

Everything I can see you saying -- much if it agreeable, like the fact that long-exposure OIS makes a lot of what this technology currently does possible without it -- is simply handwaving away the fact that EIS-over-burst with OIS can achieve things that OIS cannot by itself.

It seems to me that it's patently true that EIS has some benefits, and those benefits can be realised over the top of OIS.

There's obviously still a fair limit to OIS. I have somewhat shaky hands and even using something like Olympus' top range 5-axis IBIS, which is the best I've ever seen, I can still only shoot at 1/10". What can EIS do with a burst of 3x 1/20" exposures? Probably counter for my shaking a bit, at least. (If not for subject movement, yet.)

I simply do not see why you're discounting this so heavily.

[endorphone]

Where did I discount EIS? EIS+OIS is a golden solution. It's what the Pixel 3 does. It's what the iPhone 8 does. It's what the Huawei P20 does.

This all gets very reductionist, but EIS over a series of bursts is a bad alternative to OIS. It will be garbage in->garbage out. EIS with OIS, however, gives you the benefits of OIS, with the safety valve and "time travelling" effect of EIS (in that it can correct where OIS made the wrong presumption, like the beginning of a pan).

>and even using something like Olympus' top range 5-axis IBIS

The ability of OIS to counter movement is a function of the focal length. Your Olympus probably has a 75mm equivalent or higher lens, where a small degree of movement is a large subject skew. That smartphone probably has a 26-28mm equivalent lens. Small degrees of movement are much more correctable.

EIS is brilliant. OIS is better for small movements, but add EIS and it's great. Computational photography is brilliant. However Google has really, really been pouring out the snake oil for their Pixel line.

[ricardobeat]

> But they don't. They don't in this example. Moving subjects are a blur.

If you stack the original exposures together, you'll get ghosting and not a blur. The natural-looking blur is a result of computation.

> of course stacked photo frames are underexposed, wouldn't make sense otherwise

Except it does make sense if you want to capture more shadow detail, this is how HDR images are made.

You're severely underestimating the amount of computation involved in getting these shots. These are all handheld, and as @dgacmu mentions can benefit from exposure bracketing which gives much better results than a single long exposure.

Of course you could already get similar shots from a good camera and technique - the fact these are handheld shots coming from a mobile device, and straight out with the camera is the impressive part.

[ehsankia]

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]

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.

[ehsankia]

> Lots of other phones do let you do it, usually in pro or manual setting.

That's single frame long exposure, not many frames merged. And as you mention, unless you have a tripod or extremely good low light stabilization, in most cases you'll end up with a bad photo.

I would definitely like to see more with actual people in them, your point about humans moving is fair one, and I'd like to see how it handles them. That's where taking multiple shots and merging them vs a single super long shot would make a big difference, as you can smartly deblur things.

[gst]

> 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]

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.

[windexh8er]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[shaklee3]

See my other comment in this thread. The Huawei does not have anything close. Look at the dxomark review. The Huawei is comparable to both the pixel 2 and iPhone in the dark shots, and may be better or worse depending on the photo. Now look at this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9qzyry/pixel_2...

I know this is true because I've tried it. I have the camera loaded on a pixel 2, and the iPhone is pitch dark in images where the pixel is fully illuminated with night sight.

More details here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12676/the-huawei-p20-p20-pro-...

And remember anandtech did not have night sight. The p20 quality is attributed to the larger sensor.

[endorphone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBKHnKkNSyw

"The Huawei does not have anything close"

The P20 Pro's night mode is arguably better than the Pixels. It is sharper, works in worse light, and has more natural colours. You also seem to be confused into thinking that DXOMark enables every special mode. They don't. The reviews are overwhelmingly simply the auto settings.

The argument I'm seeing in favor of the Pixel generally is "waves hand {magic AI!}". Sorry, I don't care how much HN is infected by Googlers and Pixel fanboys, there is zero evidence of any magical AI in the Pixel results, and they look absolutely bog standard.

[Splines]

> actually made a pretty popular computational photography app for Android.

Gallus looks interesting, I haven't heard about it before. Any thoughts on when you're bringing it back?

[mediaman]

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]

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]

Well, Apply has dropped the ball on camera quality some time ago.

[Jyaif]

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