[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?