Google gives up on tablets: Android P marks an end to its ambitious efforts to take on App...

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    melgross said:
    I see a lot of writing on how good that camera is, but not much in actual photos. When I do see them, I don’t know what the fuss is about because I just don’t see anything better. In addition, what none of these publications like to mention is that this phone, as well as Samsung’s, and others, aren’t very reliable when talking about consistency. So they take some great photos, but right after, the exposure is off, or the color is off, or the noise reduction obscures the details. Sometimes you actually read a line or two about that, but they quickly bury it.

    then I read about Google’s attempt as portrait mode, and read that it’s really good, about as good as what Apple has. But it’s not. When you see the rare comparison photos, it’s obvious that the Google’s are very two dimensional. No matter what they may want to say, there are things you simply can’t do with one camera, in software, that you can do with two camera, and software.
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:

    If that were so, they wouldn’t have invested so much in trying to make a real go at it. 

    Even publicly advertising that their hardware design is this and that... taking a page from Apple and plastering it everywhere. 

    It hurts them in the in the public eye and deep in the heart that they cannot sell products to people. No one wants their stuff unless it’s free. They literally have to give themselves away (cue U2 song from iTunes) in order to be accepted. When they charge, they’re left with nothing. 

    Despite the restructure, google is just an ad company that wastes money on other stuff. 
    Yes, although it's more than an ad company too. Consumer hardware hasn't been its revenue driver and it is not even remotely part of its core business so you could wrap up each consumer hardware failure and put Christmas lights on them and it still wouldn't mean anything significant. That said, it's still a billion dollar part of the company. That's not a bad way to 'fail'. And in spite of everything the Pixel phones will probably get even better soon.
     Pixel got massive praise and free advertising, but it wasn't really a very good phone. It's an ugly, rather outdated run-of-the-mill pair of HTC and LG handsets with a Google camera app (which can be sideloaded to other phones, if Google were really free and open and trying to get Android to improve as a loving parent rather than just another greedy capitalist trying to run a business that makes money in the model of Apple). 


    Excellent timing Daniel, with Google announcing today that even more of the special sauce from their very good camera app is now open-sourced and freely available to make not just Android better but the tech as a whole better. 
    https://research.googleblog.com/2018/03/semantic-image-segmentation-with.html

    Of course that doesn't mean they aren't still greedy capitalists much as nearly every other company is to the pleasure of their owners and investors. 

    I agree that the trickery use by Google and Apple and a few others meant to mimic the artistry from a DSLR just isn't comparable once you set pictures side-by-side. The thing is tho they're "good enough" for most folks, and they've been progressively improving. 
  • Reply 82 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    I see a lot of writing on how good that camera is, but not much in actual photos. When I do see them, I don’t know what the fuss is about because I just don’t see anything better. In addition, what none of these publications like to mention is that this phone, as well as Samsung’s, and others, aren’t very reliable when talking about consistency. So they take some great photos, but right after, the exposure is off, or the color is off, or the noise reduction obscures the details. Sometimes you actually read a line or two about that, but they quickly bury it.

    then I read about Google’s attempt as portrait mode, and read that it’s really good, about as good as what Apple has. But it’s not. When you see the rare comparison photos, it’s obvious that the Google’s are very two dimensional. No matter what they may want to say, there are things you simply can’t do with one camera, in software, that you can do with two camera, and software.
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:

    If that were so, they wouldn’t have invested so much in trying to make a real go at it. 

    Even publicly advertising that their hardware design is this and that... taking a page from Apple and plastering it everywhere. 

    It hurts them in the in the public eye and deep in the heart that they cannot sell products to people. No one wants their stuff unless it’s free. They literally have to give themselves away (cue U2 song from iTunes) in order to be accepted. When they charge, they’re left with nothing. 

    Despite the restructure, google is just an ad company that wastes money on other stuff. 
    Yes, although it's more than an ad company too. Consumer hardware hasn't been its revenue driver and it is not even remotely part of its core business so you could wrap up each consumer hardware failure and put Christmas lights on them and it still wouldn't mean anything significant. That said, it's still a billion dollar part of the company. That's not a bad way to 'fail'. And in spite of everything the Pixel phones will probably get even better soon.
     Pixel got massive praise and free advertising, but it wasn't really a very good phone. It's an ugly, rather outdated run-of-the-mill pair of HTC and LG handsets with a Google camera app (which can be sideloaded to other phones, if Google were really free and open and trying to get Android to improve as a loving parent rather than just another greedy capitalist trying to run a business that makes money in the model of Apple). 


    Excellent timing Daniel, with Google announcing today that even more of the special sauce from their very good camera app is now open-sourced and freely available to make not just Android better but the tech as a whole better. 
    https://research.googleblog.com/2018/03/semantic-image-segmentation-with.html

    Of course that doesn't mean they aren't still greedy capitalists much as nearly every other company is to the pleasure of their owners and investors. 

    I agree that the trickery use by Google and Apple and a few others meant to mimic the artistry from a DSLR just isn't comparable once you set pictures side-by-side. The thing is tho they're "good enough" for most folks, and they've been progressively improving. 
    It’s cute the way you demean things, and twist other people’s posts around. I didn’t say that it wasn’t comparable to a DSLR. If you knew anything about photography, you’d know that various lenses give anywhere from very bad out of focus imaging, to excellent out of focus imaging, depending on the lens design.

    the truth is that some lenses have terrible bokeh, and out of focus images because of poor correction of the out of focus image.

    so who,e it can be subtle to people who aren’t familiar with it, Apple’s portraits are better than Google’s. There’s just no way to define increasingly out of focus imaging with a single lens, when that lens has almost everything in focus already. The rangefinder effect of two lenses is required for that.

    the software isn’t “trickery”. It’s a perfectly legitimate way to do this, and I suspect, in the future, it will supersede that of other lenses.
  • Reply 83 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    I see a lot of writing on how good that camera is, but not much in actual photos. When I do see them, I don’t know what the fuss is about because I just don’t see anything better. In addition, what none of these publications like to mention is that this phone, as well as Samsung’s, and others, aren’t very reliable when talking about consistency. So they take some great photos, but right after, the exposure is off, or the color is off, or the noise reduction obscures the details. Sometimes you actually read a line or two about that, but they quickly bury it.

    then I read about Google’s attempt as portrait mode, and read that it’s really good, about as good as what Apple has. But it’s not. When you see the rare comparison photos, it’s obvious that the Google’s are very two dimensional. No matter what they may want to say, there are things you simply can’t do with one camera, in software, that you can do with two camera, and software.
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:

    If that were so, they wouldn’t have invested so much in trying to make a real go at it. 

    Even publicly advertising that their hardware design is this and that... taking a page from Apple and plastering it everywhere. 

    It hurts them in the in the public eye and deep in the heart that they cannot sell products to people. No one wants their stuff unless it’s free. They literally have to give themselves away (cue U2 song from iTunes) in order to be accepted. When they charge, they’re left with nothing. 

    Despite the restructure, google is just an ad company that wastes money on other stuff. 
    Yes, although it's more than an ad company too. Consumer hardware hasn't been its revenue driver and it is not even remotely part of its core business so you could wrap up each consumer hardware failure and put Christmas lights on them and it still wouldn't mean anything significant. That said, it's still a billion dollar part of the company. That's not a bad way to 'fail'. And in spite of everything the Pixel phones will probably get even better soon.
     Pixel got massive praise and free advertising, but it wasn't really a very good phone. It's an ugly, rather outdated run-of-the-mill pair of HTC and LG handsets with a Google camera app (which can be sideloaded to other phones, if Google were really free and open and trying to get Android to improve as a loving parent rather than just another greedy capitalist trying to run a business that makes money in the model of Apple). 


    Excellent timing Daniel, with Google announcing today that even more of the special sauce from their very good camera app is now open-sourced and freely available to make not just Android better but the tech as a whole better. 
    https://research.googleblog.com/2018/03/semantic-image-segmentation-with.html

    Of course that doesn't mean they aren't still greedy capitalists much as nearly every other company is to the pleasure of their owners and investors. 

    I agree that the trickery use by Google and Apple and a few others meant to mimic the artistry from a DSLR just isn't comparable once you set pictures side-by-side. The thing is tho they're "good enough" for most folks, and they've been progressively improving. 
    It’s cute the way you demean things, and twist other people’s posts around. I didn’t say that it wasn’t comparable to a DSLR. If you knew anything about photography, you’d know that various lenses give anywhere from very bad out of focus imaging, to excellent out of focus imaging, depending on the lens design.

    the truth is that some lenses have terrible bokeh, and out of focus images because of poor correction of the out of focus image.

    so who,e it can be subtle to people who aren’t familiar with it, Apple’s portraits are better than Google’s. There’s just no way to define increasingly out of focus imaging with a single lens, when that lens has almost everything in focus already. The rangefinder effect of two lenses is required for that.

    the software isn’t “trickery”. It’s a perfectly legitimate way to do this, and I suspect, in the future, it will supersede that of other lenses.

    It’s cute the way you demean another member with condescending statements about their knowledge...
    I know a fair bit about photography, having my own well-appointed portrait studio for a couple of years. Always willing to learn but certainly not as clueless as you'd like to make me out to be.  

    ...and far from demeaning you I was agreeing with you, at least what I thought was the VALID point you were attempting to make. Smartphone cameras are NOT the equivalent of a full-frame camera or even entry-level APS-C DSLR, anymore than even the best compact point-n-shoots are. But still they're good enough for most people most of the time and for certain activities might be the better choice anyway.

    As for the rest of your follow-up post iMore came to a different conclusion than you did, not nearly so cut-n-dried as you "portray" :smile:  it.
    I doubt you've ever used a Pixel 2 camera yourself to come to the conclusion you have unlike Rene Ritchie, please correct me if I'm wrong, so how are you comparing the images to come up with your claim that Apple's portraiture is proven to be better than Google's?
    https://www.imore.com/portrait-mode-iphone-x-vs-pixel-2-xl-vs-dslr
    edited March 2018 singularity
  • Reply 84 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    I see a lot of writing on how good that camera is, but not much in actual photos. When I do see them, I don’t know what the fuss is about because I just don’t see anything better. In addition, what none of these publications like to mention is that this phone, as well as Samsung’s, and others, aren’t very reliable when talking about consistency. So they take some great photos, but right after, the exposure is off, or the color is off, or the noise reduction obscures the details. Sometimes you actually read a line or two about that, but they quickly bury it.

    then I read about Google’s attempt as portrait mode, and read that it’s really good, about as good as what Apple has. But it’s not. When you see the rare comparison photos, it’s obvious that the Google’s are very two dimensional. No matter what they may want to say, there are things you simply can’t do with one camera, in software, that you can do with two camera, and software.
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:

    If that were so, they wouldn’t have invested so much in trying to make a real go at it. 

    Even publicly advertising that their hardware design is this and that... taking a page from Apple and plastering it everywhere. 

    It hurts them in the in the public eye and deep in the heart that they cannot sell products to people. No one wants their stuff unless it’s free. They literally have to give themselves away (cue U2 song from iTunes) in order to be accepted. When they charge, they’re left with nothing. 

    Despite the restructure, google is just an ad company that wastes money on other stuff. 
    Yes, although it's more than an ad company too. Consumer hardware hasn't been its revenue driver and it is not even remotely part of its core business so you could wrap up each consumer hardware failure and put Christmas lights on them and it still wouldn't mean anything significant. That said, it's still a billion dollar part of the company. That's not a bad way to 'fail'. And in spite of everything the Pixel phones will probably get even better soon.
     Pixel got massive praise and free advertising, but it wasn't really a very good phone. It's an ugly, rather outdated run-of-the-mill pair of HTC and LG handsets with a Google camera app (which can be sideloaded to other phones, if Google were really free and open and trying to get Android to improve as a loving parent rather than just another greedy capitalist trying to run a business that makes money in the model of Apple). 


    Excellent timing Daniel, with Google announcing today that even more of the special sauce from their very good camera app is now open-sourced and freely available to make not just Android better but the tech as a whole better. 
    https://research.googleblog.com/2018/03/semantic-image-segmentation-with.html

    Of course that doesn't mean they aren't still greedy capitalists much as nearly every other company is to the pleasure of their owners and investors. 

    I agree that the trickery use by Google and Apple and a few others meant to mimic the artistry from a DSLR just isn't comparable once you set pictures side-by-side. The thing is tho they're "good enough" for most folks, and they've been progressively improving. 
    It’s cute the way you demean things, and twist other people’s posts around. I didn’t say that it wasn’t comparable to a DSLR. If you knew anything about photography, you’d know that various lenses give anywhere from very bad out of focus imaging, to excellent out of focus imaging, depending on the lens design.

    the truth is that some lenses have terrible bokeh, and out of focus images because of poor correction of the out of focus image.

    so who,e it can be subtle to people who aren’t familiar with it, Apple’s portraits are better than Google’s. There’s just no way to define increasingly out of focus imaging with a single lens, when that lens has almost everything in focus already. The rangefinder effect of two lenses is required for that.

    the software isn’t “trickery”. It’s a perfectly legitimate way to do this, and I suspect, in the future, it will supersede that of other lenses.

    It’s cute the way you demean another member with condescending statements about their knowledge...
    I know a fair bit about photography, having my own well-appointed portrait studio for a couple of years. Always willing to learn but certainly not as clueless as you'd like to make me out to be.  

    ...and far from demeaning you I was agreeing with you, at least what I thought was the VALID point you were attempting to make. Smartphone cameras are NOT the equivalent of a full-frame camera or even entry-level APS-C DSLR, anymore than even the best compact point-n-shoots are. But still they're good enough for most people most of the time and for certain activities might be the better choice anyway.

    As for the rest of your follow-up post iMore came to a different conclusion than you did, not nearly so cut-n-dried as you "portray" :smile:  it.
    I doubt you've ever used a Pixel 2 camera yourself to come to the conclusion you have unlike Rene Ritchie, please correct me if I'm wrong, so how are you comparing the images to come up with your claim that Apple's portraiture is proven to be better than Google's?
    https://www.imore.com/portrait-mode-iphone-x-vs-pixel-2-xl-vs-dslr
    When you use a term like “trickery” that’s demeaning in itself. Using software is by no means trickery. And yes, you often twist my words around, and you do it so often, that it can only be by design.

    i didn’t say that you were demeaning me, but the technology, which was pretty clear.

    quite frankly, Rene isn’t an expert here. Really, he’s more of a fanboy in the job of a lifetime. His knowledge of most anything computer is moderate, at best. His photographic knowledge is even less. How are these photos evaluated? At what size? Are they looked at on a computer, or printed? If printed, how? Almost all digital photos are very different, even if printed on a professional ink jet.  Rene looks at things like this the way the average snapshooter does. While that’s good for the average snapshooter, it tells those of us who are professionally oriented, little if anything of value. No, I haven’t use the Pixel 2 myself, but I’ve now seen dozens of these portrait photos from them, and they are all flat. No three dimensionally to them. 
Sign In or Register to comment.