leafnose With the GOS Camera, there are too many what seem to be noise reduction artifacts for my taste.
I often see a purplish, static-like effect on the corners of my pictures when I reduce the aperture on the GrapheneOS Camera. Is that it?
I also hope CameraX extensions advance enough to add support for adjusting focus manually like with Google Camera. Hope it happens sooner than later.
yore the photos get saved to the same place as usual. Turning on storage scopes just makes the app think it can access all of storage, but it storage will appear to be empty except for files the app itself created. Even without storage scopes, Google Camera can still save files to the DCIM/Camera folder.
The way android does storage stuff is a little different. You can read through storage access section of the website to see how all that works.
When an app asks for access to storage, whether it's all files access or just certain media types, I always just enable storage scopes for that app so it stops asking for access.
The only times I can think of where I add a file or folder to storage scopes for an app to access are:
23Sha-ger he said he would only add DCIM access for gallery apps, not to pixel camera or anything else. Not sure what that has to do with Schrödinger's cat? O.o
other8026 Thanks for explaining!
other8026 Even without storage scopes, Google Camera can still save files to the DCIM/Camera folder.
So if I understand this correctly, it won't matter whether or not I enable Storage Scopes as the media will save to the DCIM/Camera folder regardless?
And if I reinstall Google Camera, would I need to grant Storage Scopes and select the folder for the app to see the previous media? Would that mean permitting access to the DCIM/Camera folder?
I often see a purplish, static-like effect on the corners of my pictures when I reduce the aperture on the GrapheneOS Camera. Is that it?
That would be something else.
Do you mean directly reducing the aperture? How do you do that?
yore
To answer your first question: my experience is that you have to enable Storage Scopes, otherwise you’ll always see the prompt asking you to choose the permission and you won’t be able to use the camera app.
yore So if I understand this correctly, it won't matter whether or not I enable Storage Scopes as the media will save to the DCIM/Camera folder regardless?
Yes.
And if I reinstall Google Camera, would I need to grant Storage Scopes and select the folder for the app to see the previous media? Would that mean permitting access to the DCIM/Camera folder?
Correct, see this from the Storage Scopes section:
The most significant limitation of Storage Scopes is the fact that the app will lose access to files that it created if it's uninstalled and then installed again, same as any other app that doesn't have a storage access permission. As a workaround, users can manually grant access to these files/directories via SAF picker.
Can Google Camera change its save location? If yes, you could also consider making a "Google Photos" folder, setting it as the location for images taken, and then adding the folder in Storage Scopes for the Google Camera.
Dumdum Correct, see this from the Storage Scopes section:
Would that open up the possibility of Play Services seeing my media?
GCam doesnt need any additional play services on GrapheneOS
missing-root I know. But I sometimes enable Play Services for other apps that need it. And from this thread, it seems like Play Services can communicate with Google Camera even if Google Camera is disabled.
yore I dont think disabled apps can communicate with other apps? @GrapheneOS mind to help out?
Before capturing the picture, reducing the brightness slider.
That’s what I thought.
I don’t follow what you mean by noise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
yore
No, if an app is disabled, it won’t be able to communicate through IPC with another one.
Do you refer to this message of mine? leafnose Second point?
I only said that if you gave Google Play Services the explicit access to the save folder of Google Camera, it would have the permission to ‘see your photos’. It’s hypothetical, but that would be allowed with this kind of permission.
