Will the GrapheneOS Camera ever reach the quality of the Pixel Camera?

GrapheneOS

mmmm RAW files do not have the native sensor data. They store lossless data with the result of the image processing, which generally merges multiple frames together into one. The raw image data would be multiple frames, not one. RAW DNG produced by Pixel Camera has gone through the same HDR+ processing. It's just a different file format able to store not just lossless pixel data but other kinds of data. They may do slightly different processing to create the RAW DNG to leave it with more natural colors but it's still made with HDR+.

mmmm

GrapheneOS but the processing occurs nonetheless, and it occurs after the image was taken, and is presented to the user as a JPEG. So - the raw data (the raw) has been processed and is stored in a dng container. Then it is presented to the user as a JPEG. Either way, that data is processed via some kind of raw converter, and ends up as a JPEG for viewing. Thats where the differences the op is seeing lie. When I shoot raw with my cameras the same thing occurs, but I do the conversion manually. Then I present the jpeg to my clients as a final image. I fail to see the differences, you do your conversion, the pixel camera app does theirs, I do mine. None are the same, all are presented as the final mage the end user sees. None are the same image regarding processing.

Murcielago

Nobody

Phones do not produce real raw files. DNG files are not raw files. True raw files are non-standardized manf specific raster files .crè3 & .cr3 for Canon, arw for Sony, .nef for Nikon.

That's not entirely correct. See:

Digital Negative (DNG) is an open source, lossless, well defined camera RAW data container with the goal to replace range of proprietary, closed source raw image containers.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

(Note: the terms “container” and “file” seem to be used synonymously in the quoted article).

and:

DNG is the only raw image format for which industry-wide buy-in is being sought.
[...]
Makers of "niche" cameras who might otherwise have difficulty getting support from software companies frequently use DNG as their native raw image format. Pentax uses DNG as an optional alternative to their own raw image format. There are 15 or more such companies, even a few that specialize in movie cameras, including Leica, Samsung, Ricoh, Pentax, Hasselblad. In addition, most Canon point & shoot cameras can support DNG by using CHDK, and Better Light can export to DNG. Open-source developers also use DNG.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

True raw files are non-standardized manf specific raster files .crè3 & .cr3 for Canon, arw for Sony, .nef for Nikon. Raw files can not be directly edited they have a linked xmp file that contains the edits like a post process config.

Major camera manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon, and Sony have decided not to adopt DNG, preferring to use their own proprietary standards such as (.cr3, .nef, .ari, .arw, etc.). As you described, many of these proprietary file formats pack the data into a sidecar XML file, but that is a design decision not a criterion for determining whether or not it is a raw file.

This Adobe website provides an overview of which cameras support which RAW format.

But I totally agree with you:

“Don't get hung up on names.”

The key takeaways were already listed above by GrapheneOS and GrapheneOS :

Even Raw files do not contain the native sensor data, but rather store (lossless) data with image processing results.

GrapheneOS

mmmm Pixel Camera uses HDR+ to capture an image whether you use RAW DNG or JPEG as the output format. There may be differences in how it's processed to provide a more natural look for the RAW DNG output but it's still processed. It's lossless but it's not a raw feed of data from the image sensor. It's still combining multiple frames together via HDR+. The reason Pixel Camera output looks better in low light is because the standard HDR+ provided by Pixels for OS usage is more limited than the Pixel Camera implementation. There's no particular reason for that and it will likely get better.

HDRnet and EIS processing for videos is closer to the same thing, although we're missing a way to use non-active EIS which is needed for 4k recording on Pixels right now due to a performance limitation. Night mode in GrapheneOS Camera uses the Pixel provided Night Sight which should be quite similar to what Pixel Camera does, although there are differences similar to how it is with HDR+. Over time, the differences between these should get significantly smaller since it's not in their interest to have pictures/videos from apps like Instagram end up lower quality than using Pixel Camera. It's just how things are temporarily due to how the stuff gets developed. Night mode is closer to Pixel Camera Night mode than the standard photo mode is since it's newer and was done better.

Nobody

Phones do not produce real raw files. DNG files are not raw files. True raw files are non-standardized manf specific raster files .crè3 & .cr3 for Canon, arw for Sony, .nef for Nikon. Raw files can not be directly edited they have a linked xmp file that contains the edits like a post process config. Dng is a standardized container file it's direct raw conversion is a lossless conversion as it supposedly does not remove any actual image data. It can also hold the full raw file along with full meta data, and even jpeg preview image. It can be compressed.

As all phone cameras do a share of processing and do not output a manf raw file ext of their own but instead usually are produced as a .dng file they are not a form of a raw file. As far as phones are concerned they are exactly as @GrapheneOS has stated they are. Do not get hung up on names.

Nobody

Murcielago

I agree with your statements and there is authoritative support for them.

The issue is there is so much confusing and even contradictory info on what RAW is. It's the wild West as there is no standardization which means anyone can claim anything which is proven by the phone camera labeling their .dng output as raw file. I think even after Adobe who is the creator of the .dng format seems to flip flop on it shows the confusion. In one sentence they state it's a RAW format, then in another, state the differences between it and RAW ext files. Who decides what the definition of RAW is? There is no controlling body to set standards. Should RAW be any format /ext that "can" contain all the raw sensor data or should it be a file that can "ONLY" contain that raw data nothing less nothing modified?

What I see as the main issue with labeling .dng as raw: The big three in a way have set a quais standard of what raw is. Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Their native raw format is just that and only that. It's as unprocessed as the data captured by the image sensor can be. Nothing less. It can not be directly manipulated. You know when you see one of those image file ext you are getting the raw sensor data. That can not be said of a .dng file. The phone cameras prove that. It has post processing yet still it's a .dng. It of course "could" be a duplicate of the native raw file's image data. But it also could be far less or far more. So where any of those native raw files you can be sure those files are the raw image data as any edits will be in a separate file, as the big 3 created that quasi std. Yet with the .dng there's no way you can know what your getting in any .dng file just by the ext. Even worse as the actual raw data can be edited as part of it's std you really have no way to know if what you have is all the raw data or not. The phone manf prove this by labeling their .dng files as raw yet openly apply post processing to their outputted file.

I think that's exactly what created a good part of the confusion in this thread, in the first place. At least until @"GrapheneOS" explained it; and actually had to repeatedly as people were that confused by it. People see the file listed as raw by the phone and assume it really is raw sensor data comparative to what it would be from a dslr but it's not. In actuality it's a auto post processed file in the .dng

But in the end it is what it is and it will continue to confuse people. Not really not much to do with graphene beyond the confusion LOL

DeletedUser499

"Will the GrapheneOS Camera ever reach the quality of the Pixel Camera?"
As far as I am aware they are the same, device, optics e.t.c. in every way...

The camera is not quality its just available on a device millions people carry. Zeiss or Hasselblad, now they are quality cameras, no G@@gle algorithms needed, but absolutely useless at 4G voice calls.

gdvbb

What to think of JPEG XL (JXL)?
In my opinion it would be a big step from JPEG towards DNG/"RAW", because of higher bit depth and better compression quality? And has the advantage of fast prozessing and efficient storage.
The trickery regarding re-sharpening etc. can in principle also be done in post-processing. That's why I think it would be very good if JXL were supported.

PS: That is just an idea. I know that you have other priorities. Thank you for your great work?

G7gd4yg

I'm a director of photography using several Blackmagick camera's for my work, there's Blackmagick camera app you can install from play store or Aurora store, it's a killer camera app, I'm using it all the time on my pixel running on grapheneos of course.

Highly recommended

hicks

How about getting a proprietary camera? There is amazing point and shoot right now on the market with amazing footage quality. Often used by youtubers, and that's without mentioning a full frame mirroless and etc.
If you switched to privacy oriented os, it is good time to switch your habits that will help you maintain that privacy...

« Previous Page