Are you sure about that? I tried obscuring various parts of the screen searching for the sensor(s), and IIRC coming from the left, I only had to cover the selfie lens to get the reading drop to 0. IIRC, I’ll check again (but it will have to wait till tonight!).
Mine is kind of stupid. It didn’t learn anything so far.
I’d like to think it will learn one day. I am manually correcting it each time, err, each evening, but so far it keeps stubbornly switching off the screen backlight as soon as the room isn’t brightly illuminated.
Yes, I can confirm this - when covering these sensors, the display gets darker, eventhough the camera itself is still uncovered.
Perhaps if you removed your sunglasses you’d have more chance of being less patronising and might see the world as it is instead of through those FP4 tinted ones…
I’m about to repeat myself too. “It does not work on a FP4” Seemingly if you need it to work you have to buy a Samsung or other make right now.
I apologise for the personal nature of the gibe but I’m tired of your constant put downs and attempts to undermine people’s genuine concerns.
You may give “Velis Autobrightness” a try:
This app will install itself as accessibility extension, adjust the brightness based on the light sensor of the device and you can set a permanent additional brightness, so the display will not get darker as you want to.
As I understand it, the idea is that the app will not control the background light but it applies a filter on top of all other content to darken the display content. So you first disable the auto brightness of Android, set a desired maximum brightness manually and then use Velis Auto Brightness to adjust the content brightness using one of the provided adjustment curves. Since it uses the light sensor of the device it works quite well, at least when I did a quick test with it.
There is also an extensive documentation for it: Velis' thoughts: Velis Auto Brightness manual
That’s due to how FP implemented this, I’m also surprised they didn’t use the modern approaches.
@YorkshireDave you replied to me in this thread, to a comment where I already explained the technical details. I’m just pointing out that I’m not referring to a personal solution by FP, or something you have to adjust yourself in the settings. Your phone can already understand what you like with some basic input by adjusting the brightness slider when you need to. Please read my comments in this thread a bit better. Otherwise it becomes an echo chamber
Will, can, might. Some day.
My A12 upgrade is now about 17 days old, for others it’s even older, and yet my brightness adjustment didn’t learn anything.
Clearly the brightness issue won’t be solved by conversations about what might be expected or otherwise considered as “normal”.
Now to be honest, all recent Pixels use an AI training CPU (Tensor), and as you all know, for a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Google is trying to make everything “AI”, because not only is AI very hip right now, but it also allows them to emphasize the only perk of their otherwise rather unremarkable CPU.
IMHO (but that’s me), brightness adjustment does not warrant AI, the values a given user would consider as optimal are pretty much immutable, you just need to set them once.
What is too dark/too bright for you today will most certainly be too dark/too bright tomorrow just the same. IMHO.
FP never implemented the AI mechanism. It worked very well on my Pixel 3. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work for you on a FP4. Of course, FP still needs to implement this AI mechanism. It would solve all the complaints about this, because it will then be custom made for everyone.
I had the issue for 1.5 years, my eyes burned every time I needed my phone in a dark environment. If FP doesn’t improve their development then there will always be a group of people suffering.
You mean besides the fact there is apparently no AI implemented?..
Yes, it would work, but as I said above, IMHO it would definitely be overkill for something as basic as an environment-to-screen brightness equivalence. It’s just a simple ratio, corrected for individual preferences (that’s is the part lacking here).
My point is that unless somebody has some strange eye condition, what is too bright/dark one day will be the just as dark/bright the next one, so there is no need for “intelligence”, it’s a fixed, set once for all times ratio. A simple slider would do.
(And, we have more chances to get a simple slider, than an all-singing, all-dancing AI… )
And you are still smilling
I’m often grinning. It’s my (quite strong) impish side.
It will be the same outcome, only is the AI method more user friendly and precise for different lighting conditions. Using AI for this is not overkill. But if FP decides to go for a manual setting, then that’s fine by me as well. In the end we need something more personalized and not a one size fits all solution regarding the auto brightness.
Sorry, but which part of “Sensor value X ⇒ Screen Setting Y” would need intelligence? It’s a simple table of correspondence!
It’s not like brightness comes in different flavors and contexts, it’s a simple linear scale from 0 to 100k Lux, to which should correspond a given screen brightness setting (from 0 to 7 I guess).
“Intelligence” would only serve to raise the price tag, clog the CPU, drain the battery, and introduce an inexhaustible source of errors/unwarranted stupid AI initiatives (“Oh, subdued lighting! I’ll play some soft, romantic music and order champagne on Amazon”… ).
Oh well, I guess we must agree to differ on that one.
There are 2 ways discussed here.
One is an extra settings section where the user has to define brightness levels for certain situations. I think that’s cumbersome and user unfriendly.
The other one is that these settings are transparent for the user. The user notices it’s too bright or too dim, then adjusts it. That’s then registered. When you do it again, it’s registered and fine tuned. With a few manual adjustments the auto brightness is personalized and setting that has been transparent for the user. That’s very user friendly. And no, this simple AI is not resource intensive at all.
We might be talking about totally different things. There are no “certain situations” in my proposal, there is only a lower and an upper screen brightness limit to set, period. And if you find it is overall too bright, use the new “extra dim” setting.
Indeed, that’s your personal preference. You have to take into account other people’s preferences. For me the current settings are pretty much how I would personalize it. So from that point of view I could argue no change is needed.
For you it’s the lows you want to increase.
There are also people who would prefer lows overall unless there is direct sunlight.
The AI approach is the most user friendly and accurate personalization way of doing it. I hope FP will do that. But yeah, I think that’s enough about this subject
Back to you… The fact the status quo suits you, is not a reason to not introduce means for other people to be able to change it on their phones…
Sure, but setting lower/upper limits wouldn’t prevent that, would it?
Of course Fairphone could also implement a delta slider, one which introduces a correction factor (ideally positive and negative), which would allow to add a +something or -something correction to all the settings. Here again, very simple system, cheap as dirt, any intern could implement it.
You are still thinking in upper and lower preferences Because you want to change that.
What I stated was an example to let you see your own point of view from a different angle. I agree personalization is needed. And creating an AI machanism isn’t that difficult as you think. The training model is what you describe as manual settings. Which is more cumbersome, less user friendly and less precise.
If someone prefers low brightness indoors, but not outdoors, then your suggestion to only change the lows and highs won’t work in those different environments. It’s very limited then.
I think you have this point of view because you never had a phone with adaptive brightness like this. It really is making life easier for everyone.
Sure, but keep in mind that “better is the enemy of good”.
I don’t think in absolute terms, but inside the limits of what I think Fairphone could achieve. We know they, err, “aren’t too good with software”, they don’t have enough human resources to throw at it, and they are already swamped by numerous, important issues to fix, some as serious as not being able to make calls – on a phone!..
While I agree that having shiny sophisticated new things would be swell, I also think in the current situation it’s totally unrealistic: Fairphone clearly can barely fix the known serious problems, so asking for additional bells & whistles is pointless.
On the other hand adding the simple slider solution is so simple and cheap they might be able to pull it off, eventually.
That’s why I advocate it. “Half a loaf is better than no bread” and all that.
An AI intern could fix this for them If they reach out to the University of Amsterdam they can get this feature for free.