Of course, the picture was taken in low light conditions. So you need longer exposure times, you can’t freeze movements under these conditions.
We have had these discussions before a few times. Software can overcome this easily, for about 8 years methods are used to create sharp images in scenes like these. It’s not science fiction.
1 Like
How should software overcome this? It’s a camera, not a painter. It is the real picture, when moving people in the dark (especially in the background) are blurry. With longer exposure times, you can even make them invisible.
In my opinion, you are expecting the wrong things, Fairphone will never be able to foresee, how you wish that a picture has to be. Therefore the photographer can influence parameters and the look of a picture.
1 Like
We’ve had this discussion a few times already, I gave many examples of how modern software defined cameras can create beautiful images with low light. I don’t know why we have to start the discussion from scratch every time.
I don’t expect too much from Fairphone, I already stated that I don’t expect any improvements. I was replying to someone who thought there were improvements. Taking existing and more advanced software defined cameras as a reference of what’s possible and where Fairphone is (still) at, my conclusion was that there are no improvements.
1 Like
Because you are always complaining about the same things, so I don’t start it.
I just checked some test pictures of the Pixel 7 in the night: Blurry cars, sometimes the whole picture has no sharp areas at all. So I still think your pictures here are still technically good, no need for big improvements.
1 Like
I don’t really believe you know what you’re talking about, since you keep insisting this tech does not exist. It’s not a fairy tale or science fiction. Just aim and shoot is with modern phones very easy and super hard on a Fairphone. If your goal is to make blurry pics, surely you can. The fact remains that its almost impossible to take a nice shot on a FP, even if you really try. It’s valid criticism. I know you don’t agree.
To clear things up: The unblur feature from google does exist. Like it exists for Photoshop as well. It is a machine learning algorithm that tries to fix blurry parts. From some test pictures it looks pretty impressive. In other pictures you can see that the algorithm was used.
Moving objects at night will always be blurry in the first place. The difference is the algorithm after taking the picture. The google version can be used for any picture but only in the google app on a pixel 7. You can not expect Fairphone to develop these advanced algorithms.
3 Likes
I’m not saying that, just saying that there is a lot of room for improvement. In a few years it will be a decade after these methods have been developed. Some midrange phones also have these now. It’s becoming normal. Of course I don’t expect FP to be on the same level as a modern Pixel. But in some point in time they do have to catch up with models from 10 years ago. Otherwise they aren’t really the great example they want to be. If people are not happy with their phones, they will buy a new one sooner. And this forum is full of people complaining about the camera and other things.
I’m by the way not talking about the latest features, the early Pixels could do Nightmode as well with sharp images, without these latest features.
Pixel:
Fairphone:
The picture of the Fairphone does look pretty good and very natural, what’s wrong with it in your opinion?
I’m not sure if you want to have an honest discussion and have a genuine interest in my opinion. I think you just want to argue in favor of FP, which is not valid in this case. The colors are not natural, the Pixel one is. Did those clouds really look like that? Yes, that’s why I took the photo. If it was just a regular photo of a train in the evening I wouldn’t take the photo. The tiles in the FP picture are smudged out because of the aggressive algorithm FP uses to reduce pixel noise, and not just the tiles, everything is unsharp, while an algorithm tries to sharpen it, but makes it worse. The colors are not the same as reality, they are dull and tuned down in the FP picture, the sunset was brighter, the train was shiny, just to name 2 things that could already make the picture quality more life like. Also the contrast is low, it’s using night mode, but the image quality is darker than the reality was. And this happens also in brightly lit environments. So please, not this ISO argument again.
I’m sure you disagree, I’m sure you’ll insist it’s impossible for FP to improve, you’ll probably even argue that the Pixel one is worse. You’ll probably twist my words to make an argument. I’m kind of at the point to ignore you. Life is too short for these repetitive discussions. The difference of quality should be clear to anyone that’s not biased. And before we repeat that loop again, no, I’m not saying FP should be at the same level of a Pixel. But they shouldn’t get comfortable at the level of quality they’re at now either. People want to use their phone as a camera. And yes, that’s very much possible. In terms of reducing waste, giving people a quality camera will go a long way. Everything I mention here is mentioned by me before, many times. We keep having this discussion. I wasn’t mentioning you or Pixels at all, just modern software defined cameras in the context of someone who asked if the quality got improved. No it didn’t. And that’s fine to say, since it’s true. And yes, you disagree, I know that. 
3 Likes
When I see the two angles and the fact you are not at the same level of the train, I thought the two photos were taken at different moments.
With the Pixel, the focus seems on the clouds, with the Fairphone it seems on the lamp on the platform.
People tend to prefer photos with vivid colours and not necessarily natural colours but the FP4 is bad at both if I followed. By the way, the FP3 got a camera update some days ago so maybe you will get a good result with your FP4 at the end of its life 
2 Likes
Yes, the train pics are not taken at the same time. The Pixel one is from 3 years ago. But both pics were taken when there was an amazing view. It translates nicely and naturally with the Pixel. On the FP it’s a different story, the wow effect of the view is just not there.
I agree with you that the original camera software is below the standard of other apps, but it’s pretty daring to make comparisons based on completely different lighting situations. And on the basis of images downsampled to 264 kB.
The colors and the amount of the relevant light sources (especially the sky and in the first image of the open door) are completely different in reality between the shooting situations. In addition, there is the psychological component of color perception…
And e.g. the smartphone operator on the platform is quite sharp, so you can’t complain.
By the way, I wondered about several of the pixel-images: do we see plunging lines or barrel-shaped distortion at the edges?
1 Like
The comparison is indeed not 1 on 1, for that, see:
https://forum.fairphone.com/t/fp4-pictures-gallery/78667/174?u=uppercase
The discussion just required some examples to show what I was talking about, that improvements are possible.
1 Like
The FP images look a bit like oil paintings. Nice, but absolutely not good for photos. Where is the sharpness?
1 Like
iPhone SE is the one iPhone without proper software defined camera features. An unfortunate tactic from Apple to boost iPhone sales of the higher budget phones. While the hardware can easily handle it. I don’t have experience with it, but it was mentioned in the video below. How you value the comparison with that information is up to you of course.
Seeing the (non-existing) sharpness of the images, I do not need to worry about the Iphone SE’s unproper defined software features of the camera. The result speaks for itself and even if the hardware is supposedly ok for the FP4 the software is not as it exaggerates the image “optimization” by far to o much.
BTW I am quite happy with the GCam (8.6 stable by BSG and 8.7 Beta) and the results, even if i has no access to the 48MP setup.
Yesterday as well Nikita 8.2 v1.8 vs. BSG 8.7 v6 (I dont use the 48MP neither with stock cam ,as I dont see any advantage and have the feeling it only exist as many complained for the FP3 that the output of the 48MP still just us 12 MP)
@Lars_Hennig added the Gcam Versions above. Normally I use Nikita and I’m happy with recently I installed the “unstable” BSG Version for some reason, however rarely use it.
Edit: seems first picture is BSG and second Nikita, the time in the name is wrong for BSG so mixed them up while uploading…
3 Likes
