11–20 of 102 posts
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
The point is they recovered the shadow detail of people’s faces which would otherwise be lost.
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
To my eyes, the shadow boost is a little too much. I'd ideally like a slider to customise exactly how much brightness you're adding. Personally, I'd probably turn most of these down a touch.
Google clearly has fantastic technology driving this image processing, but I think they need a little more work on their taste.
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
I also don't know if Google actually consults with real photography experts when creating these machine learning techniques. Apple made a big deal out of doing that at the last event to create "beautiful photos". It's not enough to just "mathematically improve" something. It should look very pleasing to the human eye, too.
Perhaps if Google did that, too, it would have avoid issues such as this one, or the somewhat unrealistic look of its portrait mode blur in photos. It's hard to explain, but to me the Pixel 2 portrait shots look like the person doesn't "belong" in the environment. Like they have a linear-blur wallpaper behind them and they photograph themselves in front of it. Or almost like they are photoshopped into the image. I wouldn't say it's that bad. And a majority of people probably won't notice it immediately, but I still think it needs to be improved (perhaps, I don't know, by actually using a dual-camera setup like Apple and Samsung?).
https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_2_xl-review-1670p4.php...
It looks like they are releasing these bits and pieces before the Finale. Custom ARM core, SOC in entirety.
I'm not so sure... Have they bought or hired any taken like apple did?
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
I guess most people won't load the image into a paint package to fix it, so their aim is just to automatically do a job nearly as good as a trivial change a human would make. Still, I was hoping for more.
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
No, I noticed it right away and I'm no photography expert. I suppose it's easy to control that in software, though, preferably before they actually enable the feature in Android 8.1. I also don't know if Google actually consults with real photography experts when creating these machine learning techniques. Apple made a big deal out of doing that at the last event to create "beautiful photos". It's not enough to just…
There are many non-obvious issues with this as well. You're most likely thinking of, for example, an non-centered subject can create an interesting composition and algorithmically centering the subject would not create better looking photos.
However, in film's history, we've seen older technology briefly preferred for no other reason than momentum. An example off the top of my head is higher frame rate video does not have the "movie feel" that 24 fps film does. That doesn't mean 24 fps is ideal, its simply familiar.
Can't see any pics on Firefox Focus browser on mobile. Are they using some weird Desktop only CSS?
Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
As landscapes, they may well be less interesting. As communicative portraits, they're (IMO) more successful. The first one is probably the best example. Having a clearer and brighter picture of (for example) your partner and daughter would likely be preferable. If it was a candid and unposed shot, it might look weird and unnatural though. This is why the fourth example is probably the least successful, that hazy summ…