Camera Video Recording

Video recording on the Pixel 3’s is still limited to 720, 1080 and 4K at 30fps. The resulting video is encoded in H.264 and Google offers a switch to enable EIS, or to leave it disabled and solely rely on the OIS of the camera. The disadvantage of EIS of course is that it’ll result in a narrower field-of-view compared to the native FoV of the camera.

Pixel 3:      Pixel 2: 

Overall, the only big difference in video recording quality between the Pixel 3 and its predecessor, at least in these sample videos, is that the Pixel 3 is seemingly doing a much brighter exposure. This also resulted in some loss of contrast in some scenarios, and also less saturated colours. Oddly enough the new Pixel 3 also limits the digital zoom available when video recording, only going half as far as on the Pixel 2.

Speaker Evaluation

The Pixel 3 comes again with stereo front-facing speakers. This time around Google promises great improvements in the audio quality thanks to improvements in the software audio processing. To test this, we’re using our new speaker measurement methodology, and to do more direct comparisons I also revisited the Pixel 2’s speakers so that the size difference to the Pixel 2 XL doesn’t affect our evaluation.

Speaker Loudness

In terms of speaker loudness at maximum volume, the Pixel 3 is about 0.6dB louder when holding it in one hand, and showcases a 1.1dB advantage when cupping the phone with both hands. There’s some variability here as I prefer to measure the phones in-hand, as to represent the audio response as you would have when listening to the phones in real life.

The small difference between the one-handed and two-handed results showcase the front-firing nature of the speakers, showing that they have good frontal directionality.

Moving on, we’re doing a frequency response measurement sweep from 20Hz to 20KHz. The measurement is done with the phone in landscape mode held in two hands, with the palms again naturally cupped around the phone, as you would hold it when gaming.

The one very weird result about the Pixel 3 that differs from any other phone I’ve measured, is that the speakers go a lot further in the high frequency range than any other phone. Now this should be positive in general, however the Pixel 3 here oscillates significantly in terms of volume at the high frequencies, and this is plainly audible when doing the frequency sweep test, something unique to the Pixel 3.

Applying a psychoacoustic averaging filter to the results and comparing it to the Pixel 2, we see exactly how the speaker improved in terms of its sound output. I calibrate the volume of all phones in this comparison to a level of 75dbA on a pink noise output, so all phones are at the same perceived volume.

The Pixel 3 improves throughout from the bass range up to the low mid-range, showcasing a significant increase in volume in these frequencies, something that should be immediately audible. The Pixel 3 also has an abnormally loud output in the high frequencies above 15KHz – normally where other phone speakers would drastically fall off. The issue here is whether the big dip around 12KHz will adversely impact the phone’s audio.

It’s very hard to accurately convey speaker quality as recording equipment will always change the frequency response. I tried my best in terms of measuring this as best as I can through recording the phone’s output through a binaural microphone setup. The best playback experience for these recordings is achieved through headphones, or better, IEMs.

My calibrated speaker setup is meant to serve as a baseline to which the recording microphones should be compared to.

Comparing the Pixel 3 to the Pixel 2, there an evident increase in bass and depth of the audio, marking a significant improvement over last year’s model. The issue here is I feel there’s too much components in the high frequencies and the sound can seem notably harsh and shrill at maximum volume.

Another issue is that the phone is seemingly suffering from distortions – this something that I’ve also encountered on the G7 and seems to be linked to the fact that the glass back of the phone is allowed to vibrate a lot, instead of the sound pressure going out through the speaker grill. Also, if you happen to partially cover the bottom (bass) grill, the speaker membrane will notably distort. Pressing against the back will also change the frequency response of the audio.

Overall, the Pixel 3’s speaker are still a significantly improvement. I still prefer the iPhone XS and S9+ speakers – but the Pixel 3 is not far behind, especially having very strong mid-ranges.

Camera - Low Light Evaluation - Night Sight Conclusion & End Remarks
Comments Locked

135 Comments

View All Comments

  • Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    They're not using bad sensors, I mean, they often manufacture everyone else's, the post processing is often horrid for Sony tho. You think they could get someone from their dedicated camera division to better tune that (they don't have the greatest JPEG engine either but it's gotten better every year).
  • Edwardmcardle - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Awesome review as always. Will there be a mate 20 pro review? Have one and am considering returning because of odd screen issue. Also the new performance mode seems to suck battery, but animations seem laggy when not engaged...would be great to have a professional insight!
  • luikiedook - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Excellent review, and comparison photos galore! I think a lot of the day light photos is a matter of opinion. Personally I find the iPhone Xs and Samsung photos over exposed and less pleasing than the pixel photos. The outdoor seating area for example, the black table tops look reflective and almost white in the iphone Xs and Samsung photos.

    Most of the time the Pixel photos are darker, but I'm not convinced there is less detail, most of the time.

    The p20 pro seems to crush everything in 5x zoom.
  • melgross - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link

    The shadows on the Pixel are all blocked up. It’s pretty obvious. Some people mistakenly equate black shadows with better contrast, as Google apparently does, but that’s wrong. You can always darken the shadows later in a quick edit. But if the detail is killed on the photo, you can never retrieve it.
  • Dr. Swag - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Hey Andrei, you got the displays mixed up. The 3XL uses a Samsung amoled panel whereas the 3 uses a p-oled from LG. The table on the first page says the opposite.
  • warrenk81 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    haven't even read the article yet, just want to say i'm so happy to see smartphones review return to Anandtech!!
  • spooh - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Pixel XL used in the review has optics issue affecting corner sharpness, and light fallof. I think it's also slightly less sharp than good unit.
    I've had one with the same issue, but returned it.
  • id4andrei - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    The Verge reviewer Vlad Savov is a big fan of Google's computational photography. He makes it seem like the Pixel is clearly above the latest flagships. Your expansive review paints a different picture, that of a phone that tries to keep up with a single camera module.

    On a personal level I have a dilemma. Isn't computational photography basically post-processing? Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    > Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?

    Not really. If a sensor fails to have sufficient dynamic range by itself, then even with no processing that's also going to lead no an "inaccurate representation".
  • Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    It's a little fancier than the post processing you could (easily) manage yourself, mostly cause of the way they chop up frames in tiles to then stack them intelligently... You could say it's "fake" in instances where their algorithm just decided to drop a tile to avoid artefacts or movement etc., but wouldn't you just clone those out yourself if you were anal about the overall end result?

    It's an interesting question without a straightforward answer IMO. It's just gonna vary by shot and usage case, if you're getting consistently better DR then you're consistently closer to "what you see", but all photography is ultimately an interpretation.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now