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

  • jospoortvliet - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    It combines multiple images into one - not something you would manually be able to reasonably do. I mean, maybe, but it is very hard. It isn't just applying some filters you can do on any picture.
  • Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    Um, HDR is a pretty common technique for photographers and the burst rates and high end stabilization of today's cameras make it more accessible than ever... So using HDR or HDR-like methods (Google actually combines multiple frames with similar exposures IIRC) to increase DR or average noise out is not the least bit uncommon, it's not hard to do and a lot of software packages automate it to a very high degree.

    Where Google's approach differs significantly and what makes it so accessible as the primary mode (and part of what makes Night Sight great, it's just building upon the same algorithms but with slower shutter speeds) is in the smart tiling they employ before stacking all the frames. That's what makes it usable even with subject motion in the frame and other variable lighting conditions... They break each frame down into tiles and they combine those tiles individually, dropping some as needed if the subject moved across tiles or blurred out... That's obviously way beyond the normal post processing techniques people do by hand.
  • Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    Note: I'm referring mostly to stills in standard HDR+ and Night Sight, what they've done with Super Res Zoom is somewhat impressive but still pretty gimmicky in the end IMO... If I needed a longer focal length I'd just shoot a discrete camera or a phone with a longer focal length in optics.
  • Ikefu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Keep us posted on when the LG V40 comparison is coming! I'm between a 3 XL and a V40 and these reviews are phenomenal. Love it Andrei!
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    If the V40 is anywhere near the G7's camera performance, which some reviews have hinted at, then the 3XL might be a better choice.
  • Ikefu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    True, but I'm slightly addicted to the wide angle camera for landscapes and stadiums. I'm still holding on to my shred of hope when your review hits.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    I'll do a quick check on the V40 tomorrow and write back here - the Mate 20's review is next in line to be published first.
  • Arbie - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Great, because the V30 and V40, along with the Samsung S9 and S9+, seem to be the only brand phones supporting all the T-Mobile bands (eg. 71). That really limits choice if you want max compatibility with that carrier.

    Which leads me to wonder how the S9 compares in general to the S9+; primarily in low light. The latter is well-documented here.

    Phenomenal review overall, thanks.
  • imaheadcase - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    The stand is not bundled with the phone, its a separate purchase. Not sure why you said that.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    I wrote that it was bundled with the review phone, I edited the sentence to clarify this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now