The Pixel 3 Camera - Computational Photography

The Pixel 3 makes big promises in regards to its camera: Google staunchly claims it to be the best camera on a smartphone, without a doubt. On the hardware side of things, the Pixel 3 doesn’t seem to bring all that many upgrades, as we’re still seeing a 12.2MP sensor in the form of a Sony IMX363, a seemingly generational update to last year’s IMX362. The sensor is supported by a f/1.8 aperture lens and the module supports OIS. A difference to last year’s Pixels is that we no longer find a laser-autofocus mechanism on the new phone, so the new sensor must’ve improved its phase-detection focus capabilities.

Google promises two big new features that aim to actually improve the picture quality of still pictures: Super Res Zoom, and Night Sight.

Super Res Zoom is an application of the geometrical super resolution image processing technique: Google captures multiple quick succession frames in this mode and infers a higher resolution image of the picture. Google doesn’t explain exactly where this processing is done, but it’s possible it’s a NN algorithm running on the Pixel Visual Core (Which on the Pixel 3 is the same silicon as on the Pixel 2). Google actually isn’t the first to introduce such a zoom method, as Huawei uses similar algorithms to achieve its hybrid 2x and 5x zoom modes, with the difference being that Huawei uses differing image inputs from its different sensors, while Google uses temporally different image from the same sensor. The resulting image should be superior to a simple digital zoom – however there’s diminishing returns on the amount of spatial resolution that can be reconstructed using this method.

Night Sight uses very much a similar algorithm to super resolution, with the difference being that instead of using multiple captures to achieve a higher spatial resolution, it can vastly increase the resulting image exposure while having significant noise reduction applied. Again, Huawei was the first to employ a multi-frame stacking algorithm some generations ago, but only this year with the P20’s were they also first to employ the critical combination of multi-frame stacking along with the ability to stack them correctly with spatial offsets to objects on each frame, in order to avoid blurring. Google’s mechanism inherently doesn’t seem to differ much from Huawei’s in what it does, but the implementation itself and results might obviously differ from each other. I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more vendors introduce similar techniques in upcoming devices, as it can bring greatly improved low-light imaging.

Night Sight pre-release APK credits

Officially, Google has to date not released Night Sight for public usage on the Pixel 3 family – this was something of great annoyance to me as the camera testing is a very major part of our reviews that takes significant time investment. Luckily, XDA member cstark27 was able to figure out that the module could be enabled in the camera APK by a simple flip of a settings flag. The timing was perfect as I was heading out with 18 devices in my pockets the very next day – and for this review I used the supplied modified camera APK alongside the stock camera, which spares me a lot of headaches in having to revisit the camera in the near future!

It’s also important to note that the resulting pictures might not be representative of the final camera that Google is planning to publicly release – however in the testing I found minor issues with it and the resulting pictures should be very close to the final product.

Camera - Daylight Evaluation - Superzoom and Scenic

I’m taking advantage of this review to essentially review all major cameras released this year along with some of their predecessors of last year. This involves a major 18-device shootout in various capturing modes. Included along the new Pixel 3 units are also the new Huawei Mate 20 and Mate 20 Pro which we’ll do a follow-up review shortly after this piece. Unfortunately the LG V40 didn’t make in time for the camera shootout, so we’ll revisit that one in a smaller scope in a few weeks’ time.

In the first round of scenarios I’m focusing on the Pixel 3’s new “Super Res Zoom” and how that stacks up to past generation Pixels, as well as the nearest competitors with optical zoom modules.

Click for full image
[ Pixel 3 ]
[ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ]
[ P20Pro ] - [ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ]
[ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ] - [ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ]
[ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ] - [ OnePlus 6 ]
[ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]

In this first set we see the Pixel 3’s zoom notably improve detail compared to just a digital crop of the full-frame image. The edges are more defined and the phone even manages to resolve some details that weren’t visible in the full-frame crop.

The comparison to the Pixel 2 reveals the crucial differences between just having a crop of the full resolution frame and the Super Res Zoom algorithm applied: The 5x zoom shot is the easiest to dissect in this regard – the details on the clock face visibly look improved and we see new edges on the Pixel 3 image that weren’t present on the Pixel 2.

Comparing to the zoomed in results to any of the optical zoom module competition, we however see that there’s still a major difference in quality: even though the Pixel 3 improves on its spatial resolution, I’d say it only manages to do so up to an equivalent level of a 1.5x zoom. Here the actual gains will depend on the granularity of the sub-pixel image localisation that Google uses. If it’s actually just on a sub-pixel level, then a 1.5x / 50% increase in spatial resolution is the logical limit of what we should be expecting of such an implementation, and further “sub-sub-pixel” increases would require more complex algorithms and more frame captures.

In the wide-angle shot, the Pixel 3 doesn’t differ too much from the Pixel 2. The only notable change is a slight difference in colour temperature, producing a colder image than the Pixel 2, a characteristic of the new camera we’ll see prevalent throughout all of the upcoming scenes.

Click for full image
[ Pixel 3 ]
[ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ]
[ P20Pro ] - [ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ]
[ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ] - [ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ]
[ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ] - [ OnePlus 6 ]
[ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]

In the next scene, we can apply the same zoom conclusions as on the first shot. The Pixel 3’s Super Res Zoom is a definite improvement over just a digital zoom, however again the spatial resolution increases are limited and cannot compete with optical zoom modules.

In the wide shot, the Pixel 3 again produces a colder image than the Pixel 2, but overall the processing and image are pretty much identical. A characteristic of Google’s phones we’ll see throughout the pictures is that the processing likes to darken the shadows more than what the sensor actually sees, and this most visible in the trees in these pictures, as the pines in the middle picture lose a lot of detail compared to any other phone, also something that happens throughout darker objects of the whole scene.

Here the Pixel 3 achieves nice contrast in the picture, but it’s just a tad darker than how the scene was in reality, with the iPhone XS’s result being much closer to an accurate representation of the actual scene, with many of the competing phones falling in-between these two comparisons in terms of their HDR results.

Click for full image
[ Pixel 3 ]
[ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ]
[ P20Pro ] - [ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]

The next scene again we have a good opportunity to compare the super zoom in the Pixel 3 to the results of the Pixel 2: We see again a definitive improvement, but again this is somewhat limited to a 50% in spatial resolution. Beyond this, the optical zoom competition again manages to vastly outpace the Pixel 3 in terms of clarity.

The wide shot here is actually quite tough as we have major shadow-cast in half of the scene, while the top half is sun-lit. For fun and testing, I tested the Night Sight mode in many of the daylight pictures to see if there was any major difference in processing. The one difference I can see is that there’s a change in colour temperature, with the Pixel 3’s auto mode again producing ever so slightly colder images.

The P20 Pro in its 10MP mode clearly has the best dynamic range in the resulting shot, followed by the MIX2S, OP6, and FindX. The Pixel phone’s shots offer very good contrast and are doing very well in bringing out highlights in the dark areas, but this comes at a great cost in terms of very dark shadows nearly clipping into black on many parts of the scene.

Detail-wise, while the Pixel 3 isn’t doing well in the shadows, it is able to outclass many other devices in terms of overall detail in the rest of the scene, and has absolutely no issues with loss of detail on the frame edges, pointing out to a high quality lens.

Click for full image
[ Pixel 3 ]
[ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ]
[ P20Pro ] - [ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ]
[ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ] - [ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ]
[ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ] - [ OnePlus 6 ]
[ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]

The Pixel 3’s tendency to clip shadows to black and just being too under-exposed is again visible in this scene where part of the valley is shadow-cast. Google does excellently in the foreground trees and maintains a great amount of contrast, but other devices just have a significantly better dynamic range in big parts of the picture.

Click for full image
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]

In less demanding lighting conditions, the Pixel phones fare significantly better with shadows, and actually perform very well. A tendency that is continuously present is that Google likes to bring down the sky’s brightness – this could be a reason why dynamic range on the lower end isn’t quite as good as other phones who tend to have brighter or even blown out sky exposures.

In terms of detail, the Pixel 3 is among the top performers – only outclassed by Samsung’s recent Note9 and S9 sensors whose improved deep trench isolation is a step above other phones, and manage to retain much more of the stone’s grain as well as fine details of the statues. Of course, when the lighting conditions allow it, Huawei’s 40MP cameras always win detail wise because of their enormous resolution advantage.

Battery Life Camera - Daylight Evaluation - Dynamic Range
Comments Locked

135 Comments

View All Comments

  • Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Meh, their memory management is still over-aggressive here... Some of the instances I've seen of apps getting killed after opening the camera don't even happen on my OG Pixel with the same amount of RAM.
  • Arbie - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Is anyone actually in favor of not having a headphone jack?

    I get it that you *can* make the phone very slightly thinner without one; OTOH keeping the same thickness *can* permit longer battery life, which everyone wants. I also understand that you *can* put a superlative DAC in a dongle, for audiophiles. But that can be done anyway.

    Killing the jack seems to bring no benefit to the majority of folks, and is going to alienate a lot of them. So - why? Such a change can't just be due to fashion.
  • zanon - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    Yes, and it blows my mind that so many so-called tech enthusiasts are actually actively against improvements to archaic technology. Wires suck, they get snagged on things, they limit movement, they act as antennas that pick up things like GSM sync signals, etc. We used them because that was the best that could be done in the 70s and 80s. But that's not the case now. They offer literally zero inherent advantages except one: the antenna part, they can in principle (and in a few phones over the years) act as physical antennas for classic radio broadcasts. But that simply hasn't been that motivating to the developed world market in a long time, as evidenced by the fact that it's not a major advertised universal Android feature and Apple never bothered with it at all.

    Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems. Audio quality is not an issue, Bluetooth 5 has plenty of bandwidth for even lossless audio (and 256 AAC let alone Sony's fat codec is transparent anyway). Run time is fine, once something gets to 10-18 hours+ on a charge that meets what I'd ever listen to in a single session with no breaks (when it could be charged). Symmetric encryption is cheap and easy now and means it's as secure (or more given TEMPEST) as wired. Some stuff is still lacking, like easy switching between multiple wireless sources, but that's not a fault of the inherent tech so much as there hasn't been any real demand for it yet because wires have hung on so damn long. We're already seeing way more cool adapters for existing products get released due to increased demand and so I expect the market to work it's typical magic.

    I'm delighted to see that relic go. I have no nostalgia towards it anymore then I do towards 8-track or MMX or 10base ethernet or whatever.
  • cfenton - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    "Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems."

    But those are real problems for everyday use. Just because the technology is theoretically there doesn't mean it works well in practice. I use wireless headphones with my Galaxy S7 in the winter because I hate threading a cord through my coat. About 20% of the time my headphones only connect for voice calls, but not media. I have to either fiddle with menus, or turn them off and on again. I'm using a $100+ over-ear set, not some cheap $20 ear-buds from a no-name brand. It's annoying enough that I still use my wired headphones at home, and outside in the summer.

    I've heard Apple's solution is a lot better, but I don't have an iPhone, and don't particularly like Beats.

    If getting rid of the headphone jack added anything to the phone, or somehow made bluetooth better, I'd be all for it. But it seems to add nothing. Samsung has shown with the Galaxy S9 that you can make a very nice modern phone and still have room for a headphone jack. So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?
  • zanon - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link

    But how do you think we have *ever* gotten from A to B there? I'm only in my late-30s so not really old, but even so I can still remember most of the PC era and I can't remember any significant technology that didn't take many years to get refined, to fill out niches, to unambiguously beat what it replaced. Not just in hardware but often even in software, take audio and video codecs for example, there have been a number of replacement cycles where the technically superior standard spec for a while was inferior in practice to highly refined encoders for the previous generation.

    At some point somebody has to get the ball rolling and there will be a few generations where people just have to deal with compromises. The only way we've ever gotten great tech is for a real market to get established and then iterated upon. In the case of BT audio, in just the last year I've seen more improvements in things like BT adapters then like the previous 5 years at least. Just a few days ago a bunch of BT5 gen 2 refined ones came out at lower prices and better performance.

    >"So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?"

    Because that has never, ever worked. If the old thing is still available major players just use the old thing. Inertia is very powerful. Somebody sometime has to bite the bullet, and given the realities of mass manufacturing you can't "have all the problems worked out" in version 1.0. Version 1.0 is always going to have issues. But you can't get ver2 or ver3 without going through 1.0 first. In this case Apple has shown it can be done very well and with more vendors going that way there is now a clear market of people ready to spend money on it and 3rd parties are starting to react and iterate. Now we can look forward to having way better stuff in another year or 2, whereas if they had all put it off then there is no reason to expect that'd be the case anymore then it was the last decade.

    If you really don't want to be on the bleeding edge there then no problem, just get an older device! Mobile lasts a lot longer now, Apple already supports their stuff 5+ years and Google is getting better too. But those of us who like to live nearer the edge have always had to deal with that edge being rougher then those who follow. Somebody has to go first though.
  • porcupineLTD - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    Nice mental gymnastics to justify an idiotic trend.
  • zanon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    Nice brainless technophobia from a luddite lol. Why don't you go back to your retro forum hole and cling to your VGA and CRT claiming they're the best ever and all this flatscreen stuff is a sheeple fad?
  • Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    CRT still haven't been surpassed for some fast refresh applications... And likely never will by LCD, OLED might get there.
  • rabidpeach - Friday, July 31, 2020 - link

    it's not technophobia! you can get wired speakers that are sufficiently sensitive that are much bigger than the bs wireless earbuds you insert. likewise the full size wireless bose whatevers. it's not a big range of headphones but there is a sweet spot of larger phones that can be driven by mobile device. it exzists.
  • cfenton - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great. Well, I don't have any 5.0 stuff, so maybe they finally got it right, but version 4.0 is still pretty inconsistent. If wireless worked as well as wired, I'd be all for it, but in my experience, it doesn't yet.

    As for transitions not happening unless forced, I'm not sure that's true. Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists. It's only in the last five years or so that laptops have been shipping without ethernet ports, and desktops still have them. Again, I'm not against having good wireless tech, I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now