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

  • zanon - 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."

    It is great (or at least getting close) from some vendors, which shows that the technical foundation is there. Once that exists the only real way to have progress happen sustainable is to have a market for it so hundreds to thousands of attempts will be made, most of which will be mediocre, but some of which will be good and then get copied/followed in turn. To your own point:

    >"Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists."

    WiFi was introduced *20 years ago*. Yes, 1998. And it stunk. It was a long time before it even achieved the kind of technical spec it needed, 802.11n took 11 years, 802.11ac took 15 years. Both came after smartphones and notebooks overtaking desktops, demand drove innovation and pricing. Of course, even now in 2018 a lot of WiFi stuff on the market is still junk and will still give a bad experience, but at least there are good options.

    I think a better example would be USB replacing PS2 & ADB ports. Wow were there a lot of howls over that. We're seeing some of the exact same thing now in fact with USB-C and TB3, and people raging about adapters and "everything was fine before" and the early pains of these standards (plenty of junk USB-C implementations). But the fact is USB-C is a nice connector that solves physical and speed problems.

    >"I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone."

    I absolutely agree it's not 100% there yet! There is clearly a ways to go. But I also don't think it'll ever go from 20% or even 50% to 100% in one leap either, no matter when they started the first few versions would have compromises. But I've seen more progress in the last year then the last decade, and once people know that something can be done well it tends to drag up the industry because customers are less willing to accept excuses of "oh nobody can do this."
  • mrvco - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link

    Agreed. I have a couple pairs of BT headpones and the convenience is nice... until the battery runs out when I'm boarding an international flight. I'm still using a Pixel XL as my daily driver and just ordered an LG v40. I also have an iPhone 8plus for app testing / demos and keeping track of the dongle is annoying.

    I still haven't heard a compelling reason for removing the headphone jack beyond pedantic and otherwise pointless spec sheet glossing. I'll take a slightly thicker phone all day and everyday if it means a larger battery and the same goes for a phone with a headphone jack.
  • Arbie - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link

    What a rant! But what could you do except blather about "forcing the future" and "a few generations will have to deal with compromises"? That malarkey lost all meaning long ago; maybe you missed the memo.

    I have a BT headset for when I want to listen and be mobile - only. Compared to my wired earbuds it's bulky, heavy, expensive, complex, requires setup, creates rub noise, *and* needs daily charging. Now - add a dongle with similar issues! In all those aspects, wireless is a regression even it if works flawessly. If we had only that, and someone invented wired phones, it would be hailed as a miracle because, where they are convenient, those have no equal.

    So removing even the option of wired is stupid *unless* there is some major compensation for doing so. I don't see any, and you don't either.
  • nonig - Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - link

    Rarely has a post resonated with me like this one has. I wholeheartedly agree.

    Back when Apple announced, that they'd be dropping the minijack I thought "damit!" as I almost just had gotten a decent headset for my phone. I like to listen to music and the thought of having to accept wireless only irked me.

    On the other hand, I am a tech enthusiast and had two years prior gotten my first tenure and therefore a decent salary - so I thought to myself; why not splurge and get a 'real' high end headset? I got myself the Beoplay H8 (around $350 I think) and haven't looked back.

    My only alternatives was the Airpods or a headset similar to the B&O (Denon, Bose, Sennheiser, B&W and so on).

    To me, it marked my final maturity into the form of 'good enough'-adulthood. I don't need 'wannabe pro'-performance or other pseudo/placebo. It just has to work, be good enough and reliable. Never really being able to put it into words until I read your post - and I totally agree.

    I too used to claim, that only wired was good enough, until I got used to the comforts of WiFi.
    I too used to claim, that FireWire400/800 was infinitely superior to USB2.0/3.0, until I tried a newer USB3.0 external hard drive.
    I too used to claim, that only the golden terminals on my SoundBlaster Audigy was good enough for my MP3's until I realized it just doesn't matter.
    I too used to claim, that CDs was superior to AAC or whatever, until discovered the joy streaming music.
    I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy movies was on bluray, until I realized I just wanna watch movies and not bother with stupid intros, trailers, copyright/piracy splashes - Netflix, HBO, Youtube (still ads, but 5 seconds is manageable).
    I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy audio was on the B&W speakers via our NAD amp, until I realized bitrate doesn't determine how much I (or my kids) like a song or not.
    So on and so forth.

    Today, I just don't bother anymore.

    Music is best enjoyed when I don't have to untangle stupid wires first. I just put on my headset, turn them on, and instant music or Airplay to our wireless speakers around the house - provided the kids hasn't hidden them somewhere.

    I guess people don't like change (I'm not claiming that they're stuck up or something, just that sometimes change doesn't seem rational when 'the old stuff seems to work just fine') and I like your point.

    Let's get back to serial and parallel ports, so much easier, when different things use different ports. Today, everything is USB and it can be soooo confusing.
    Let's get back to when phones only used to be phones.
    Let's get back to when cameras was cameras.
    Let's get back to when portable music devices used cassette tapes.
    Let's get back to when cars was jump started by hand.
    Let's get back to using horses. Less pollution! (I honestly don't know, if replacing combustion based motor transportation with live stock would decrease pollution - XKCD/Randall are you reading this?)

    Anywho.

    All I wanted to say was; I agree.
  • erple2 - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link

    I'm not that averse to new tech, provided it eventually (fairly quickly) surpasses what it is replacing. In the case of bluetooth (version 5 no less), we're still not there yet. My cheap (~$20) bluetooth headphones don't always work, have issues with: mediocre sound, noticeable audio lag, and have to be charged, and don't really last that long on a charge. By contrast, my cheap (~$8) wired headphones always work, have mediocre sound, no audio lag, don't need to be charged, and don't cause a small (but noticeable) drain on my phone's battery life.

    Each of the other things you mentioned saddened me with the race to acceptance of mediocrity, though :( While I appreciate the conveniences of WiFi, I still plug my laptop in to wired connections when reasonably possible - it's just faster in all cases, and more reliable. That's kind of a problem with most new technology - I'm just not sure if the improved convenience of new technology always makes up for its shortcomings (hint: it only sometimes does).
  • amosbatto - Friday, November 30, 2018 - link

    These kind of comments really annoy me. First of all, you are needlessly promoting planned obsolescence for no tangible benefit. Millions of headphones and speakers all over the planet will be thrown away for no good reason, except that Apple figured out a way to make more profits selling us dongles and Beats wireless headset. I have a hi-fi system that I bought in high school which will never work with Bluetooth. You are telling me to throw out a $1000 system, just because it doesn´t work with Bluetooth and replace it with Bluetooth speakers of lesser quality.

    Bluetooth´s quality still isn´t as good as a wired audio. I have had very bad experience with Bluetooth ear buds. First, I bought some Apple-style ear buds, that don´t have a wire. Two days later, I was washing dishes and it slipped out of my ear and fell in the sink and the water destroyed it. Next, I bought a Bluetooth set with wires connected to a magnetic clip. I´m guessing that the clip wasn´t strong enough, because I lost it when walking. These experiences have convinced me to return to wired ear buds.
  • imaheadcase - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    What are you having problems with wireless? Every smartphone i've had i've used the bluetooth all the time and never had a issue with it.

    Wireless is just plain silly to have now-a-days, wireless is better for working, running, pretty much all aspects.
  • ummduh - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    Literally every bluetooth connection I have is problematic. I only have 2 left due to having so many issues with it. I HATE BT. I don't know who's fault it is, the accessory devices' implementation, or differences in phone manufacturers' implementation, but it doesn't really matter. I consistently have problems with it. It never just works for me.
  • cfenton - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    I have connection issues. When I turn my headphones on, sometimes they only grab the call audio output, but not the media audio output. I have to go into my bluetooth settings to fix it and that's a hassle, especially when I'm out in the winter with gloves on.
  • Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link

    I'm not gonna defend dropping the jack, but these instances where people swear they have to fiddle with settings each and every time they pair BT stuff can only be due to two things... Bad software (some phones/devices do have a shitty BT stack, and Google is often on the latest which doesn't always play nice with older stuff) AND/OR an incredibly noisy RF environment. I don't often encounter the latter, but I don't live in an apartment or the middle of NYC.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now