Art and Photography

Locked: The Huawei Mate 20 Pro Takes Better Pictures Than a DSLR, Prove Me Wrong

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 4th, 2019 7:58 pm
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 26, 2007
4150 posts
519 upvotes
^ chips =/= sensor

i was talking about image processing, the ones in most cameras are several years old, whereas phones you usually get the bleeding edge tech (remember last year's iphone was faster than a macbook pro in synthetics)

so yes image processing is so far ahead in terms of speed, but ya still can't cheat physics because of sensor size and lens composition
Russell wrote:
Sep 10th, 2011 12:29 pm
We come here looking for deals. We use the savings on the things we buy to justify buying more things, thus filling our homes with tons of unnecessary consumer products. Such is the key to happiness.

Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12307 posts
3333 upvotes
Ottawa
twitchyzero wrote:
Dec 23rd, 2018 1:17 pm
i was talking about image processing, the ones in most cameras are several years old, whereas phones you usually get the bleeding edge tech (remember last year's iphone was faster than a macbook pro in synthetics)

so yes image processing is so far ahead in terms of speed, but ya still can't cheat physics because of sensor size and lens composition
It's amazing how much processing they can do with the new SOC in the new phones, and for casual video and snapshots, there is no reason to carry a separate camera anymore. Out of the phone, the phone pictures are more ready-to-use and do a good job out of maximizing picture quality out of a small sensor

I have the iPhone XS and I was hoping to use their vaunted "portrait mode" for bokeh simulation. The first three photos I took on my last vacation using that mode were complete crap, my wife's hair was completely out of focus at the edges because it thought her dark hair was part of the darkish background. Luckily you have the original picture available to keep (turn the "aperture" to a smallest value). I don't know if the Pixel or other phones do a better job but fake bokeh will always have limitations so you can't rely on it.
RFD is not just about saving money, it's about the thrill of the hunt and not paying full price like Joe Shmoe did. This applies to everyday items as well as high end items that I don't really need.
Deal Guru
Jun 15, 2012
11841 posts
5921 upvotes
Southern Ontario
stevelam wrote:
Dec 25th, 2018 10:37 am
i had the phone for a week before dumping it. i was sold on the camera but the camera was downright awful because it was very inconsistent. everything on paper hardware-wise sounded good but huawei is just not good at the software side of things (post-processing, etc).

audio recordings in video was also terrible and overblown. video itself had random choppiness at random times. compared to even my old iphone 6s, the difference was night and day.

overall, a very unreliable camera for a phone that was supposed to be superior in those departments (well, photo at least, since most reviews said the video recording was shit).

also good luck trying to resell one of these phones. they came out not that long ago and can barely be sold for even half the price now.

if you're up in the air about which android to get, get the s9 instead.
From... amazon-ca-huawei-p20-pro-unlocked-789-2251520/

There are people who are enjoying the phone in that thread too but they aren’t descriptive about it. Either case, a late smartphone with polar camera reviews doesn’t convey product confidence, functions that flagship iPhones and androids just do.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1873 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 25th, 2018 10:29 am
I have the iPhone XS and I was hoping to use their vaunted "portrait mode" for bokeh simulation. The first three photos I took on my last vacation using that mode were complete crap, my wife's hair was completely out of focus at the edges because it thought her dark hair was part of the darkish background. Luckily you have the original picture available to keep (turn the "aperture" to a smallest value). I don't know if the Pixel or other phones do a better job but fake bokeh will always have limitations so you can't rely on it.
Actually, there is no limitation with smartphone bokeh. They rely on a depth sensor camera to know what is in the foreground and what is behind. As the resolution of those depth sensors gets up to the resolution of the main camera, there will be no more missed hairs. Smartphone bokeh is much better than DSLR bokeh since you have so much control over it, even after taking the picture by storing the depth information in the image. That's real innovation, something we haven't seem from "real" camera manufacturers. Imagine taking the depth information from the iPhone image and importing it into Photoshop, you could easily touch up those few hairs and change the bokeh shapes. Why can't we do something as simple as that with a "real" DSLR/mirrorless?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12307 posts
3333 upvotes
Ottawa
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 25th, 2018 11:40 am
Actually, there is no limitation with smartphone bokeh. They rely on a depth sensor camera to know what is in the foreground and what is behind. As the resolution of those depth sensors gets up to the resolution of the main camera, there will be no more missed hairs. Smartphone bokeh is much better than DSLR bokeh since you have so much control over it, even after taking the picture by storing the depth information in the image. That's real innovation, something we haven't seem from "real" camera manufacturers. Imagine taking the depth information from the iPhone image and importing it into Photoshop, you could easily touch up those few hairs and change the bokeh shapes. Why can't we do something as simple as that with a "real" DSLR/mirrorless?
what are you talking about. The iPhone's dual cameras ARE dual 12 MP, and the XR and Pixel don't even have dual cameras and has a portrait mode. The reason they fail is because the depth information is faulty, period. Whenever you fake anything by trying relying on boundary calculations and the sensor has dynamic range limitations, (i.e. not infinite dynamic range and infinite resolution), you run into Nyquist sampling errors and other limitations. In my case, my wife's hair is dark and the background is dark, and it had no idea whether those strand is part of the background or not because there was no enough light hitting the hair for depth information to make it back to the phase detection pixels.

This is not something a regular camera sensor has to deal with.
RFD is not just about saving money, it's about the thrill of the hunt and not paying full price like Joe Shmoe did. This applies to everyday items as well as high end items that I don't really need.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1873 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 25th, 2018 4:02 pm
what are you talking about. The iPhone's dual cameras ARE dual 12 MP, and the XR and Pixel don't even have dual cameras and has a portrait mode. The reason they fail is because the depth information is faulty, period. Whenever you fake anything by trying relying on boundary calculations and the sensor has dynamic range limitations, (i.e. not infinite dynamic range and infinite resolution), you run into Nyquist sampling errors and other limitations. In my case, my wife's hair is dark and the background is dark, and it had no idea whether those strand is part of the background or not because there was no enough light hitting the hair for depth information to make it back to the phase detection pixels.

This is not something a regular camera sensor has to deal with.
There is nothing inherently wrong with depth cameras for bokeh, it is simply a matter of resolution.

And don't think that DSLR/mirrorless is flawless for bokeh. So often, you take a bokeh picture with a "real" camera and the end result is you blur part of somebodies face you didn't intend to or you blur something you wanted to keep in focus. The smartphone bokeh solves all these flaws of DSLR/mirrorless bokeh and improves upon it with depth data that can be used in a myriad of creative ways. DSLR/mirrorless simply cannot hold a candle to the flexibility, superiority, and vast opportunities of smartphone bokeh.

Also, I bet you wouldn't be able to spot smartphone bokeh from DSLR/mirrorless bokeh if you did a blindfold test like this article shows:

https://hackernoon.com/can-you-tell-pix ... 982a902dee
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 5, 2010
1148 posts
422 upvotes
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 12:15 am
There is nothing inherently wrong with depth cameras for bokeh, it is simply a matter of resolution.

And don't think that DSLR/mirrorless is flawless for bokeh. So often, you take a bokeh picture with a "real" camera and the end result is you blur part of somebodies face you didn't intend to or you blur something you wanted to keep in focus. The smartphone bokeh solves all these flaws of DSLR/mirrorless bokeh and improves upon it with depth data that can be used in a myriad of creative ways. DSLR/mirrorless simply cannot hold a candle to the flexibility, superiority, and vast opportunities of smartphone bokeh.

Also, I bet you wouldn't be able to spot smartphone bokeh from DSLR/mirrorless bokeh if you did a blindfold test like this article shows:

https://hackernoon.com/can-you-tell-pix ... 982a902dee
It summarizes again to: Auto mode of smartphone VS manual control of DSLR/Mirroless. If you don't care about learning your gears, yeah, smartphone will be easier.

I used my camera with a prime lens for a long time so I know what to set to not have the nose or ears of someone's face blurry before I take the picture. I'm sure every photographers who has spend a couple months with their gears can do it without even thinking too much about it.

Also, the link you posted, it' so obvious which is which. The bokeh from the smartphone has 0 gradual blur. Everything is either fully blurred or none. Check the wood table from the 1st example. The second example has some gradual blur from the smartphone, but that's because the shot is taken so close that even without any portrait mode, it'll be getting some blur in the background, but again, the mess of an artificial blur can be seen starting in the middle of the machine, from sharp to super blurred.

And you mentionned: “DSLR/mirrorless simply cannot hold a candle to the flexibility, superiority, and vast opportunities of smartphone bokeh.” What flexibility is there? Once the smartphone has decided where to blur things, it's done, there's no fine tuning in there. Yes, you can decide to blur more or less of the selected areas, but that doesn't matter is there's patches of bugs. Say you don't like the 1st picture because there's too much bugs, so you take another one, oh it's buggy again, so you take another. None of these times will you have any control. With a camera, if you mess up the first time, you can set a different aperture and try to make it better.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2016
850 posts
505 upvotes
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 25th, 2018 11:40 am
Actually, there is no limitation with smartphone bokeh. They rely on a depth sensor camera to know what is in the foreground and what is behind. As the resolution of those depth sensors gets up to the resolution of the main camera, there will be no more missed hairs. Smartphone bokeh is much better than DSLR bokeh since you have so much control over it, even after taking the picture by storing the depth information in the image. That's real innovation, something we haven't seem from "real" camera manufacturers. Imagine taking the depth information from the iPhone image and importing it into Photoshop, you could easily touch up those few hairs and change the bokeh shapes. Why can't we do something as simple as that with a "real" DSLR/mirrorless?
Dude, I challenge any smartphone to take all the bokeh pictures in my previoius post, from 16mm to 200mm. Go ahead, take that 200mm bokeh shot with a smartphone.

Hint: Some leafs are more blurred than others, depending on distance. Go get this shot. Good luck cellphone.
Best shopping deals I got from here:
Asus Zenfone 3 Zoom $300, ZTE Blade V8 Pro $175, Fluld 55' 4k TV $360
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12307 posts
3333 upvotes
Ottawa
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 12:15 am
There is nothing inherently wrong with depth cameras for bokeh, it is simply a matter of resolution.

And don't think that DSLR/mirrorless is flawless for bokeh. So often, you take a bokeh picture with a "real" camera and the end result is you blur part of somebodies face you didn't intend to or you blur something you wanted to keep in focus. The smartphone bokeh solves all these flaws of DSLR/mirrorless bokeh and improves upon it with depth data that can be used in a myriad of creative ways. DSLR/mirrorless simply cannot hold a candle to the flexibility, superiority, and vast opportunities of smartphone bokeh.

Also, I bet you wouldn't be able to spot smartphone bokeh from DSLR/mirrorless bokeh if you did a blindfold test like this article shows:

https://hackernoon.com/can-you-tell-pix ... 982a902dee
It will always be a limitation unless the depth sensor has infinite resolution and infinite dynamic range. It's a hardware limitation that depth map is wrong in certain circumstances. Even when smartphone sensors reach 40MP or more, are you still going to be here arguing that it's a matter of resolution :facepalm:

Which picture has real bokeh? Are you kidding?????????? As soon as a I scrolled partway down that webpage on that first picture I KNEW the first one was simulated.
RFD is not just about saving money, it's about the thrill of the hunt and not paying full price like Joe Shmoe did. This applies to everyday items as well as high end items that I don't really need.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1873 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
Gin Martini wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 1:26 am
It summarizes again to: Auto mode of smartphone VS manual control of DSLR/Mirroless. If you don't care about learning your gears, yeah, smartphone will be easier.

I used my camera with a prime lens for a long time so I know what to set to not have the nose or ears of someone's face blurry before I take the picture. I'm sure every photographers who has spend a couple months with their gears can do it without even thinking too much about it.

Also, the link you posted, it' so obvious which is which. The bokeh from the smartphone has 0 gradual blur. Everything is either fully blurred or none. Check the wood table from the 1st example. The second example has some gradual blur from the smartphone, but that's because the shot is taken so close that even without any portrait mode, it'll be getting some blur in the background, but again, the mess of an artificial blur can be seen starting in the middle of the machine, from sharp to super blurred.

And you mentionned: “DSLR/mirrorless simply cannot hold a candle to the flexibility, superiority, and vast opportunities of smartphone bokeh.” What flexibility is there? Once the smartphone has decided where to blur things, it's done, there's no fine tuning in there. Yes, you can decide to blur more or less of the selected areas, but that doesn't matter is there's patches of bugs. Say you don't like the 1st picture because there's too much bugs, so you take another one, oh it's buggy again, so you take another. None of these times will you have any control. With a camera, if you mess up the first time, you can set a different aperture and try to make it better.
Smartphone bokeh is vastly more flexible and useful than DSLR/mirrorless bokeh because the depth information of each pixel is stored in the image files that allows both the focal point and amount of blur to be changed after the fact with a suitable app. The possibilities are limitless. DSLR/mirrorless are vastly inferior in this aspect since there is no depth data stored at all. I simply cannot emphasize enough that DSLR/mirrorless cannot compete. If Canon and Sony want to stay relevant in full sized cameras, they will need to put depth sensors into their camera bodies and store the same depth data like a high end cell phone.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1873 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 7:34 am
It will always be a limitation unless the depth sensor has infinite resolution and infinite dynamic range. It's a hardware limitation that depth map is wrong in certain circumstances. Even when smartphone sensors reach 40MP or more, are you still going to be here arguing that it's a matter of resolution :facepalm:

Which picture has real bokeh? Are you kidding?????????? As soon as a I scrolled partway down that webpage on that first picture I KNEW the first one was simulated.
I don't think you have any idea of how a depth sensor works. There is no such thing as "dynamic range" for a depth sensor. Pretty much all modern smartphones are using the parallax of two slightly shifted images to calculate distance of each pixel. There are no limitations with the technology, only limitations in the effort being done by the blur algorithms which will never get worse and will only get better and better.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1873 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
CCHIPSS wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 3:19 am
Dude, I challenge any smartphone to take all the bokeh pictures in my previoius post, from 16mm to 200mm. Go ahead, take that 200mm bokeh shot with a smartphone.

Hint: Some leafs are more blurred than others, depending on distance. Go get this shot. Good luck cellphone.
If you are pointing at the compression of the foreground and background with increasing focal lengths and still having bokeh, then get a smartphone wide angle and zoom lens off Amazon that straps onto the back of the Pixel 2 or 3. The Pixels do everything through a single camera and this easily would let them take those shots with differing focal lengths and bokeh.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3831 posts
485 upvotes
Toronto
I found the A vs. B posted above very easy to figure out, not necessarily because of the bokeh, but because of the rendering of DOF on the smartphone image. It had all the hallmarks of an image taken with a lens of short absolute focal length (wide perspective and high DOF with short lens-to-subject distance, all pointing to the very small sensor that makes this combination of features possible). The depth of the focal plane (as it were) seems to fall off in an unnatural way. Useful for some artistic effects, but you need to be able to control it.

I myself have a mirrorless camera first released in 2014, and a cell phone first released in 2016. When each came out, they were renowned for their image quality. For wide-angle snapshots in good light, I am happy with both, and the phone is convenient and gives good quality especially for close-focus photography and video. Once things start to get dim, or the subject starts moving around a lot, or I need a longer focal length to do the subject justice, the mirrorless shows its value in a big way. I also tend to use my mirrorless for things that would be tricky or impossible to do on the phone, such as night-sky photography and indoor photography with bounce flash.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3831 posts
485 upvotes
Toronto
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 1:43 pm
I don't think you have any idea of how a depth sensor works. There is no such thing as "dynamic range" for a depth sensor. Pretty much all modern smartphones are using the parallax of two slightly shifted images to calculate distance of each pixel.
I don't see how this can be correct. Computing distance by parallax implies that two or more in-focus images are compared to one another. The smartphone likely takes a series of images at different focal distances and uses some kind of object detection algorithm, assigning distances to each object identified in the scene. (The "pixels" themselves do not have a distance -- they are a property of the sensor and the image file.) The higher the resolution and dynamic range, and the lower the noise, the more reliable the object detection will be, especially for objects of similar colour or dim lighting. It's a physics issue, not a software issue.
There are no limitations with the technology, only limitations in the effort being done by the blur algorithms which will never get worse and will only get better and better.
If the sensor is missing data then there will always be a limitation. Perhaps a minor one, but a limitation nonetheless.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12307 posts
3333 upvotes
Ottawa
JoeStale wrote:
Dec 26th, 2018 1:43 pm
I don't think you have any idea of how a depth sensor works. There is no such thing as "dynamic range" for a depth sensor. Pretty much all modern smartphones are using the parallax of two slightly shifted images to calculate distance of each pixel. There are no limitations with the technology, only limitations in the effort being done by the blur algorithms which will never get worse and will only get better and better.
of course there is dynamic range. The phase detect pixels have limited SNR otherwise the depth map would always be perfect even in near darkness or when there is ambiguity between the clumps of hair that blend in with the background. That's also why even normal cameras have trouble focusing in low light, the same conditions that may fool the portrait mode depth map. So yes there are limitations.

What don't I understand?

I don't think you actually understand how analog to digital systems work at all, or we wouldn't be having this conversation
RFD is not just about saving money, it's about the thrill of the hunt and not paying full price like Joe Shmoe did. This applies to everyday items as well as high end items that I don't really need.

Top