Database Develop

P20 Pro camera - Problems in Jpeg compression at 40mp

Personally, I just realized that even taking photos at 40mp with the stock camera a high compression ratio is applied without any criteria. I took several identical photos and realized that some have a size of 15mb and others were with 3mb. Photos identical with the same settings. I tested other applications and encountered the same problem. Lightroom CC and SnapCamera. Here comes the surprise! With cameringo+ I got files with a bigger size at 40mp. That it would be the right thing to do to others as well. Please take a test and comment.

Why does S10+ have such bad jpeg compression ?

I took a ton of pictures, and compared many with S7. S10 is always super clean and smooth, without any noise, every picture size ranges from 1.3mb to 5mb tops. While S7 retains some noise in the blue skys, and can be edited after, the S10 one has macro-blocking from the start, and when I try to edit them a little, all sorts of artifacts start to pop up, like banding, it looks like 256 colored gif sometimes. I feel like when S10 processes and saves jpegs, it applys something like noise reduction 70/100, jpeg quality 60/100, if compared to Lightroom settings.

Samsung compress jpegs too much, the average jpeg out of the phone is about 2-3 mb, while jpeg converted from raw using Lightroom mobile is 6mb!
There is a new custom rom with modded camera app to get 100% jpeg

I noticed that too. Is it possible to change compression ratio on stock rom?

Nop
Unless you install a third party camera app with jpeg compression control.
If you want to use stock camera then take your photos in raw, you can edit them calmly in any raw editor

Thanks for the answer! Can You, please, recommend any third party camera app? Good RAW editor for Android would be helpful information too.

martolk said:
Thanks for the answer! Can You, please, recommend any third party camera app? Good RAW editor for Android would be helpful information too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good RAW editor for Android : Snapseed.
You also got Adobe Lightroom, but it is not for free.

best manual camera for Google pixel 4 XL?

I just picked up a Google pixel 4 XL on an amazing deal! I'm just looking for suggestions from other pixel users specifically photographers on what the best manual camera app is that they've used in conjunction with g cam?
I've tested a few but everything I've shot with has resulted in grainy photos or horrible UI. If anyone can resent some suggestions I'm sure this would help out others as well.

Moment Pro Cam and Open Cam [emoji1474]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

For photos the gcam app is King from what I can tell, moment app is ok... If you want superior video control go for FilmicPro.

Demolition49 said:
For photos the gcam app is King from what I can tell, moment app is ok... If you want superior video control go for FilmicPro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you used the moment app recently? I heard it's very buggy that's what's causing me not to pay for it to test out.
Also I'm not trying to shoot video in any way shape or form I'm just looking strictly for photography. But thanks for the suggestion.

thepersona said:
Have you used the moment app recently? I heard it's very buggy that's what's causing me not to pay for it to test out.
Also I'm not trying to shoot video in any way shape or form I'm just looking strictly for photography. But thanks for the suggestion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The moment app is buggy, I emailed the devs and they say they are working on an update but couldn't give me a date, so it could be months before we see anything. I'd suggest shooting raw on gcam and playing with the photos in post. There may be something else out there I am unaware of

Isn’t gcam the app that comes pre-installed on the device though or is there some modded version you are referring to that I’m obviously not aware of?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Demolition49 said:
The moment app is buggy, I emailed the devs and they say they are working on an update but couldn't give me a date, so it could be months before we see anything. I'd suggest shooting raw on gcam and playing with the photos in post. There may be something else out there I am unaware of
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would use raw from the pixel Gcam however the resolution of all my images on raw is 600 x 800 rather than the original jpeg size of 2040 x 4040 etc. The raw is such a small size leaving me to not be able to use it if needed to print for portfolio etc
Is there a fix to increase the overall size of raw images to larger images or original sizes images like the jpeg counterpart?

thepersona said:
I would use raw from the pixel Gcam however the resolution of all my images on raw is 600 x 800 rather than the original jpeg size of 2040 x 4040 etc. The raw is such a small size leaving me to not be able to use it if needed to print for portfolio etc
Is there a fix to increase the overall size of raw images to larger images or original sizes images like the jpeg counterpart?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just took a picture in RAW and checked the Raw folder. The image I have is 4016 X 3008 at 13MB
Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to do?

dtroup64 said:
I just took a picture in RAW and checked the Raw folder. The image I have is 4016 X 3008 at 13MB
Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I'm just slowly starting to figure out how the phone works. Because I looked at my raw folder the best images I took obviously didn't have raw shooting on so that sucked but
what I realized is that for some reason my phone doesn't take raw photos when in portrait mode (the raw plus JPEG option isn't even available). And that my files are previewed as originals in the photo app and then in the actual files app they're all small kilobytes size files. I did an 8 x zoom that turned out pretty well however that's like 930x688
As seen in the pic attached. I just took another pic and when looking at it it's full resolution and amazing quality yet when I look at it in the files app it's all grainy and
I Could have sworn when I did the 8 x zoom the final quality in the preview looked way better than how it turned out when I look through it now LOL.
Apologies for the rambling but those are two issues no. My phone not shooting raw all the time specifically when I use portrait mode. But also I can't seem to find my original raw files are not in the raw folder they're just thumbnails from what I can tell. No I'm not in the thumbnail folder LOL.

dtroup64 said:
I just took a picture in RAW and checked the Raw folder. The image I have is 4016 X 3008 at 13MB
Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my raw folder specifically look at the last 4 images. The aren't recent. And they're so small and pixelated no pun intended.
the photo that I attached in my earlier post above this isn't existent in that folder for some reason. The Spider-Man image below was taken like two minutes ago but for some reason there's only a JPEG of it I can't find a raw file and relating to my earlier post about my phone not always taking raw images.
Somebody can help me figure this stuff out it would save me a lot of headache and hassle

I can't even upload the dng raw file to compare. the Raw file is substantially more grainy than the actual jpeg for some reason
2000x1496 for the raw file
3024x4032 for the exact same image in jpeg.
And much better quality on the joeg. I don't understand if this is normal or not.

thepersona said:
I can't even upload the dng raw file to compare. the Raw file is substantially more grainy than the actual jpeg for some reason
2000x1496 for the raw file
3024x4032 for the exact same image in jpeg.
And much better quality on the joeg. I don't understand if this is normal or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just tried on my phone and the raw images are all 3024x4032 whether I take them in portrait or landscape orientation. If you are getting different resolutions, then something is up. Double check your setting and make sure you are taking full resolution phones and also that the aspect ratio is set to 4:3. The 16:9 aspect ratio will actually reduce the resolution because it crops the image to 16:9. I suspect this is what is going on with your settings.
As far as the actual image quality, have you ever dealt with RAW images before? I ask because RAW images are just that, raw. They will always need to be edited in a photo editing software to bring out the beauty in them. When you use the stock camera, the Jpeg files are automatically processed through the Google software (which is very good) to bring out the beauty in them. It's completely normal for the processed Jpeg image to look much better than the RAW image. RAW images will always look "flat" and grainier compared to a jpeg image because they haven't had any processing (noise reduction, white balance correction, contrast adjustments, etc etc etc) done to them yet.
Of course the RAW image is a non-destructive file format which is why serious photographers prefer it. What this means is that the edits you do on a RAW image are not permanently modifying the original RAW file. They are just changes that are "notated" or "amended" on to the original file. (That's not the correct terminology, but hopefully you understand my point). This means that you can edit those files and makes an infinite number of changes without effecting the original RAW image data.
A Jpeg file on the other hand is a destructive file format however. This means that when you edit a Jpeg file and save it, it permanently alters the jpeg file with that change. The data that it was changed from is lost forever. You can re-edit the file, but you are changing the actual file data every time you save the file and you can't magically bring back data that wasn't saved in a previous edit. In other words, there is no way to get back to the original file after it has been edited and saved.
Here is a different way to see it. Lets say you have a RAW file and a Jpeg file and you make three successive edits to those files......
With the RAW image this is what the data would look like: RAW -> RAW+edit 1 -> RAW + edit 1 + edit 2 - > RAW + edit 1 + edit 2 + edit 3. You can always undo the edits and get back to the original RAW data.
With a Jpeg image, this is what the data would look like: Jpeg -> Jpeg after edit 1 ->Jpeg after edit 2 -> jpeg after edit 3. There is no way to go back to any of the previous versions unless you save each edit as a unique file. (I should note that using Google Photos to edit your jpeg images seems to allow you to go back to the original file, so Google must be saving the edits as a unique file automatically. But if you use another program to edit your jpegs, you need to be aware of the destructive nature of the jpeg format).
Hopefully that helps - either you or someone else reading this thread.

sic0048 said:
I just tried on my phone and the raw images are all 3024x4032 whether I take them in portrait or landscape orientation. If you are getting different resolutions, then something is up. Double check your setting and make sure you are taking full resolution phones and also that the aspect ratio is set to 4:3. The 16:9 aspect ratio will actually reduce the resolution because it crops the image to 16:9. I suspect this is what is going on with your settings.
As far as the actual image quality, have you ever dealt with RAW images before? I ask because RAW images are just that, raw. They will always need to be edited in a photo editing software to bring out the beauty in them. Jpeg files are automatically run through the Google camera software (which is very good) to bring out the beauty in them. It's completely normal for the processed Jpeg image to look much better than the RAW image. RAW images will always look "flat" and grainier compared to a jpeg image because they haven't had any processing (noise reduction, white balance correction, contrast adjustments, etc etc etc) done to them yet.
Of course the RAW image is a non-destructive file format which is why serious photographers prefer it. What this means is that the edits you do on a RAW image are not permanently modifying the original RAW file. They are just changes that are "notated" or "amended" on to the original file. (That's not the correct terminology, but hopefully you understand my point). This means that you can edit those files and makes an infinite number of changes without effecting the original RAW image data.
A Jpeg file on the other hand is a destructive file format however. This means that when you edit a Jpeg file and save it, it permanently alters the jpeg file with that change. The data that it was changed from is lost forever. You can re-edit the file, but you are changing the actual file data every time you save the file and you can't magically bring back data that wasn't saved in a previous edit. In other words, there is no way to get back to the original file after it has been edited and saved.
Here is a different way to see it. Lets say you have a RAW file and a Jpeg file and you make three successive edits to those files......
With the RAW image this is what the data would look like: RAW -> RAW+edit 1 -> RAW + edit 1 + edit 2 - > RAW + edit 1 + edit 2 + edit 3. You can always undo the edits and get back to the original RAW data.
With a Jpeg image, this is what the data would look like: Jpeg -> Jpeg after edit 1 ->Jpeg after edit 2 -> jpeg after edit 3. There is no way to go back to any of the previous versions unless you save each edit as a unique file. (I should note that using Google Photos to edit your jpeg images seems to allow you to go back to the original file, so Google must be saving the edits as a unique file automatically. But if you use another program to edit your jpegs, you need to be aware of the destructive nature of the jpeg format).
Hopefully that helps - either you or someone else reading this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey brother thanks for the amazing explanation I appreciate it. And yes I have dealt with raw files and I'm aware of how they work. I guess the visuals confused me or threw me off because it's been so long since I've done photography.
I feel a little embarrassed coming in here with an amateur worry we're concerned LOL but I am a conceptual photographer and when using my DSLR I have to go to the similar process and I just forgot that raw files are not meant to look like the finalized jpegs. It's been 3 years since I delved into photography I knew I got Rusty somewhere lol thankfully though I bought this pixel specifically so I can revisit and get back into photography using this device in conjunction with my DSLR.
I'm actually going to save your response only so I can look at it and never come back in here with a foolish post LOL. But also I'm going to look into my resolution because I hate having thick borders on my camera screen and maybe that's why I change the aspect ratio not knowing that it was going to actually crop the image substantially. More tests later today and confirm whether your hunch was true or just think it is. ?

sic0048 said:
I just tried on my phone and the raw images are all 3024x4032 whether I take them in portrait or landscape orientation. If you are getting different resolutions, then something is up. Double check your setting and make sure you are taking full resolution phones and also that the aspect ratio is set to 4:3. The 16:9 aspect ratio will actually reduce the resolution because it crops the image to 16:9. I suspect this is what is going on with your settings.
As far as the actual image quality, have you ever dealt with RAW images before? I ask because RAW images are just that, raw. They will always need to be edited in a photo editing software to bring out the beauty in them. When you use the stock camera, the Jpeg files are automatically processed through the Google software (which is very good) to bring out the beauty in them. It's completely normal for the processed Jpeg image to look much better than the RAW image. RAW images will always look "flat" and grainier compared to a jpeg image because they haven't had any processing (noise reduction, white balance correction, contrast adjustments, etc etc etc) done to them yet.
Hopefully that helps - either you or someone else reading this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are the details of a raw image. Why is the resolution so low? Any idea? This specific issue is annoying me because I can't seem to fix it. I'm just baffled at how low the image size is.

thepersona said:
Here are the details of a raw image. Why is the resolution so low? Any idea? This specific issue is annoying me because I can't seem to fix it. I'm just baffled at how low the image size is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So just to make sure we are on the same page......
When you open the camera app, click on the pull down carrot at the top of the screen. That should pull down the options menu. Scroll down to ratio and make sure it is set to "Full Image (4:3)".
Then click on the settings icon and scroll down until you see "Camera Photo Resolution" and make sure it is set to "Full Resolution"
Based on your previous posts, I don't think this is your issue, but are you accessing the RAW files via the camera settings menu where you select the RAW + JPEG image? That is probably the easiest way to make sure you are looking at the correct file and not a thumbnail, etc. There should be a "View RAW folder" link in the settings menu that you can click on to open the RAW files in Google Photos. The RAW images I have in that folder are in the 10-12MB size range and yours are only 1MB.
I'm hoping that one of these things is the culprit. If not, I'm at a loss to why your images are coming out small.

sic0048 said:
So just to make sure we are on the same page......
When you open the camera app, click on the pull down carrot at the top of the screen. That should pull down the options menu. Scroll down to ratio and make sure it is set to "Full Image (4:3)".
Then click on the settings icon and scroll down until you see "Camera Photo Resolution" and make sure it is set to "Full Resolution"
Based on your previous posts, I don't think this is your issue, but are you accessing the RAW files via the camera settings menu where you select the RAW + JPEG image? That is probably the easiest way to make sure you are looking at the correct file and not a thumbnail, etc. There should be a "View RAW folder" link in the settings menu that you can click on to open the RAW files in Google Photos. The RAW images I have in that folder are in the 10-12MB size range and yours are only 1MB.
I'm hoping that one of these things is the culprit. If not, I'm at a loss to why your images are coming out small.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Brother I followed the directions and when I go to the camera app and look in the raw folder there, I can see the original raw images in high resolution. Why can I not access those original files in the file app or downloaded gallery?

thepersona said:
Brother I followed the directions and when I go to the camera app and look in the raw folder there, I can see the original raw images in high resolution. Why can I not access those original files in the file app or downloaded gallery?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I ended up having a separate album in my Photos app that is entitled Raw. When I take photos with the Jpeg + RAW enabled, the photos appear in that album. Is it possible that you have such an album but haven't seen it yet?

dtroup64 said:
I ended up having a separate album in my Photos app that is entitled Raw. When I take photos with the Jpeg + RAW enabled, the photos appear in that album. Is it possible that you have such an album but haven't seen it yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I definetley have that album. When accessing it via the photos app it's fine I see full resolution raw images but in another gallery app or even the files app it's available but the images in them are substantially smaller files.
The trick I found to work for now was to use solid explorer and go in the app and find the files path. And make a shortcut on my home screen. For the files app specifically, I'd access the list in the left panel just click on images and then access RAW. Prior to that I was accessing the internal storage then manually going to camera then raw. When I did that I found the folder but it only contained the small resolution files. It's really weird.

Question 108MP works only with ISO <= 100 (and even then not always)

I found out that 108 MP mode only works with ISO <=100 on the Redmi note 10 pro.
Attached are crops from 108MP with ISO 100, 108 and 125. It is clear that after SO 100 the quality drops significantly. I shot the photo in 12MP as well and upscaled the photo in the PC. The resulting picture corresponded to the 108 and 125 ISO.
It would be nice to shoot 108MP at least up to ISO 400 or 800.
Moreover it seems that sometimes the 108MP is fake even though the iso is below 100. I did not find the cause of that yet.
Finally, the 108MP photos often have a green cast. It would be nice if that could be fixed as well.
The ISO_100_cr photo has a lot higher quality than ISO_125_cr and s_1_400_cr photos.
The ISO_100_a and ISO_100_b are taken about 3 minutes appart using the same settings and the same lightning conditions. However one of them uses the fake 108MP. I have no explanation for that so far.
I reported the bug using the Xiaomi Services & feedback. So far I did not get a reply.

xseryd said:
I found out that 108 MP mode only works with ISO <=100 on the Redmi note 10 pro.
Attached are crops from 108MP with ISO 100, 108 and 125. It is clear that after SO 100 the quality drops significantly. I shot the photo in 12MP as well and upscaled the photo in the PC. The resulting picture corresponded to the 108 and 125 ISO.
It would be nice to shoot 108MP at least up to ISO 400 or 800.
Moreover it seems that sometimes the 108MP is fake even though the iso is below 100. I did not find the cause of that yet.
Finally, the 108MP photos often have a green cast. It would be nice if that could be fixed as well.
The ISO_100_cr photo has a lot higher quality than ISO_125_cr and s_1_400_cr photos.
The ISO_100_a and ISO_100_b are taken about 3 minutes appart using the same settings and the same lightning conditions. However one of them uses the fake 108MP. I have no explanation for that so far.
I reported the bug using the Xiaomi Services & feedback. So far I did not get a reply.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use pro mode. Its there.

In all of the photos above I used the pro mode. Otherwise I would not be able to set ISO manually. However the issue is in both normal and pro mode.
The phone acts like using 108MP, but in some cases it indeed used 108MP, in other it just upscales the 12MP photo.

Try clearing system cache and cam data.
Try rolling cam back to factory load if it's been updated.

blackhawk said:
Try clearing system cache and cam data.
Try rolling cam back to factory load if it's been updated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not think the cam itself got updated, just the system to 12.0.10 MIUI Global. I cleared all the caches and the issue persists. Using pro mode 108MP with fixed ISO 100 and 125 there is a huge drop in quality in the 125 ISO.

xseryd said:
I do not think the cam itself got updated, just the system to 12.0.10 MIUI Global. I cleared all the caches and the issue persists. Using pro mode 108MP with fixed ISO 100 and 125 there is a huge drop in quality in the 125 ISO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about using it in ISO 200?
The drop in image Q is very small or should be.

blackhawk said:
What about using it in ISO 200?
The drop in image Q is very small or should be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pictures look almost the same for ISO 50-100. Then there is a sharp drop in quality and than the pictures are almost the same for ISO 125-500. ISO 1000 is noticeably softer, but that is to be expected.

xseryd said:
The pictures look almost the same for ISO 50-100. Then there is a sharp drop in quality and than the pictures are almost the same for ISO 125-500. ISO 1000 is noticeably softer, but that is to be expected.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it's native ISO is 100, don't drop below that unless the ambient light is too bright.
Use at it's native ISO # or higher whenever possible. Its native ISO is probably 100 but never assume...

blackhawk said:
If it's native ISO is 100, don't drop below that unless the ambient light is too bright.
Use at it's native ISO # or higher whenever possible. Its native ISO is probably 100 but never assume...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The automatic mode tries to use ISO 50 if there is enough light, so I guess that is the native ISO. However that does not solve the issue that for ISO > 100 the photo looks suspiciously similar to what I get when I shoot 12 MP and upscale the picture in the pc. And unfortunately even for <=100 it is not guaranteed to shoot the true 108 MP.

xseryd said:
The automatic mode tries to use ISO 50 if there is enough light, so I guess that is the native ISO. However that does not solve the issue that for ISO > 100 the photo looks suspiciously similar to what I get when I shoot 12 MP and upscale the picture in the pc. And unfortunately even for <=100 it is not guaranteed to shoot the true 108 MP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to see what its native ISO is speced at to know.
Poor focus* and cam shake can be factors.
The 108 MP file size should be significantly larger than the 12 MP one.
*the wrong AF lock on point can trash images taken with a fast lense; the focal range is quit narrow at close range. Try some shots at 50 feet out.

All the photos mentioned above are at least 50 feet away and all have shutter time 1/300 or faster, so shake should not be an issue. The two last photos with the cherry tree even have ~1/1700s time and the issue is still visible.
Finally the picture size of the real 108MP files is 23-25MB, whereas the picture size of the faked ones is 14-18MB. Even there there seems to be something wrong.

xseryd said:
All the photos mentioned above are at least 50 feet away and all have shutter time 1/300 or faster, so shake should not be an issue. The two last photos with the cherry tree even have ~1/1700s time and the issue is still visible.
Finally the picture size of the real 108MP files is 23-25MB, whereas the picture size of the faked ones is 14-18MB. Even there there seems to be something wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Size of the file varies by the content, sometimes drastically. It still could be an AF issue, try manual focus if you have that option.
Cam shake can happen at almost any shutter setting; brace the cam on something solid.
Because there is no weight to the phone compared to 2-7 pounds of a pro- cam means little inertia to over come and no good handholds... cam shake is more an issue.
You can get cam shake at 1/1000 @Sec with a pro cam if your technique is sloppy.
Review the cam settings carefully and double check them.
I don't know, you could be right. It seems like it be a poor business plan though. It may be an inadvertent flaw on that production run and/or the firmware for it.

blackhawk said:
Size of the file varies by the content, sometimes drastically. It still could be an AF issue, try manual focus if you have that option.
Cam shake can happen at almost any shutter setting; brace the cam on something solid.
Because there is no weight to the phone compared to 2-7 pounds of a pro- cam means little inertia to over come and no good handholds... cam shake is more an issue.
You can get cam shake at 1/1000 @Sec with a pro cam if your technique is sloppy.
Review the cam settings carefully and double check them.
I don't know, you could be right. It seems like it be a poor business plan though. It may be an inadvertent flaw on that production run and/or the firmware for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to be sure I did the test again using a tripod and a self timer. Still the same results. I could not use the manual focus mode, because the "infinity" seems to be only a few feet and my objects came out blurry.
The file difference was on the same scene, taken 10s apart. 24MB real 108MB, 14MB faked 108MB.

I have taken several photos in 108 in low light and the behavior of the Iso is correct.
It always maintains 108 and the Iso obtained go from 581 to 12800, I suppose it can go up a little more.
Logically, the higher the iso, the lower the quality and more with such small objectives.
I am very happy with the camera results and I come from a Pixel 2.

Well for one thing use solid objects that aren't able to be moved by the wind as subjects preferably with the light source in back of you rather than in back of the subject.
A wrought iron fence maybe.
24 mp is actually a lot. It's not just the pixel count but also the quality, grey depth, color accuracy that the individual pixel can capture.

blackhawk said:
Well for one thing use solid objects that aren't able to be moved by the wind as subjects preferably with the light source in back of you rather than in back of the subject.
A wrought iron fence maybe.
24 mp is actually a lot. It's not just the pixel count but also the quality, grey depth, color accuracy that the individual pixel can capture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I selected branches because there the difference was the most obvious. There was no wind at all. I attach different part of the picture with a solid object.

jmfb55 said:
I have taken several photos in 108 in low light and the behavior of the Iso is correct.
It always maintains 108 and the Iso obtained go from 581 to 12800, I suppose it can go up a little more.
Logically, the higher the iso, the lower the quality and more with such small objectives.
I am very happy with the camera results and I come from a Pixel 2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The camera reports all of the 108MP photos to be 108MP. However I believe that sometimes the picture was taken using 12MP and then just upscaled to 108MP using a software.

Good obsevation. I can't get my phone to make 20+mb pictures. I tried with your setting so: 108MP & iso 50 but no luck. Photos still come out between 14-17mb.

FakedAce said:
Good obsevation. I can't get my phone to make 20+mb pictures. I tried with your setting so: 108MP & iso 50 but no luck. Photos still come out between 14-17mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sometimes I get the fake 108MP even with small ISO. I don't understand that. Or maybe your scene is not that complex and the file is smaller even though it is the real 108MP. Try using ISO 125 if you see a size and quality difference. You can also try shooting 12MP and upscaling the picture in PC to see if it is the same as what you shot in 108MP.

FakedAce said:
Good obsevation. I can't get my phone to make 20+mb pictures. I tried with your setting so: 108MP & iso 50 but no luck. Photos still come out between 14-17mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MP=megapixels
MB=megabytes
The correlation between file size and the number of megapixels is a not strictly a ratiometric one.
Without the manufacturer's white papers it's hard to know exactly how they are processing the image. Companies like Canon and Denon usually exceed their specifications, and often share detailed information beyond just the specs.
♤Does the cam allow you to shoot in RAW mode?
Try that if so. That should give a more revealing look at what's going on. RAW's have the least post processing and contain much more of the image data.

Raw/DNG images have bad barrel distortion, JPEG are fine

I'm hoping someone has seen this before. I set Camera to record DNG + JPEG, but when I look at the images side-by-side, I can see that the Raw / DNG images look stretched. Some images, e.g. ones with straight lines, the effect is more easily seen.
I've tried using Lightroom to correct for barrel distortion, but its correction actually goes in the wrong direction. I need it to do a "negative" correction, which it won't do.
It's a shame to have a tool that can work with Raw images but my phone can't generate a clean Raw image. Anyone dealt with this before?
Just to clarify what I'm trying to describe, the distortion is like someone is stretching my photo from behind, almost like putting their fist in the center of the image from behind and pushing / stretching it out towards me. The correction in Lightroom just pushes it even further towards me.
Thanks!
-- Ethan

That's because they are the raw images with minimal processing and all the data captured by the sensor. Post editing is needed. The also have extended exposure and WB, up to 3 full f/stops. The downside is your need to do post editing to fully exploit the data.
In jpeg mode the processor makes many of the choices for you automatically when it converts the data into a jpeg and limits your editing options. Much of the original image data is gone.

blackhawk said:
That's because they are the raw images with minimal processing and all the data captured by the sensor. Post editing is needed. The also have extended exposure and WB, up to 3 full f/stops. The downside is your need to do post editing to fully exploit the data.
In jpeg mode the processor makes many of the choices for you automatically when it converts the data into a jpeg and limits your editing options. Much of the original image data is gone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I expect that post-processing is needed, except there is no way that I can find to correct for this. So any info on how to do the correction is appreciated. As I mentioned, Lightroom's correction that is meant for this issue goes in the wrong direction, which suggests that my phone's cameras may be out of spec but internally it knows how to correct for it when it makes the jpeg.

FoggyEthan said:
I expect that post-processing is needed, except there is no way that I can find to correct for this. So any info on how to do the correction is appreciated. As I mentioned, Lightroom's correction that is meant for this issue goes in the wrong direction, which suggests that my phone's cameras may be out of spec but internally it knows how to correct for it when it makes the jpeg.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each model lense is a different geometry and needs a different correction algorithm. If Google doesn't provide an app it may be difficult to correct it easily.
It maybe it's Lightroom that's screwed up... Assuming it "knows" what cam and lense it's correcting for. Don't know not familiar with that software.
Or simply avoid saving in dng with the wide angle lense... my Samsung doesn't seem to have the raw save option for the ultra wide