Does the 950 XL have something like Camera2 API?

[Citizen X]

The 950 XL got an inadequate and underwhelming presentation earlier this week. It left me with more questions than answers. The only mention of video capabilities was Panos mumbling that the phone shoots 4k. Yeah well so does my 1520.

The question I have is does the 950 XL have anything to rival Camera2 API on Andriod? In particular can we decrease the amount of compression in our 4K videos so they don't look like videos taken on a cell phone ie eliminate banding, macro blocking, low dynamic range etc? In short is there an app like Cinema 4k?

The phone should have the hardware to support bit rates up to 200 Mbps. I am just dumbstruck that given imaging capabilities were part of the branding of Lumia that a third party app on Andriod was allowed to leap frog the Lumia line and Panos and company didn't feel fit to address the situation head on last week when they had the whole world watching. It just seems dumb to create products like the Lumia 1020 and talk about how "good" the camera is and when it really matters... nothing. Total silence. Why waste millions of dollars branding and then just walk away?

So did I miss something in the video? Was a flat picture style and high bit rate discussed and I just missed it?

Camera2 API with Cinema 4k app in action...

Going from about 50 Mbps on the left to 200 Mbps on the right. Flat picture profile was used and you can see the highlights were preserved. Colors are more realistic and there is more detail visible. Plus the file is more durable and can undergo more aggressive color correction and grading.

Another example...

Notice how in the stock shot the sky on the right side of the picture is blown and has that "I shot this on a cell phone" look to the lifeless sky.

So did the Lumia faithful just get owned or is Panos just keep flat picture styles and high bit rate a secret for some reason? After that presentation I was just left shaking my head in disbelief.

 

[tommybrrr]

Honestly, if a different bit rate produces such different results in the same app, I would think the app is working not correctly.
Don't compare different apps. It's not a matter of the API, it's a matter of what post processing us applied by the software and/or the image coprocessor.

 

[tommybrrr]

Another thing, most cell phone camera apps go for a more vivid picture setting. Only the old Nokia 808 and 1020 preferred a more natural look, but that is not what most consumers want, otherwise they would buy a DSLR camera for photos and a 4k camcorder (which records in raw format, not in h.264/h.265).

 

[Citizen X]

Honestly, if a different bit rate produces such different results in the same app, I would think the app is working not correctly.

Umm... well that pretty much contradicts everything Hollywood DPs have told us about imaging for years. Of course going from 50 Mbps to 200 Mbps is going to reduce macro blocking, banding, and increase color accuracy. It it didn't Youtube would look like Blurays!

You need to look up the GH2 hack.

 

[Citizen X]

Another thing, most cell phone camera apps go for a more vivid picture setting. Only the old Nokia 808 and 1020 preferred a more natural look, but that is not what most consumers want, otherwise they would buy a DSLR camera for photos and a 4k camcorder (which records in raw format, not in h.264/h.265).

What are you talking about? Low compression cameras don't "prefer" a look. You can get any look you want out of a camera that shoots a less compressed format. If you are going to post something at least post the truth. Have you been to the movies lately? They are all shot either on film or digital with a flat picture profile and a robust codec. The end result is either very muted colors, realistic colors, or vibrant hyper real colors. Actually a lot of movies are shot in raw which is no lossy compression at all and no bias in colors... Not even white balance is recorded. You pick your white balance after the fact. So I don't understand your logic.

Is Lumia the best at imaging or not? This feature is on several Andriod Cameras. It isn't theoretical.

 

[tommybrrr]

I was talking about your sample pictures. The difference in their look can't be explained with just a bit rate reduction by 1/4 .

They suffer from different post processing. Banding & macro blocking will occur only at very low bitrates for fast changing content. 50mbps is not very low.

Dynamic range has nothing to do with video bit rate, it has to do with bit depth.

 

[Citizen X]

I was talking about your sample pictures. The difference in their look can't be explained with just a bit rate reduction by 1/4 .

No one ever said it was explained purely by a rate of 1/4. Reread the label it also says a flat picture style was used. It's the two things working in tandem. If you use a flat picture style with a low rate and then try and color correct it you will get artifacts. That's why you need BOTH.

And yes banding and macro blocking can occur if you reduce the bit rate buy 75%. I don't know where you get your information from.

And 50 Mbps is low. The relatively inexpensive Panasonic G7 uses a rate that is 100% higher. And Andriod phones are now able to use a rate that is 100% higher than that. That's a lot less compression. Keep in mind we are talking about 4k video not 1080p. The 1080p BMPCC uses a rate of 220 Mbps for 1080p... and of course even higher when it is using lossless raw. 220 Mbps+ for 1080p and you are telling us 50 Mbps for 4k isn't low?! What are you basing this on?

 

[tommybrrr]

Nobody uses loosely compressed video and does post processing, that's why professional equipment uses loss less compression and yuv4:4:4 or better.
A phone is not a professional camcorder, that's why you have lot of limitations and bit rate is not the biggest issue.

 

[Citizen X]

Nobody uses loosely compressed video and does post processing...

I know all these concepts and terms are new to you but what exactly do you mean by "loosely compressed video"? The sentence you typed doesn't make any sense and I just want to make sure the error isn't with my understanding of what you are trying to say.

 

[tommybrrr]

H263/4/5 are loosely compression algorithm, YUV444 is an lossless compression format, just like zip and RAW is a direct capture of the image sensor output.

 

[ericloewe]

Lossy. Loosely is the opposite of tightly.

 

[Citizen X]

Not everyone is a native English speaker, so cut the guy some slack.

It doesn't have anything to do with with being a native English speaker. The topic is technical and he's made several factually incorrect statements. I actually was "cutting the guy some slack" by asking for clarification before summarily dismissing him as totally wrong.

Hell, even if he is a native speaker who cares, he got his point across...

Yeah. His point is he is totally wrong.

As for the topic at hand, tommybrrr is correct in his assessment though, no one in their right mind would use a cellphone camera as a professional device...

What does using a cell phone as a professional camera have to do with anything? Can any topic on an internet forum be discussed without strawmen? All kinds of high quality cameras have gotten so cheap nowadays that a lot of us hobbyists use them for our personal projects. Who are you the camera police? If I'm not a professional I'm not allowed to use quality affordable equipment and software? Color correcting and grading software that used to cost tens of thousands of dollars and was used solely by professionals is now free. If you don't know about this stuff then just stay out of the discussion. Raw for photographs used to be just for professionals... Then just for DSLRs... and the Windows Phone brought it to cell phones. Thankfully they didn't have your attitude. My question is has this spirit continued or not?

the GoPro Hero4 Black, which is used professionally tops out at 60Mbps (I actually have some that say they're ~80Mbps, but the norm seems to be ~60). It's all in the post and whether that happens to be on-device or not makes no difference.

Yeah that's why everyone agrees the GoPro scene in Lord of the Rings looks like crap. I don't care if some random person on the internet I've never met calls something pro or not pro. If it looks like crap it is crap.

did anybody else notice the two POV shots in this sequence that looked like they came from a GoPro? What the hell was up with that?

The 6 Most Pointless Scenes in The Desolation of Smaug

It's all in the post and whether that happens to be on-device or not makes no difference.

Lol! Oh, boy. The "just fix it in post" approach to film making. If that was true we wouldn't use raw when taking photographs we would just use highly compressed lossy JPEG and magically eliminate all the banding, posterization, and macroblocking in post. Lol. Glad the entire photo industry including MSFT and Nokia ignored you. Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this thread.

H263/4/5 are loosely compression algorithm, YUV444 is an lossless compression format, just like zip and RAW is a direct capture of the image sensor output.

That is all 100% wrong. Most implementations of H264 encountered in the consumer/prosumer space are highly compressed. It is a delivery format. Yes in certain cameras it is used as an acquisition format but it is not ideal. H265 is arguably better than H264 but even that is highly compressed in the Samsung NX1. I say all this assuming when you use the term "loosely" you mean it as the opposite of compressed.

As far as lossless compression is concerned you are 100% incorrect. Even Emigrating who was attempting to defend you debunked your notion that all professional work uses lossless compression. They use whatever they can get and afford. Sometimes they use "cheap" gopros with a crappy codec low bitrate and highly compressed lossy compression because that is the waterproof camera that will fit in a tight space that is going to be set on fire or submerged. Here is where Emigrating is wrong. They don't do that because a crappy lossy highly compressed codec has no impact on the quality of the final output they use a gopro because they don't have an alternative. And the reason people want a less compressed codec and a flat picture style on a cell phone is because it is a camera you have with you all the time. I want to be able to match footage as much as possible between my cellphone camera and my other cameras and I don't want it to look like the crap they did in the Desolation of Smaug.

Anyway filmmakers and enthusiasts are raving about the capabilities of Andriod phones with Camera2 API on video forums so what you two say is irrelevant. If it's not for you I can respect that. Then just leave the thread. I started this thread for people who were interested in film making and were originally attracted to Lumia's because of their camera pedigree. I just want to know whether Pureview is still really "the best" or whether that is just marketing BS.

 

[tommybrrr]

I say all this assuming when you use the term "loosely" you mean it as the opposite of compressed.

With loosely I meant lossy - compression which kills actual information for the purpose of reducing the amount of data.

I just want to know whether Pureview is still really "the best" or whether that is just marketing BS.

Sort of. The best Quality is still the Lumia Camera Classic, which uses Nokias image post processing algorithm for JPEG and MPEG4.

The new Lumia Camera aka. Windows Camera (WP10) uses a more vivid approach, not what a photographer really want's, but with DNG support, that is no problem for pictures.

http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/20726_Abandon_classic_image_processi.php

With Camera2 API, there still seems to be issues on current devices.

https://spectrastudy.com/camera2-api-on-mwc-2015-devices/

 

[Citizen X]

With loosely I meant lossy - compression which kills actual information for the purpose of reducing the amount of data.

As emigrating pointed out even quarter billion dollar blockbusters sometimes use cameras with lossy compression for certain things... even really crappy highly compressed lossy cameras.

The thing about art is it is a balance between the technical side and content. There are no hard universally applied barriers. You can't say no professional would use lossy compression. There have been plenty of cameras that cost more than cars that utilize lossy compression. Look at the Sony F3. 4:4:4 was an add on feature. The camera without 4:4:4 sold for over $15,0000 only a few years ago. Look at the BBC's approved camera list. Plenty of lossy compression on that list. That is why I said you are wrong.

Sort of. The best Quality is still the Lumia Camera Classic, which uses Nokias image post processing algorithm for JPEG and MPEG4.

That simply isn't backed up by the objective images I posted in the OP. For 4k the images coming out of my 1520 are just too compressed to compete with the Andriod 200 Mbps samples. There is too much banding and macroblocking. And of course lack of a flat picture style does not allow me to preserve dynamic range.

It's sad really. Because we led the pack with video manual control and OIS. And it's not like the 950 XL lacks the hardware to have a more robust bit rate. And there is no barrier to a flat picture style.

Maybe MSFT has addressed these deficits. Unfortunately they didn't give any information other than mumbling it "shoots 4k" at the presentation. It could be the best cell phone video in the world. We will just have to wait for someone to do MSFT's job and demostrate it for us.

 

[MikeSo]

I don't know anything about photography, I'd just like to point out that the October 6 event was about hardware only. That's why they just said "it shoots 4k" without details. They didn't go into details about ANY software, not even on the tablets and laptops, if it wasn't directly related to new hardware (like Continuum or the new Surface pen), so whether it means anything that they didn't mention more about 4K is hard to say. Clearly the hardware is there.

 

[tommybrrr]

According to the APIs you can even record uncompressed video ( https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/li...deoencodingproperties.createuncompressed.aspx ) - so it all depends on how fast the actual hardware is and what the drivers and firmware expose to the OS.

 

[tommybrrr]

As emigrating pointed out even quarter billion dollar blockbusters sometimes use cameras with lossy compression for certain things... even really crappy highly compressed lossy cameras.

The thing about art is it is a balance between the technical side and content. There are no hard universally applied barriers. You can't say no professional would use lossy compression. There have been plenty of cameras that cost more than cars that utilize lossy compression. Look at the Sony F3. 4:4:4 was an add on feature. The camera without 4:4:4 sold for over $15,0000 only a few years ago. Look at the BBC's approved camera list. Plenty of lossy compression on that list. That is why I said you are wrong.

With professional use I meant, if you want to get the best possible quality from a technical point of view, then you take lossless compressed picture and video data with additional profile data from the utilized lenses and use this for post processing as the source.
Of course you are free for artistic purposes or personal preferences to use whatever you want.

 

[tommybrrr]

These days you should be fine with a Sony F65, but it's a bit expensive for hobbyist usage, but that's relative...