Google is working on a new Android camera API, supports Camera RAW

Could a new API with many new features shore up one a big Android weak spot?

Read the whole story

 

[zombie]

Good news.
Sounds like the much needed revamp.

I do wonder what is the ETA. Will they wait for a new Nexus device or just push it out when ready?

 

[guifa]

"Removable camera" = camera connected via USB? I don't see a great use case at first glance for me personally, but I'm sure someone else out there would find a good use for it.

 

[yticolev]

Sony QX models are such "removable" cameras.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/techn ... amera.html

 

[jurchiks]

Could the removable camera bit be related to phonebloks?

 

[Wardatrigger]

I take it nice new software would still leave a lot in the hands of the hardware manufacturer? (i.e. HTC good, Sony not bad either, Samsung a bit iffy?)

 

[ReddyKilowatt]

I hope this inspires a few other manufacturers to introduce Galaxy Zoom-like devices, only with good glass and sensors. One less thing to keep track of when traveling.

Canon/HTC partnership?

 

[DarkFox]

Google bought Nik Software recently. They specialize in image processing software which plugs into Lightroom, Aperture and Photoshop, and released Snapseed for iOS and Android. My guess is that they'll look to incorporate Nik software into Android.

 

[lucianarmasu]

> The strangest new feature is probably support for a removable camera. We can't recall a single Android device of any kind that has had a removable camera, so feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments.

Project ARA.

 

[dmsilev]

I have to wonder how much help RAW really will be for a small sensor camera. There are a couple of advantages to saving RAW images and post-processing. One is that DSLR-grade sensors have more dynamic range than what can be easily saved in a 8-bit JPG file, so post-processing can allow you to recover details that may have otherwise gotten clipped in the highlights or lost in the shadow noise. Small sensor chips don't have nearly the same dynamic range, so you don't have the information to start with.

The other main advantage of RAW, which would pertain for a phone camera, is that the white-balance corrections aren't baked in (as they would be for JPGs). That makes color-correcting for different lighting a lot easier. If you don't care about that sort of thing (and I imagine most people just keep white-balance set to 'auto' and forget about it), RAW doesn't really buy very much.

 

[Basquiat]

DarkFox[/url]":1fialn4u]Google bought Nik Software recently. They specialize in image processing software which plugs into Lightroom, Aperture and Photoshop, and released Snapseed for iOS and Android. My guess is that they'll look to incorporate Nik software into Android.

Snapseed was on iOS (not sure about Android) long before Google bought it.

 

[TheDarkOn3]

Oof, just imagine your monthly bill if you switch to RAW output, but left your phone's settings to auto-upload your images to G+.

 

[ChrisG]

yticolev[/url]":v2de5wd8]Sony QX models are such "removable" cameras.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/techn ... amera.html

That, or something very similar, would be my guess too.

 

[jonas_jonas]

Removable Camera:
Android directly using google glass camera data on phone and/or tablet?

 

[ev9_tarantula]

Removable doesn't necessarily imply that a camera is a modular component of a phone or tablet. I think it might simply mean that a camera that is available to the system, via a wireless connection, can be either disabled, or go offline, due to something like being outside of wireless range or the host device having a higher priority.

So for example if a camera in a smart-watch, or Google Glass, can be remotely operated by say an Android phone, then the camera is removable in the sense that it won't always be available to the phone.

 

[LJ]

guifa[/url]":2ibz7qwu]"Removable camera" = camera connected via USB? I don't see a great use case at first glance for me personally, but I'm sure someone else out there would find a good use for it.

How about Bluetooth? Remote shutter?

 

[Boskone]

One of my coworkers is a fairly serious amateur photographer, and is looking forward to using a Nexus 7 as a remote display.

Perhaps the "removable camera" is related to such? An improved interface (either from Google or manufacturers) for remote shutter, color manipulation, light balance, or whatever it is photographers do when staging a picture?

 

[NicoleC]

RAW is minimally compressed and unprocessed

That's not entirely true. RAW images are processed in camera. It would be more accurate to say they are "minimally compressed and processed."

Whether sensor technology will ever get to the point where the tiny sensors in smartphones and tablets produce photos worthy of the effort of post-processing is another story.

 

[psuedonymous]

dmsilev[/url]":1ffhq9c8]I have to wonder how much help RAW really will be for a small sensor camera.

for snapping photos, probably not a lot. But if you want to do computational imagery on android devices, then it could be very useful indeed.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

dmsilev[/url]":wm61bsla]I have to wonder how much help RAW really will be for a small sensor camera. There are a couple of advantages to saving RAW images and post-processing. One is that DSLR-grade sensors have more dynamic range than what can be easily saved in a 8-bit JPG file, so post-processing can allow you to recover details that may have otherwise gotten clipped in the highlights or lost in the shadow noise. Small sensor chips don't have nearly the same dynamic range, so you don't have the information to start with.

The other main advantage of RAW, which would pertain for a phone camera, is that the white-balance corrections aren't baked in (as they would be for JPGs). That makes color-correcting for different lighting a lot easier. If you don't care about that sort of thing (and I imagine most people just keep white-balance set to 'auto' and forget about it), RAW doesn't really buy very much.

One major advantage of RAW available at the API level would be for anyone who isn't entirely thrilled by the default software's (usually mediocre) munge-to-JPEG function.

As you say, RAW shots from some teeny little sensor arent' going to be anything like RAW shots from a DSLR when you load them into lightroom or whatever and start futzing around; but if 3rd-party photo apps can get RAWs directly off the sensor, it'll presumably make life a lot easier for (quite possibly more competent) outfits to plug in their bake-to-JPEG mechanisms of choice, in place of Google or OEM ones.

You'd have to be slightly obsessive (or using Android-based firmware on something that is more camera than phone), to care about getting and storing the RAWs of your happy-snaps; but it would be much less of a surprise if Adobe could pop out a camera app that grabs the RAW api data and does a better job by default, with options to twiddle, of spitting out jpegs...

 

[shungite]

Sounds like we're in for an excellent update.

 

[Daveoc64]

Doesn't the current API support RAW imaging?

 

[mental]

I wonder if the Nexus 4 is among the "full-capability" devices.

 

[steelghost]

One can only hope that they are also looking at the firmware of their Nexus devices as part of this. The focus delay on the NExus 5 isn't quite as awful as some are making out, but it's especially jarring given the speed of the device in all other aspects.

 

[Shudder]

jurchiks[/url]":296r23p6]Could the removable camera bit be related to phonebloks?

Or possibly multi-positional cameras like the one in the new Cyanogenmod phone. Since the camera physically rotates front-to-back and vice versa, I imagine when it's in the other position you've essentially removed the camera from the previous position.

All in all it's good that this is being worked on. EVERY single article on a new Android phone pans the camera compared to the iPhone, even if every other single aspect is better than a similar product from Apple. For many people it's a dealbreaker, and I imagine for anyone coming from Apple to Android, it would be a bit jarring to have pictures suddenly look noticeably worse.

 

[ronamadeo]

Daveoc64[/url]":eq4v560k]Doesn't the current API support RAW imaging?

That's broken. I linked to the Jelly bean version of the file, which doesn't have any RAW support. This is a new implementation that should actually work. https://android.googlesource.com/platfo ... ormat.java

 

[afanen01]

guifa[/url]":yg08o54e]"Removable camera" = camera connected via USB? I don't see a great use case at first glance for me personally, but I'm sure someone else out there would find a good use for it.

One of the stepping stones towards making Android a general purpose computing platform perhaps? (meaning more form factors, such as Ultrabook/desktop).

Right now for me, here's my list of things before android can become my primary computing platform:

* Virtualization (something like virtualbox)
* IDEs (Java, C/C++, PHP, Javascript, HTML, CSS) including compilers so I can develop and test my code on my android device.

* web and database management systems (so I can do web development).

If/when this happens, then I won't mind paying "laptop" price for a dockable Android device.

 

[AndromedaB]

I'm guessing we'll be waiting for the next major release for these features.

too bad

 

[realwarder]

Lumia 1520 is not "upcoming". You can buy it today.

 

[psarhjinian]

Wardatrigger[/url]":3dli7byx]I take it nice new software would still leave a lot in the hands of the hardware manufacturer? (i.e. HTC good, Sony not bad either, Samsung a bit iffy?)

It's probably more accurate to say "Sony is generally good, HTC generally average except for low light, and Samsung goes from great to terrible" but yes, there would still be a lot in the hands of the OEMs.

It might give OEMs that care, though, more freedom to make better software. Apple's cameras aren't, in hardware terms, any better than what Sony or Samsung ship, but Apple sweats the details better. Assuming the OEM cares,

 

[Zak]

Unless the sensor is very high quality IMHO there will be very little benefit in shooting RAW.

 

[Midnitte]

Zak[/url]":rx86qz6r]Unless the sensor is very high quality IMHO there will be very little benefit in shooting RAW.

As noted in the article, it gives photographers more flexibility and control over their photos regardless of sensor quality - producing (potentially) better photos even with the same sensor. This would be especially useful to things such as snapseed or Google+ auto awesome, allowing these programs more control over the final image.

 

[Bob Servo]

NicoleC[/url]":3achpqgd]

RAW is minimally compressed and unprocessed

That's not entirely true. RAW images are processed in camera. It would be more accurate to say they are "minimally compressed and processed."

Actually, THAT is not entirely true. The image data in a RAW file is the dump of the sensor readout, unmodified and unprocessed.

 

[guntherv]

Bob Servo[/url]":34aeuw0g]

NicoleC[/url]":34aeuw0g]

RAW is minimally compressed and unprocessed

That's not entirely true. RAW images are processed in camera. It would be more accurate to say they are "minimally compressed and processed."

Actually, THAT is not entirely true. The image data in a RAW file is the dump of the sensor readout, unmodified and unprocessed.

plenty of raw formats use some kind of lossless compression

 

[arkhanist]

For your average snapshot going straight to facebook or instagram, it probably won't make much difference - though if you had the space to work with the RAW, even temporarily, you could do the common 'hipster' filters easier and better pre-JPEG, along with auto-improve tools having more data to work with and likely giving better results.

Being able to better fiddle with white balance and under-exposure post shot would be a great boon for 'keeper' photos, especially if you only got one chance at the shot (pets or children!) and you don't have your DSLR with you, or don't own one.

You also have the option of going to something other than jpeg from RAW - JPEG2000 springs to mind.

One use for me personally would be improving the shots from a cheap light-box + 6500k lamps - I sometimes need to take photos of home-made jewellery, or other small stuff (sometimes it's going on ebay or the like, or just showing it off to family) and I can't justify the cost of a DSLR for that use case (and don't do enough photography otherwise). My HTC one beats the pants off my old point-n-shoot - but even fiddling with the white balance + exposure hard in CS6 (academic copy) or aperture, it's hard to get good shots out of JPEG, as there's only so much you can do.

Being able to postprocess RAW would drastically improve that - I was totally shocked at how much you can improve mediocre RAW shots when I did get to use a DSLR for a while, so even with a small sensor I think it would be a big improvement, even if the space requirements keep it as a somewhat niche use case.

If that function (along with burst mode!) came to say, android 4.5, I would totally convert my HTC one to a GPE version to get it quicker.

 

[Danrarbc]

lucianarmasu[/url]":243p24pg]> The strangest new feature is probably support for a removable camera. We can't recall a single Android device of any kind that has had a removable camera, so feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments.

Project ARA.

Bingo, I was going to mention that too. This is required for that to be swappable. Otherwise how does the OS know the hardware state changed? The Linux layer probably would of course, but not the Android components above it.

Midnitte[/url]":243p24pg]

Zak[/url]":243p24pg]Unless the sensor is very high quality IMHO there will be very little benefit in shooting RAW.

As noted in the article, it gives photographers more flexibility and control over their photos regardless of sensor quality - producing (potentially) better photos even with the same sensor. This would be especially useful to things such as snapseed or Google+ auto awesome, allowing these programs more control over the final image.

Exactly. The phone has a weak processor and must be somewhat optimized for speed - this is even true on a DSLR. RAW allows you to all of the compression, noise removal and color balance in post - where it doesn't matter if it takes 30 seconds to process and the quality is much higher.

 

[mightyfo]

TheDarkOn3[/url]":2bbsyo4r]Oof, just imagine your monthly bill if you switch to RAW output, but left your phone's settings to auto-upload your images to G+.

Fortunately most carriers at least here in the US don't charge data overages anymore. They'll just throttle you down to 2g.

 

[yesnomaybe]

The Nexus 5 camera was a huge disappointment, especially after comments from high-ranking Googler Vic Gundotra stating that "we are committed to making Nexus phones insanely great cameras. Just you wait and see."

You can say that again. I bought the Nexus 5 as soon as it was released (i.e. before any reviews were out) partly based on this. I knew the specs were only 8MP and I wasn't really expecting an insanely great camera, but I figured as long as it was at least on-par with my thirty month old Galaxy S2, I would be happy enough.

It isn't even close. I don't mind the lack of settings and cool features, so much as that the photos are pretty dire outside of HDR+ mode, and you can't use zoom within HDR+ mode. Taking quick "take it or miss it" photos doesn't seem possible (the whole point of a camera phone, IMHO). And the controls are fiddly.

I am hoping that it is all a software problem and that the hardware is fine... and that I will see improved software soon (regardless of whether it uses a new API).

 

[lidocaineus]

TheDarkOn3[/url]":yein7cit]Oof, just imagine your monthly bill if you switch to RAW output, but left your phone's settings to auto-upload your images to G+.

Well if it's sane, it won't let you upload RAWs to G+ unless you plan to dump them into something for editing later. No one uses RAW as an actual output format.

 

[look_alive]

mightyfo[/url]":4y2hskwo]

TheDarkOn3[/url]":4y2hskwo]Oof, just imagine your monthly bill if you switch to RAW output, but left your phone's settings to auto-upload your images to G+.

Fortunately most carriers at least here in the US don't charge data overages anymore. They'll just throttle you down to 2g.

Huh? Unless you are grandfathered into an old "unlimited" plan, or are using a pre-pay plan from a smaller provider, virtually every single carrier in US charges overages. At least in my recent research.