Pixel 4 pt.2 - People actually say this sort stuff!!!
In my last post I said that people were saying things like "doing X proves that company Y was [right/wrong] about Z".
And here it is about the Pixel 4 in contrast to earlier models.
This is among the more nonsensical things I've read.
The article basically argues that anything Google changed about the cameras is an admission of prior failure. A stance which is completely untenable. For this post I'm going to focus on just 2 points from the prior article; the switch from 2 to 1 front facing cameras and increasing the number of rear cameras. But, the general statement from the author is that if phone makers believe in their decisions they should carry forward every feature indefinitely.
Firstly, the removal of the 2 front facing cameras is the weakest argument of them both. The front of the Pixel 4 has a LOT going on. Maintaining 2 cameras would have been unfeasible. And, as the author points out on their own, many of the additional sensors can be used to help focus and improve the shots. What the article doesn't mention however is that the new front facing camera is supposed to have a wider field of view than the regular camera on the Pixel 3.
In short, if you look at the point the Pixel 3 was making as being that people enjoyed wider selfies, then they haven't even really abandoned anything.
And all of this also ignores the fact that not all features exist to made broad statements about what is right or wrong. Some features exist to differentiate. I don't know which this was to Google. But, the Pixel 4 seems to taken the wide angle selfies and evolved the experience, rather than thrown it away.
I'm equally unsure that Google ever planned the single camera to be a statement that multiple cameras was wrong. In fact, I always got the impression that Google's stance was more that the competition was jumping to multiple lenses when they hadn't finished tapping the potential of the single lens setup.
It isn't an argument, multiple lenses provides more data. Just as digital zoom has inherent limits compared to analog zoom.
As such, it feels silly and a bit infantile to me to even imply that engineers at Google felt a single lens was overall superior to multiple. OF COURSE you can do more, with more data.
The single camera on the Pixel 2 and 3 was a lot more about saying "Look! 2 cameras is great, but we haven't even reached the limits of what a single lens can do yet." And then they proved that by remaining competitive despite the increasing number of lenses on the competitors phones.
If you search "best smartphone camera" the Pixel 3 still tops some charts and is in contention on virtually every list. It is the ONLY single lens camera on those lists and it is older than EVERY phone that beats it in EVERY list.
How can you justify the stance that the decision is wrong just because they change it going forward? If it had failed to rank highly at launch, or was quickly beaten off the lists afterwards, it might make sense to proclaim it a mistake. But, I can tell you, Pixel owners in general seem perfectly happy with their cameras.
Adding a second lens is really just saying that competition is getting to a point where they may not be able to extract enough from a single lens to remain competitive. The times have changed. Sometimes that demands a response.
And here it is about the Pixel 4 in contrast to earlier models.
This is among the more nonsensical things I've read.
The article basically argues that anything Google changed about the cameras is an admission of prior failure. A stance which is completely untenable. For this post I'm going to focus on just 2 points from the prior article; the switch from 2 to 1 front facing cameras and increasing the number of rear cameras. But, the general statement from the author is that if phone makers believe in their decisions they should carry forward every feature indefinitely.
Firstly, the removal of the 2 front facing cameras is the weakest argument of them both. The front of the Pixel 4 has a LOT going on. Maintaining 2 cameras would have been unfeasible. And, as the author points out on their own, many of the additional sensors can be used to help focus and improve the shots. What the article doesn't mention however is that the new front facing camera is supposed to have a wider field of view than the regular camera on the Pixel 3.
In short, if you look at the point the Pixel 3 was making as being that people enjoyed wider selfies, then they haven't even really abandoned anything.
And all of this also ignores the fact that not all features exist to made broad statements about what is right or wrong. Some features exist to differentiate. I don't know which this was to Google. But, the Pixel 4 seems to taken the wide angle selfies and evolved the experience, rather than thrown it away.
I'm equally unsure that Google ever planned the single camera to be a statement that multiple cameras was wrong. In fact, I always got the impression that Google's stance was more that the competition was jumping to multiple lenses when they hadn't finished tapping the potential of the single lens setup.
It isn't an argument, multiple lenses provides more data. Just as digital zoom has inherent limits compared to analog zoom.
As such, it feels silly and a bit infantile to me to even imply that engineers at Google felt a single lens was overall superior to multiple. OF COURSE you can do more, with more data.
The single camera on the Pixel 2 and 3 was a lot more about saying "Look! 2 cameras is great, but we haven't even reached the limits of what a single lens can do yet." And then they proved that by remaining competitive despite the increasing number of lenses on the competitors phones.
If you search "best smartphone camera" the Pixel 3 still tops some charts and is in contention on virtually every list. It is the ONLY single lens camera on those lists and it is older than EVERY phone that beats it in EVERY list.
How can you justify the stance that the decision is wrong just because they change it going forward? If it had failed to rank highly at launch, or was quickly beaten off the lists afterwards, it might make sense to proclaim it a mistake. But, I can tell you, Pixel owners in general seem perfectly happy with their cameras.
Adding a second lens is really just saying that competition is getting to a point where they may not be able to extract enough from a single lens to remain competitive. The times have changed. Sometimes that demands a response.
Comments
Post a Comment