He's making fun of users saying the portraits looked like DSLR quality.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone XS 'BeautyGate' Test Tricks Viewers to Challenge Preconceived Notions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This test was sort of pointless unless the objective was simply to trick Android users. I (and other I know) still don't like the 'blurring' effect applied by the camera. When I saw the "Pixel 2 photo" on the left I thought it looked terrible and blurry.
Oh lordt.
When so many people are applying filters to smooth their pictures out, applying makeup simply for selfies, and getting the best angles it is OK because they chose.
Then Apple added it in .... the outrage is completely re-dick-you-lus.
When so many people are applying filters to smooth their pictures out, applying makeup simply for selfies, and getting the best angles it is OK because they chose.
Then Apple added it in .... the outrage is completely re-dick-you-lus.
You could probably just shut off the smart HDR setting and it wouldn’t be so pronounced. But you’ll probably miss some dynamic range.
Yes the screen acts as a flash when using the front camera in low light. I think the screen uses different tones just like the regular flash's true tone technology to improve the white balance but don't quote me on that.
Pleaseeeee. The ratio of Apple to Android trolls is way slanted towards Android fans. Anti-Apple comments are in every thread on this forum (and almost exceed the number of normal comments in some threads) and can be found in every public forum discussing Apple and their products such as in YouTube and elsewhere.
I don’t see many Apple fans go out of their way to troll Android forums or leave nasty comments all over the internet about Android.
The trolling behaviour is truly one-sided. If you don’t believe me, look at the pic actually taken by a Pixel 2 in Jonathan’s insta. You see any Apple fans bashing the Pixel? I don’t.
After looking at different camera reviews in the pixel 2 and iPhone XS, you can see a trend. The iPhone has great dynamic range. I think the pixel takes great pictures. If I were to ever jump ship to android, it would be a pixel or OnePlus. What pixel looks like it does is over sharpen images to make them look sharp. To some people this looks better. But best way to do these comparisons is a blind test. I was actually really impressed with the OnePlus 6 pictures. They are brighter than pixel 2. But needless to say, this is the “battle of smartphones” with YouTube, other fan sites like this one and other android sites.
Who really wins when fighting over smartphones???
Who really wins when fighting over smartphones???
You'd be surprised at how many Apple fans act cocky and elite to insult Android users for the fact that they own an iPhone. It's not just the other way around.
I’m not saying they don’t exist at all. I’m saying the ratio is still heavily skewed towards more Android fans being trolls than the other way around.
I agree. It goes both ways. But what I don’t get is how some people can join forums on products that they clearly “hate”, and post comments trying to bash. It’s like, what are you trying to accomplish??
[doublepost=1539031669][/doublepost]
Like the ones who lurk around this site!
How does this combat BeautyGate? The argument wasn't that other phones didn't do this or it always looked bad but that the smoothing on the iPhone was too heavy handed in it's implementation.
But is it really necessary where the average consumer would care about something like this? Or is it just because there are more who are tech oriented that want to dissect everything about the camera? I’m guessing option B.
It doesn't, and it doesn't even claim to. You quoted a sentence saying "In an effort to combat the BeautyGate claims". It seemed a pretty clear demonstration that many who made the claim that the image quality was/is egregiously bad would contradict that viewpoint if they simply didn't know a picture was from the XS.
Cults are extremely boring, sometimes it's good to see the grass on the other side and listen about other user experiences with a different OS.
To counter this, I’m sick of those who deride others who can (or even think they can) tell the difference and want the extra quality. Those deriding often do so without knowing much about the studies to which they refer, or that there’s also research that shows the opposite; when even unwashed public listeners are trained to know what to listen for rates of positive identification increase. In one study, certain exceptional listeners could identify high-res audio as often as 80% of the time. Many of the studies that you’re referring to are old and some have been discredited. Yes, it’s not always easy or possible and it’s best to be able to rapidly switch between the same parts of tracks in the different qualities, but this in itself is not so easy to set up, especially because no two pieces of audio equipment are exactly the same.
But here’s the thing: I can usually (as in almost always) buy a digital copy of an album in true 16/44 for the same price or less than Apple’s 256 kpbs AAC, so why shouldn’t I? The argument that I shouldn’t makes even less sense than some wild generalisation that everyone can or can’t tell a difference! Not only that, I can usually buy the album in a higher-resolution format for around the same price or sometimes even less than Apple’s 256 kbps AAC. Just yesterday I bought an album in uncompressed 24/96 format for the same price Apple was charging for its version with less than 10% the data of the high-res version. And you’re implying I’m stupid for doing so? It doesn't matter how good the compression is, that amount is clearly audible (I've checked), and by having (essentially) the master, I can compress it myself if and when better compression algorithms come along. If you go to the high-res sites, the prices they charge are about the same as CD or “lossy” versions from elsewhere; sometimes slightly more but usually the same and sometimes even less. I haven’t bought anything from iTunes in years as a result.
Here’s the other thing, back in the day it wasn’t feasible for Apple to offer uncompressed music. They started out with lowly 128 kbps. Even back then I was ripping at 256 because hard drive space was at such a premium I couldn’t justify lossless. Nowadays, storage is cheap as chips and most people have fast, virtually unlimited download capacity. Even 1 TB of Apple’s super-fast SSD is within reach, so it’s not unreasonable to be able to devote 100 GB or more to music. Apple is way past the point they should’ve upgraded their store to ALAC. And I really mean way, way past. ALAC is only about three times bigger because of lossless compression anyway, so not much more than the jump from 128 to 256 kbps they achieved painlessly a decade or so ago.
Last edited:
Edit: nevermind I misunderstood what you just said. They do share their experiences sometimes, other times it’s just to make fuel and fights, in the end of the day use whatever you like.
Yup. If this test had been the other way around and iPhone users were fooled -- the comments on this article would have *exploded* into the hundreds, with trolls galore. As it is, we have like 70 comments, because it's not conducive to the favorite pastime of Apple bashing.
I was with you all the way, until the butter/margarine thing. I can absolutely tell the difference.
I can also tell the difference between grass fed butter and regular. I’ve done the blind tasting.
Android phones. I've been hearing the camera of some model is superior since they first starting coming out, yet it's always crap when I actually take a picture or video on one. Pixel might be the exception where it's decent.
[doublepost=1539055357][/doublepost]
But there is this, haha
[doublepost=1539055357][/doublepost]
This is true. Nobody gets super geeky about the phone that just solves the average use case and doesn't advertise specs or let people customize things too heavily. Those people will be drawn to whatever phone has the most RAM or something.
But there is this, haha
Last edited:
I don’t care one way or the other on this, because I don’t believe in a “genuine selfie” exists anyway. That’s almost a perfect oxymoron to me.
But, this has got to be more than noise reduction. On my Sony a6300 (Sony makes the sensor in the Xs, which does have something to do with the software) there’s an option to shoot photos with a “smooth skin effect.” And on my FS7 there’s an option to shot 4K video with skin smoothing on (and the FS7 has been out for over 3 years).
Based on the photos I’ve seen, it looks like a combination for sure. If it were just noise reduction it’d be across the board way to severe. Examples citing “smoothing” of non-facial textures are referencing noise reduction only.
In any case, show me one person who demands and honest face-filling picture with pore perfect replication. One of best selling apps essentially lets you perform major plastic surgery on your face in selfies. This sounds like another Twitter Rage that’ll blow through and be forgotten in a day. Maybe two.
I just watched a YouTube video. Zone of tech did a camera comparison of the iPhone XS and the pixel 2. It wasn’t even close. The iPhone was better in every single picture. I never understood the hype with the pixel cameras. I think it’s good but not something to write home about.Android phones. I've been hearing the camera of some model is superior since they first starting coming out, yet it's always crap when I actually take a picture or video on one. Pixel might be the exception where it's decent.
[doublepost=1539055357][/doublepost]
This is true. Nobody gets super geeky about the phone that just solves the average use case and doesn't advertise specs or let people customize things too heavily. Those people will be drawn to whatever phone has the most RAM or something.
But there is this, haha