Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo quality of results (but why?)

[Arlen Holder]

If anyone on this newsgroup can give a good account as to _why_ the camera
app makes such a huge difference in details, dynamic range, and better
color (apparently using a variant of the camera app that the Pixel 3 uses).
<https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

On Black Friday I picked up a handful of 64GB/4GB/8-core/512GBsdcard
Motorola G7 stocking stuffer phablets for $100 each where I populated one
for myself with a few hundreds apps from my old SD card.
o What are your favorite F-Droid apps, and what do they do?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/EOWwR40FIWY>

After reading the Motorola G7 reviews, I noticed the camera reviews seemed
to suggest for a LOT of phones, that we ditch the default camera app in
favor of the Google-created Gcam app, which apparently works on certain
Qualcomm-chip based phones.
o Google Camera Port Hub
<https://www.xda-developers.com/google-camera-port-hub/>

At XDA Developers, these 100 phones are said to benefit greatly in camera
QOR simply using the Google GCam APK which was designed for the Pixels.
o Asus ROG Phone II
o Asus ZenFone 5Z
o Asus ZenFone 6
o Asus ZenFone Max Pro M1
o Asus ZenFone Max Pro M2
o Essential Phone PH-1
o Galaxy phones running Android 10, 9, or 8 (Exynos & Snapdragon)
o Google Pixel 2/Pixel 2 XL
o Google Pixel 3/Pixel 3 XL
o Google Pixel 3/Pixel 3 XL
o Google Pixel 3a/Pixel 3a XL
o Google Pixel/Pixel XL
o HTC 10
o HTC U Ultra
o HTC U11
o HTC U12+
o LG G4
o LG G5
o LG G6
o LG G7 ThinQ
o LG V20
o LG V30
o LG V40 ThinQ
o LeEco Le Max 2
o LeEco Le Pro3
o Lenovo K6
o Lenovo P2
o Lenovo ZUK Z2 Plus
o Lenovo ZUK Z2 Pro
o Moto G5 Plus
o Moto G5S
o Moto G5S Plus
o Moto G7
o Moto G7 Plus
o Moto G7 Power
o Moto X4
o Moto Z
o Moto Z2 Play
o Moto Z3 Play
o Motorola One
o Motorola One Power
o Nokia 5
o Nokia 6
o Nokia 7 Plus
o Nokia 8
o Nokia 8.1
o OnePlus 3/3T
o OnePlus 5/5T
o OnePlus 6/6T
o OnePlus 7
o OnePlus 7 Pro
o OnePlus 7T
o Razer Phone
o Razer Phone 2
o Samsung Galaxy A70
o Samsung Galaxy Note 8
o Samsung Galaxy Note 9
o Samsung Galaxy S10/+/e
o Samsung Galaxy S7
o Samsung Galaxy S8
o Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+
o Xiaomi Mi 5
o Xiaomi Mi 5S
o Xiaomi Mi 6
o Xiaomi Mi 8
o Xiaomi Mi 8 Lite
o Xiaomi Mi 9
o Xiaomi Mi A1
o Xiaomi Mi A2
o Xiaomi Mi Max 3
o Xiaomi Mi Mix
o Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
o Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
o Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
o Xiaomi Mi Note 3
o Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Poco F1)
o Xiaomi Redmi 3S
o Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
o Xiaomi Redmi 4X
o Xiaomi Redmi 5A
o Xiaomi Redmi K20 Pro
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 2
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 3
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 4
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 / 5 Plus
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 Pro
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 7/Note 7 Pro
o Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
o ZTE Axon 7

Here's a CNET review where the Gcam suggestion is made at time 336:
o CNET: Moto G7 review: The best budget phone we've tried, hands down
<https://youtu.be/57m1_SPBefg?t=336>

If anyone on this newsgroup can give a good account as to _why_ the camera
app makes such an apparently huge difference in details, dynamic range, and
better color (apparently using a variant of the camera app that the Pixel 3
uses), it would be useful to all since it's an easy "mod" for sure.
<https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

See also:
o The Moto G7 is on sale for $100 during the Black Friday Google Fi event
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/UIYH1QYp8Pw>
--
Usenet works well when adults purposefully helpfully share their knowledge.

[Libor Striz]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> Wrote in message:r
> If anyone on this newsgroup can give a good account as to _why_ the cameraapp makes such a huge difference in details, dynamic range, and better color....

Is not it obvious ?

Photos are data.

If all camera applications
collected data from CCD or other camera sensors the same way,
and if all applications stored all data as they were collected,
then photos from all applications on given camera would be the same.

But applications collect and process camera data by different ways,
therefore results are different.

--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )

[David Taylor]

... and the source data is (usually) from a single RGBG sensor quad
which has to be processed into four RGB pixels.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Savageduck]

On Dec 3, 2019, David Taylor wrote
(in article <qs7g2d$2iv$2...@dont-email.me>):

Take care. This thread is the start of a dive into an Arlen Holder vortex,
and about to heavily pollute r.p.d..

I have him, and his many nym variations effectively kill-filed. However, when
others respond to him I get to see his scribblings, and I see that nothing
has changed.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[David Taylor]

On 04/12/2019 06:01, Savageduck wrote:
[]

> Take care. This thread is the start of a dive into an Arlen Holder vortex,
> and about to heavily pollute r.p.d..
>
> I have him, and his many nym variations effectively kill-filed. However, when
> others respond to him I get to see his scribblings, and I see that nothing
> has changed.

Unfortunately I had not noticed that the origin of the thread. I have a
similar arrangement in place. I've removed the spurious groups, too.

It's quite early in the morning here!

[Martin Brown]

On 03/12/2019 22:57, Arlen Holder wrote:
> If anyone on this newsgroup can give a good account as to _why_ the camera
> app makes such a huge difference in details, dynamic range, and better
> color (apparently using a variant of the camera app that the Pixel 3 uses).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

I'm not sure it will make a huge difference but it is always a trade off
between processing time, size of the stored image and quality. Different
applications make different approximations and compression levels so it
isn't too surprising that for a given chipset there are better imaging
applications that the default Android jack of all trades.

If you would care to put up a couple of images of the same scene taken
on the same phone using the default app and a Goggle Pixel it would be
easy enough to determine the JPEG compression settings they each use.

Deliberately dropping foliage background detail is one way to compress
images that some mobile phones seem to use - concentrating on faces.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[nospam]

In article <qs7g2d$2iv$2...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> ... and the source data is (usually) from a single RGBG sensor quad
> which has to be processed into four RGB pixels.

that's not how bayer demosaicing works. not even remotely close to how
it works.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/03/2019 02:57 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> At XDA Developers, these 100 phones are said to benefit greatly in camera
> QOR simply using the Google GCam APK which was designed for the Pixels.

> o Moto G5S

https://www.cyanogenmods.org/google-camera/ for all versions.

Followed instructions, tried all Motorola and generic files, but NOTHING
installed. Yes, I had 'install from unknown sources' checked. It
didn't actually say that the phone had to be rooted for anything except
one of the manual things.

Perhaps it just knows that I refuse to update to Android8 and is
punishing me.

I really hate serious people using the stupid names instead of numbers.
WTF is wrong with them?

--
Cheers, Bev
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:01:05 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Take care. This thread is the start of a dive into an Arlen Holder vortex,
> and about to heavily pollute r.p.d..
>
> I have him, and his many nym variations effectively kill-filed. However, when
> others respond to him I get to see his scribblings, and I see that nothing
> has changed.

The problem with responding to trolls like you, Savageduck, is that I have
to drop down to your level to respond to your clearly unwarranted ad
hominem attack, so I'll only do it once, since you're a well-known Apple
troll who infests this newsgroup, along with a score of others (see list
below).

To spare the adults on this ng the indignities of dealing with well-known
Apple trolls like Savageduck, this is my first & last post to Savageduck's
always childish unwarranted uncalled-for ad hominem attacks in this thread.

Savageduck is only one of about a score of Apple trolls who proves, in
every post, that they are utterly incapable of adding on-topic technical
value, which, sadly, Savageduck just proved, again, and will continue to
prove. Just watch.

Here's the list of the score of well-known Apple trolls we will ignore:
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Ammammata <amma...@tiscalinet.it> (not an apologist, but is ignorant)
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> (educated & yet immune to fact)
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net (it's hard to find a human any dumber, sadly to say)
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o dpb <no...@none.net> (posts worthless drivel - but keeps it short)
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o Hawk <Ha...@gmail.com> (literally posts what children would post)
o Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> (has no adult thought processes)
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> (child-like cognitive skills)
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> (one of the dumbest of all)
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> (dumber than most)
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> (bullshitter par excellence)
o Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates any and all facts about Apple)
o *Savageduck* <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> (not dumb - but childish)
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser, troll #1)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> (indescribably childish)
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net> (about as dumb as a human can be)
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> (never posts anything of value)
o et al.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:10:25 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> If you would care to put up a couple of images of the same scene taken
> on the same phone using the default app and a Goggle Pixel it would be
> easy enough to determine the JPEG compression settings they each use.

Just to be clear, that side-by-side comparison was in the opening post:

o CNET: Moto G7 review: The best budget phone we've tried, hands down
<https://youtu.be/57m1_SPBefg?t=336>

If you need more side-by-side comparisons, I can likely dig them up since
the Internet seems rife with the potentially astounding claim that the
Google Gcam APK dramatically improves the quality of the results (QOR) on
almost 100 common phones out there today (see list in the original post).


Here's the wikipedia on how the Gcam APK does it's QOR magic (HDR+):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Camera>

Here's the Google blog on the Gcam APK QOR magic:
<https://blog.x.company/meet-gcam-the-x-graduate-that-gave-us-a-whole-new-point-of-view-3ee86657d6c9>
"the Gcam team explored a method called *image fusion*, which takes a
rapid sequence of shots and then fuses them to create a single, higher
quality image. The technique allowed them to render dimly-lit scenes in
greater detail, and mixed lighting scenes with greater clarity. This meant
brighter, sharper pictures overall."

One interesting potential odd result of that claim of vastly improved QOR
based on the Gcam APK, if it holds true, is that any mobile phone published
QOR review, e.g., the classic DXOMark reviews, "could" be drastically
different simply based on the camera app employed.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:01:05 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Take care. This thread is the start of a dive into an Arlen Holder vortex,
> and about to heavily pollute r.p.d..
>
> I have him, and his many nym variations effectively kill-filed. However, when
> others respond to him I get to see his scribblings, and I see that nothing
> has changed.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:19:05 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> Is not it obvious ?

Hi Poutnik,

We go way back on the Android newsgroup, where you've helped out a lot.
However, it kind of irks me when people say non-obvious things are obvious.

*Vastly improving camera QOR simply by an APK, is a _big deal_ IMHO.*
o HDR+
o ZSL
o NightSight

It's definitely not obvious, since Google themselves says they spent
_years_ developing HDR+ technology to vastly improve camera output QOR.

o Here are side-by-side photos on the Motorola G7 with the Gcam APK:
<https://www.cnet.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g7-review/2/>
"But here's an interesting wrinkle. If you're savvy enough to install
the Google Camera app (Gcam apk), which is essentially the camera app used
on the Pixel 3, you'll be rewarded. *The results are eye opening*. Photos
taken with the Google Camera app on the Moto G7 have more detail, dynamic
range and better color."

If this was so obvious, why did it take a decade of smartphone technology
before this camera-QOR-improvement capability showed up, Poutnik? :)

It's also not obvious that certain features won't work until you get the
proper non-Google-Play "port" of the Google Gcam APK:
o Download Google Camera (Gcam) for Moto G7 with working HDR+ and ZSL
<https://droidfeats.com/download-gcam-for-moto-g7/>
"The Google Camera application does not work correctly on all the
devices. If you just download the Google Camera from APKMirror or any other
site, it may get installed on your phone. But, HDR+ and Zero Shutter Lag
(ZSL) may not work. You may not get all the Pixel Camera features. So, some
additional change had to be made with the app. This modification is called
porting Google Camera app from Pixel devices. This is not an official APK
from Play Store, but a modified one."

All that is decidedly _not_ obvious, Poutnik: at least not to me, a priori.

It's decidedly not obvious a developer had to _port_ the Google Gcam APK.
o Download Google Camera for Moto G7 with HDR+/Night Sight [Gcam APK]
<https://www.getdroidtips.com/google-camera-moto-g7/>
"Today an XDA Senior member, ARNOVA8G2 ported the Google Camera for Moto
G7 which brings HDR+ and Night Sight features to the top. Also Credits to
Ukrainian developer B-S-G for porting the Google Camera HDR+ and Night
Sight for many devices. This APK and the related features will work on the
mentioned devices running Android 9.0 Pie. It will not support any
operating system below Android Pie."

Note it's also not obvious why it only works on Android Pie & above!


One interesting potential "issue" of this apparently vastly increased
camera QOR is that any mobile-phone review that tests with the stock camera
may not be what the user "can" attain, where this concept that the camera
APK has a _drastic_ effect on camera QOR, is IMPORTANT to understand.
<https://www.dxomark.com/motorola-moto-g7-plus-camera-review/>

Saying "it's obvious" is sort of like saying it's obvious how to fly like a
bird ... all you have to do is flap your arms a lot.

My point is that it's decidedly _not_ obvious if it took Google _years_ to
develop this technology (we can assume they spent tens of millions on it).

Given I'm clearly not a "camera expert", others on this ng _are_ more
expert than we are, Poutnik, where the main question is whether someone on
this newsgroup can explain to us, the hoi polloi, _how_ Google did it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> If you need more side-by-side comparisons, I can likely dig them up since
> the Internet seems rife with the potentially astounding claim that the
> Google Gcam APK dramatically improves the quality of the results (QOR) on
> almost 100 common phones out there today (see list in the original post).

Hi Martin Brown,
In my response to Poutnik, I found more side-by-side comparisons, where,
apparently, you can _vastly_ increase the camera QOR simply by loading a
decent port of the Google gCam (which is not available on Google Play).

o Here are side-by-side photos on the Motorola G7 with the Gcam APK:
<https://www.cnet.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g7-review/2/>
"But here's an interesting wrinkle. If you're savvy enough to install
the Google Camera app (Gcam apk), which is essentially the camera app used
on the Pixel 3, you'll be rewarded. *The results are eye opening*. Photos
taken with the Google Camera app on the Moto G7 have more detail, dynamic
range and better color."

The main technical question for this group is "how" the APK does its magic.

o HDR+
o ZSL
o NightSight

Where it wasn't obvious to me that one could dramatically improve the
camera QOR so greatly (based on the cites I've provided), simply by loading
a port of the Google Gcam APK.

As a related aside, what that calls into question is _all_ camera QOR
reviews that don't use the best available camera app, since the camera QOR
results are, by all accounts I've seen, referred to as "eye opening" and
"dramatic".

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:50:25 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Perhaps it just knows that I refuse to update to Android8 and is
> punishing me.

Hi The Real Bev,
We both go way back in helping out others where I always appreciate your
honesty and candor.

As with you, I failed. Not only did I fail, but I failed twice.

It's not obvious how to get this stuff to work, but it is obvious that
other people _have_ gotten the Google Gcam port to work on their phones
(since they published side-by-side photos which showed 'dramatic'
improvement in Camera QOR).

Since "eye opening" instantly improvement in camera QOR can be obtained,
for free, simply by loading the Google Gcam APK, it's a "no brainer", to
try.

So I did.
o And I failed.
Twice.

I first tried the Google Play Gcam app (from Aurora Store) version of the
Gcam app, but it simply crashed. Then I tried the xda-developers' port
specific for the Moto G7, and it failed to install. I'd hit the install
button, and it would go back to the screen saying to install it. Over and
over and over again.

And I'm on Android 9 Pie, where it's "supposed" to work.
So it's _not obvious_ how to get this reputed Gcam APK port to work.

In _your_ case though, I just belatedly noticed this when I was researching
what the constraints are, where if you're not on Android Pie or above, I
think you're hosed (AFAICT).

o Download Google Camera for Moto G7 with HDR+/Night Sight [Gcam APK]
<https://www.getdroidtips.com/google-camera-moto-g7/>
"Today an XDA Senior member, ARNOVA8G2 ported the Google Camera for Moto
G7 which brings HDR+ and Night Sight features to the top. Also Credits to
Ukrainian developer B-S-G for porting the Google Camera HDR+ and Night
Sight for many devices. This APK and the related features will work on the

mentioned devices running Android 9.0 Pie. *It will not support any*
*operating system below Android Pie*."

I didn't know this when I first posted this thread, but what is extremely
interesting is that, by all accounts I've seen, you can attain "dramatic"
camera QOR results simply by using a port of the Gcam APK, where the
results are "eye opening".

This means it's a no brainer for most of us with the 100 ported phones to
"try", but, you and I both failed so far.

It would be nice to know from others _how_ they succeeded since we failed.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/04/2019 11:33 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> This means it's a no brainer for most of us with the 100 ported phones to
> "try", but, you and I both failed so far.
>
> It would be nice to know from others _how_ they succeeded since we failed.

Indeed! I tried the apks for 5+, 4, and the generic ones up at the top.
All failed miserably.

As a slackware user I'm used to things just not working, but the
annoyance factor never seems to go down :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
"Do not try to solve all life's problems at once -- learn to
dread each day as it comes." -- Donald Kaul

[Frank Slootweg]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 02:57 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
> > At XDA Developers, these 100 phones are said to benefit greatly in camera
> > QOR simply using the Google GCam APK which was designed for the Pixels.
>
> > o Moto G5S
>
> https://www.cyanogenmods.org/google-camera/ for all versions.
>
> Followed instructions, tried all Motorola and generic files, but NOTHING
> installed. Yes, I had 'install from unknown sources' checked. It
> didn't actually say that the phone had to be rooted for anything except
> one of the manual things.
>
> Perhaps it just knows that I refuse to update to Android8 and is
> punishing me.

(Especially if you do not have Android 8/Oreo,) Did you *first*
install and run the mentioned 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app (step
1.)?

If not, there's your main error. If yes, then did it report that all
features are supported? If not, that's your main error.

If the 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app did not report that all
features are supported, the installation procedure (step 3.) becomes
very, very complex and involves unlocking the bootloader, installing a
custom recovery (which is also device-specfic and may or may not be
available for your device) and installing the Camera2 API zip file from
the recovery.

Just unlocking the bootloader probably will be a major hurdle, not to
mention the rest.

Bottom line: Installing Google Camera *may* be as simple as installing
a device-specific APK, but it probably *is* not simple at all.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:56:46 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Indeed! I tried the apks for 5+, 4, and the generic ones up at the top.
> All failed miserably.

I see in another post that Frank Slootweg is helping you where he's far
more qualified than I am in this process, so, since I failed, I'll leave
you in Frank's capable hands.

Meanwhile, the cite you provided does somewhat explain a few of the
instantaneous benefits of switching smartphones to the no-brainer choice of
Google Gcam port, which seems to be the best camera app (for camera QOR
anyway) on the planet (AFAICT).
<https://www.cyanogenmods.org/google-camera/>

"*Is the Google Camera ... better than stock camera? Hell Yes!*
It is far better than the stock camera of most OEMs.
- Images have good sharpness and saturation of colors.
- Better edge detection on portrait mode
- Better low light photography on Night Sight mode on selected versions
- Astrophotography mode on selected versions
- Integrated Google photos and Google lens
- Video recording in slow motion
- Object portrait mode is supported, which is also known as lens blur.
- Supports up to 8X zoom.
- 4k 60 FPS recording
- RAW image capture

Apparently what you instantly gain with the Gcam APK port is:
o ZSL (zero shutter lag) HDR+
o Night Sight
o Super Res Zoom
o HDR+ Enhanced
o Portrait on front & back camera
o Photosphere
p Slow motion 240 FPS (1080p)
o Astrophotography
<https://youtu.be/jMZ88BeLIWQ>

--
Usenet works well when purposefully helpful people share knowledge.

[Libor Striz]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> Wrote in message:

> .....However, it kind of irks me when people say non-obvious things are obvious. ....

I would stick to the subject:

"Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo
quality of results (but why?)"

and ask: "Why not" ?

Taking photos of the same scene
at same light conditions
by the same camera
but by different photographers
may provide very various photo quality as well.

Photo apps do various decisions similarly as photographers,
but have even more options in hand
than the photographers.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/04/2019 12:50 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2019 02:57 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
>>
>> > At XDA Developers, these 100 phones are said to benefit greatly in camera
>> > QOR simply using the Google GCam APK which was designed for the Pixels.
>>
>> > o Moto G5S
>>
>> https://www.cyanogenmods.org/google-camera/ for all versions.
>>
>> Followed instructions, tried all Motorola and generic files, but NOTHING
>> installed. Yes, I had 'install from unknown sources' checked. It
>> didn't actually say that the phone had to be rooted for anything except
>> one of the manual things.
>>
>> Perhaps it just knows that I refuse to update to Android8 and is
>> punishing me.
>
> (Especially if you do not have Android 8/Oreo,) Did you *first*
> install and run the mentioned 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app (step
> 1.)?
>
> If not, there's your main error. If yes, then did it report that all
> features are supported? If not, that's your main error.

NOTHING was supported. Red Xs all around.

> If the 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app did not report that all
> features are supported, the installation procedure (step 3.) becomes
> very, very complex and involves unlocking the bootloader, installing a
> custom recovery (which is also device-specfic and may or may not be
> available for your device) and installing the Camera2 API zip file from
> the recovery.

Seemed to require root. No.

> Just unlocking the bootloader probably will be a major hurdle, not to
> mention the rest.
>
> Bottom line: Installing Google Camera *may* be as simple as installing
> a device-specific APK, but it probably *is* not simple at all.

It's hard to see how software can overcome the limits of the hardware
(I'd really like more sharpness and it would be good if the camera would
actually focus as close as it's supposed o), but it's always nice to
believe in miracles.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces
and join their hellish crusade." -- Clarice

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:21:16 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> "Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo
> quality of results (but why?)"
> and ask: "Why not" ?

Hi Poutnik,
I don't disagree with you, since I'm always rational & reasonable when
discussing facts, and particularly with the ramifications of those facts.

My views on the ramifications change as experts provide better
interpretation, where it seems that the camera APK has a _huge_ effect on
overall camera quality of results (QOR).

While it wasn't obvious at first to me that the camera app dramatically
affects the overall camera quality of results, it's certainly been said by
a bunch of the reviews for the new $100 Moto G7 I picked up this week:

For example, at time 230seconds in this official GSM Arena review, they
also suggest ditching the default camera app for the Google Gcam APK port:
<https://youtu.be/AcE3B5nKdzw?t=230>

The more I read up on how to improve the camera QOR simply by changing the
camera APK, the more I begin to realize the tricks they use to do that,
where it seems almost every phone's camera QOR will benefit by ditching the
default camera app in favor of the appropriate Google Gcam APK port.

For example, Xiomi cameras are said to benefit greatly in this report:
o How Google Camera HDR+ Improves the Image Quality of Xiaomi Budget Phones
<https://www.xda-developers.com/google-camera-hdr-xiaomi-redmi-note-3/>

This thread has a bunch of before & after pictures for comparison of QOR:
o All about GCAM and Tutorial for How to use it
<https://c.mi.com/thread-1687977-1-1.html>

Apparently the "magic" is done, mainly, it seems, by combining multiple
photos with a bit of computer processing, ending up with better camera QOR.

What this calls into question then, is the validity of any camera QOR
report that does NOT use the best camera APK possible for any given phone.

[Arlen Holder]

I found a Google Gcam APK port that worked on my new $100 Moto G7 today.

1. This is where I found a port of the Moto G7 Google Gcam APK that worked:
<https://www.cyanogenmods.org/forums/topic/google-camera-moto-g7-gcam/>

2. That pointed to this Arnova8G2 GoogleCamera_6.1.021.220943556.apk port:
<https://www.cyanogenmods.org/downloads/arnova8g2-google-camera-6-1-021-220943556/>

3. This is the specific URL & hash of the APK port that worked on the G7:
<https://f.celsoazevedo.com/file/gcamera/GoogleCamera_6.1.021.220943556.apk>
SHA256: 45086D4DF1C436F8C95522A65AF6521B74FB725AF526CB399911BCF45E7EEB88
79.4 MB (83,268,234 bytes)

When I query the installed APK on Android, my backup/query apps report:
o com.google.android.GoogleCamera 6.1.021.220943556 (45790636) User+XLdalvik
o Camera 6.1.021.220943556 com.google.android.GoogleCamera-45790636

A minor bug is that the Gcam port above always crashes whenever I press
o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Send feedback <--- this crashes
o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Help <--- this crashes

Other than that, a quick testing of other Gcam APK buttons seems to work.
o Panorama
o Portrait
o Camera
o Video
o More > Night Sight
o More > Photo Sphere
o More > Photbooth
o More > Slow Motion
o More > Lens
o More > Settings

--
Usenet is a public potluck which works best when adults share useful tips.

[Martin Brown]

On 04/12/2019 19:26, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> If you need more side-by-side comparisons, I can likely dig them up since
>> the Internet seems rife with the potentially astounding claim that the
>> Google Gcam APK dramatically improves the quality of the results (QOR) on
>> almost 100 common phones out there today (see list in the original post).
>
> Hi Martin Brown,
> In my response to Poutnik, I found more side-by-side comparisons, where,
> apparently, you can _vastly_ increase the camera QOR simply by loading a
> decent port of the Google gCam (which is not available on Google Play).
>
> o Here are side-by-side photos on the Motorola G7 with the Gcam APK:
> <https://www.cnet.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g7-review/2/>
> "But here's an interesting wrinkle. If you're savvy enough to install
> the Google Camera app (Gcam apk), which is essentially the camera app used
> on the Pixel 3, you'll be rewarded. *The results are eye opening*. Photos
> taken with the Google Camera app on the Moto G7 have more detail, dynamic
> range and better color."

I don't agree that the Google Camera app is necessarily better.

A quick glance at the claimed example of "superiority" shows that the
main difference in the cat images is that the Google one is 1/3 stop
under exposed. There is literally nothing in its luminance histogram
from 210-255. Also when you try to correct for this defect some nasty
pink block artefacts appear in the back wall. Examining the example of
the cat in detail the first thing to burn out is its white nose.

The default app is too contrasty and overcooked on the unsharp masking
front but if you rescaled it to use the same dynamic range as the Google
image would look really quite similar. I haven't time at the moment to
put the results online but I will try to do so next week.

The remaining difference after that is that the ginger fur is more
pronounced and overall white balance is warmer in the APK image.

> The main technical question for this group is "how" the APK does its magic.
> o HDR+
> o ZSL
> o NightSight
>
> Where it wasn't obvious to me that one could dramatically improve the
> camera QOR so greatly (based on the cites I've provided), simply by loading
> a port of the Google Gcam APK.

Being able to alter the parameters for unsharp masking strength and
contrast would help to bring them into line. It isn't rocket science.

On PSPro about -25 on each of brightness and contrast gets the Moto G7
image approximately in line with the Gcam APK. The Moto G7 image is
making better use of the JPEG format storage. You can always take a
contrasty image correctly exposed and tone it down but making an under
exposed image brighter can reveal unwanted artefacts.

>
> As a related aside, what that calls into question is _all_ camera QOR
> reviews that don't use the best available camera app, since the camera QOR
> results are, by all accounts I've seen, referred to as "eye opening" and
> "dramatic".

I think you are reading far too much into reviewers hyperbolic prose.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cell phone makers think
their customers want correctly exposed sharp contrasty images.
(BTW: I think they do push the processing too far in that direction)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Nick Leverton]

In article <qsajk7$r3s$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>A quick glance at the claimed example of "superiority" shows that the
>main difference in the cat images is that the Google one is 1/3 stop
>under exposed.

...

>The default app is too contrasty and overcooked on the unsharp masking
>front but if you rescaled it to use the same dynamic range as the Google
>image would look really quite similar.

...

>The remaining difference after that is that the ginger fur is more
>pronounced and overall white balance is warmer in the APK image.

...

>Being able to alter the parameters for unsharp masking strength and
>contrast would help to bring them into line. It isn't rocket science.

...

>making better use of the JPEG format storage. You can always take a
>contrasty image correctly exposed and tone it down but making an under
>exposed image brighter can reveal unwanted artefacts.

...

>I think you are reading far too much into reviewers hyperbolic prose.

Thankyou so much Martin for taking the time to present some facts.
It is much appreciated.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[Arlen Holder]

On 5 Dec 2019 11:03:24 GMT, Nick Leverton wrote:

> Thankyou so much Martin for taking the time to present some facts.
> It is much appreciated.

I agree that Martin's post was the _first_ and only post which contained
the kind of factually objective additional information that we would expect
of the r.p.d ng's experts.

I eagerly await his tests, where I point to the successful installation
description I wrote, in case others with the Moto G7 wish to test out the
Google Gcam APK port:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/r_I_vFF0TYA/SHcuTRd4BAAJ>

Where I caution folks that my first two attempts, each using a _different_
APK failed, so this information is important to share on the Usenet potluck
for _any_ smartphone that the audience may have, so that everyone benefits
from every post.

I, for one, defer to Martin's judgement, where I'll only state that it
"seems" that the Google Gcam APK port at least reputedly adds additional
"features" to the camera, if not specifically camera QOR.
o HDR+ Enhanced

o ZSL (zero shutter lag) HDR+
o Night Sight
o Super Res Zoom

o Portrait on front & back camera
o Photosphere

o Slow motion 240 FPS (1080p)
o Astrophotography
etc.

--
Usenet is a potluck where some of the guests, like Martin, provide
tremendous value for the rest of the members to benefit from.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:45:43 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> I think you are reading far too much into reviewers hyperbolic prose.

Hi Martin Brown,
THANK YOU very much for taking the time & effort to _test_ what the
reviewers from GSM Arena and Cnet "claimed".

I haven't conversed with you (AFAICR), so I'll let you know that I'm a
logical and reasonable long-time Usenet contributor, where I _appreciate_
that you went the extra mile to _test_ and _compare_ results, apparently on
a Moto G7 yourself (if not, at least with the cited photos).

I will easily, readily, and willingly defer to your judgement on the actual
QOR that was obtained versus that which the reviewers claimed.

Bear in mind that it's not just the Moto G7 that the Xda developers and
cyanogen mod users "claim" is improved - but just that the Moto G7 pictures
are, by all accounts, just 'so so', which means it needs "something" to
improve the camera output QOR.

Being a well-educated adult, I know my limitations, where I will defer to
you and other camera aficionados, where my exposure to this reputed magic
created by Google Gcam ports is only in that I purchased a handful of these
$100 Moto G7 stocking stuffers on Black Friday, deciding to keep one of
them to replace my $130 LG Stylo (which itself was a stocking stuffer two
years ago).

When I read the online Moto G7 reviews, that's when I was first clued in
that a _lot_ of people _think_ that the camera QOR of about 100 phones is
"dramatically" proved with "eye opening" results.

While I don't often post to r.p.d, I post frequently to the OS groups,
where you'll see that I am, like you, factually thorough, e.g.,
<http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
For example:
o What is a good TIMER photo app for Android?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/9GPU430iHUg/f2XFKL2RCAAJ>

Hence, I thank you and appreciate that you can take this concept to its
factual conclusion, whereas I can only parrot what the pundits claim in the
online reviews, e.g., GSM Arena says <https://youtu.be/AcE3B5nKdzw?t=230>
that the Gcam APK app overcomes limitation of the G7 hardware (But how?).

In summary, we all hope you, and other experts, can get to the factual
bottom of this widespread claim, where your post was the first post that
one would have expected of someone on the r.p.d ng.

Thank you!
--
Usenet works best when you find an expert on the topic being shared.

[Alex Plantema]

Arlen Holder schreef:

> It would be nice to know from others _how_ they succeeded since we failed.

No problem downloading from https://forum.xda-developers.com/nokia-7-plus/themes/gcam-nokia-7-plus-t3905686
using Firefox and installing. Only some warnings needed to be ignored...
Thanks!
I haven't been able to compare the results. The main problem with the stock app is the quality in low light conditions.

--
Alex.

[Arlen Holder]

Thanks for that update, as there are about 100 phones in that listing which
are said to benefit from the Google Gcam APK port.

The 100 phones covers pretty much most of us, where your reporting will
help the Nokia owners save time and energy on the right Gcam APK port.

Like you, I haven't compared results, where I note the Google Gcam APK port
is a bit more complicated compared to the stock app, as there are a few
settings in Gcam whose function is, currently, unknown to me (although I
haven't tried to decipher them yet, either).

Nonetheless, I'm curious if when you press the Help buttons, it crashes?
o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Send feedback <--- this crashes on me
o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Help <--- this crashes on me

Does your Nokia Google Gcam APK port crash on that feedback also?

--
Usenet is a world-wide public potluck to share users' experiences & ideas.

[Martin Brown]

I'd be interested in taking a look at any pair of original images from a
default app and the Google version on the same device. Doesn't really
matter what it is of - I am only interested in the meta data. Be nice if
the image pairs showed some improvement in performance with GCam though.

Pointers to any pairs online would be appreciated.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Frank Slootweg]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2019 12:50 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2019 02:57 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> >>
> >> > At XDA Developers, these 100 phones are said to benefit greatly in camera
> >> > QOR simply using the Google GCam APK which was designed for the Pixels.
> >>
> >> > o Moto G5S
> >>
> >> https://www.cyanogenmods.org/google-camera/ for all versions.
> >>
> >> Followed instructions, tried all Motorola and generic files, but NOTHING
> >> installed. Yes, I had 'install from unknown sources' checked. It
> >> didn't actually say that the phone had to be rooted for anything except
> >> one of the manual things.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it just knows that I refuse to update to Android8 and is
> >> punishing me.
> >
> > (Especially if you do not have Android 8/Oreo,) Did you *first*
> > install and run the mentioned 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app (step
> > 1.)?
> >
> > If not, there's your main error. If yes, then did it report that all
> > features are supported? If not, that's your main error.
>
> NOTHING was supported. Red Xs all around.

OK, so you need the complex installation procedure (step 3.).

> > If the 'Manual Camera Compatibility' app did not report that all
> > features are supported, the installation procedure (step 3.) becomes
> > very, very complex and involves unlocking the bootloader, installing a
> > custom recovery (which is also device-specfic and may or may not be
> > available for your device) and installing the Camera2 API zip file from
> > the recovery.
>
> Seemed to require root. No.

I don't think the complex installation procedure requires root.
Anyway, rooting [1] is the least of your problems, the other stuff is
way more complicated/difficult.

> > Just unlocking the bootloader probably will be a major hurdle, not to
> > mention the rest.
> >
> > Bottom line: Installing Google Camera *may* be as simple as installing
> > a device-specific APK, but it probably *is* not simple at all.
>
> It's hard to see how software can overcome the limits of the hardware
> (I'd really like more sharpness and it would be good if the camera would
> actually focus as close as it's supposed o), but it's always nice to
> believe in miracles.

[1] Info on how to root with the 'KingRoot' app:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cqhvkm7.4l8.1%40ID-201911.user.individual.net%3E>

[The Real Bev]

What I read seemed pretty definite about the necessity of root.

>> > Just unlocking the bootloader probably will be a major hurdle, not to
>> > mention the rest.
>> >
>> > Bottom line: Installing Google Camera *may* be as simple as installing
>> > a device-specific APK, but it probably *is* not simple at all.
>>
>> It's hard to see how software can overcome the limits of the hardware
>> (I'd really like more sharpness and it would be good if the camera would
>> actually focus as close as it's supposed o), but it's always nice to
>> believe in miracles.
>
> [1] Info on how to root with the 'KingRoot' app:
> <http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cqhvkm7.4l8.1%40ID-201911.user.individual.net%3E>

We tried rooting something a couple of years ago. It was supposed to be
easy. It wasn't and it didn't work. I'm a pessimist and assume that
doing this will end up with me having to do a factory reset, which is
(in effect) why I'm not upgrading from 7 to 8. The resulting
configuration requirement is NOT something I'm prepared to choose to do
:-( The potential cost by far outweighs the potential benefit.

--
Cheers, Bev
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'

[Alex Plantema]

Arlen Holder schreef:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:54:47 +0100, Alex Plantema wrote:
>
>> No problem downloading from
>> https://forum.xda-developers.com/nokia-7-plus/themes/gcam-nokia-7-plus-t3905686
>> using Firefox and installing. Only some warnings needed to be
>> ignored...
>

> Nonetheless, I'm curious if when you press the Help buttons, it
> crashes?
> o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Send feedback <--- this crashes
> on me o More > Settings > Help & feedback > Help <--- this crashes on
> me
>
> Does your Nokia Google Gcam APK port crash on that feedback also?

There's no Help & feedback under Settings.
Instead there's an About with some links to www.celsoazevedo.com and shows an option GCam Settings info which is a text page explaining some options.

--
Alex.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:03:48 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> [1] Info on how to root with the 'KingRoot' app:
>> <http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cqhvkm7.4l8.1%40ID-201911.user.individual.net%3E>
>
> We tried rooting something a couple of years ago. It was supposed to be
> easy. It wasn't and it didn't work. I'm a pessimist and assume that
> doing this will end up with me having to do a factory reset, which is
> (in effect) why I'm not upgrading from 7 to 8. The resulting
> configuration requirement is NOT something I'm prepared to choose to do
> :-( The potential cost by far outweighs the potential benefit.

I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile), and I've
rooted an old Samsung Galaxy S3 (just for the fun of it), where my Samsung
Galaxy S3 charging port was kaput, so I had to use the non-USB rooting
methods.

I was pleasantly surprised that it was _trivial_ to root that Samsung S3!

As I recall, for my Samsung S3 Android 4.3 T-Mobile T-999, I did this:
a. I downloaded the KingoRoot free app to my unrooted S3:
<https://root-apk.kingoapp.com>
b. I executed the downloaded app & answered the questions it asked.
c. I rebooted.

It was that easy, as I recall.

Of course, every phone is different but it was trivial for me on the S3.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 20:50:43 +0100, Alex Plantema wrote:

>> Does your Nokia Google Gcam APK port crash on that feedback also?
>
> There's no Help & feedback under Settings.
> Instead there's an About with some links to www.celsoazevedo.com and shows an option GCam Settings info which is a text page explaining some options.

Thanks for that information, where I will "presume" that the people who
ported the app didn't want the app to be sending information to Google (for
a bunch of good reasons, I would think).

The porters of my Moto G7 Gcam APK port, likely, I presume, simply disabled
the call to Google servers (I will presume).

In your case, I will presume the porters of the Nokia Gcam APK port likely
were more graceful by simply _removing_ the "Help & Feedback" settings.

It would be interesting what _other_ people find, where, in the absence of
further data, that's my hypothesis (based only on what you & I
experienced).

Thank you for being a good Usenet citizen by reporting back to the team.

--
Usenet is a public potluck where adults purposefully help each other.

[nospam]

In article <qseovi$di5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),

not required.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 19:27:02 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),
>
> not required.

To spare the _adults_ on this ng the indignity of me having to drop down to
nospam's level to respond to his childish brazen denials of fact, this is
my one and only response (just as with the well-known troll, Savageduck).

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*

The adults on this ng will note that nospam is one of the score of
aforementioned Apple apologists, who brazenly deny facts (sans a shred of
proof) simply because they don't like facts about Apple products.


o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

One of the most common of the 7 responses of apologists to facts they don't like...
o Is simply to brazenly deny those facts (sans a shred of proof)

o What key trait distinguishes Apple Apologists from normal adults?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/yyNyGsFKPlQ/F1oVb8ICBgAJ>

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*
--
Apologists prove, by what they write, to not own an adult brain that is
comprehensive of even the most simple of basic facts; hence they turn into
instant fifth-grade children, when confronted with facts they simply don't
like.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 07:24:49 -0600, kelown wrote:

> My snapshots display immediately for viewing in my Simple Gallery app.

Hi kelown,

Thanks for answering that question, where I realized today in debugging
that I have a DCIM on both the sdcard0 and sdcard1, where it could be
simply that each camera app is setting the DCIM directory, but the
"gallery" (or SMS) app has to "find" the pictures, when they're not
necessarily all on the same card.

As an aside, I really wish Android would allow me to install apps where I
want them to go, and I try to find apps that allow me to store their data
where I want it to be.

The best camera apps allow us to put the pictures where they belong, where
each one of us should be allowed to define where they belong. For example:
/sdcard1/data1/pictures/DCIM/.

My habit, since the Android file system, IMHO, is a royal mess, is to
create a directory named "data0" on sdcard0, and "data1" on sdcard1, where
I put anything I care about in _that_ directory (under a logical
hierarchy).

This helps a lot when I do my periodic factory resets (since I test a lot
of software and hence, make a lot of system changes that I don't
necessarily still need after I choose the best software for the job).

For example, I tested every free SMS app known to man for Android, and only
after about six months of testing (yes, some apps do different things over
time, like display ads or nag screens), I settled on the best SMS app:
o Best free SMS app for Android
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/up2NoEHr9M8/atinCKpaEAAJ>

Since I also delete everything I can related to Google, I had to make a ton
of system changes, so every once in a while I wipe out the system to start
anew, where having the DCIM directory safely on the sdcard1 is a boon to
backup & reinstall.

In summary, thanks for letting me know that your pictures show up
immediately, where I think my problem is my hierarchy isn't honed yet.

[Whisky-dave]

On Saturday, 7 December 2019 00:34:47 UTC, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 19:27:02 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
> >> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),
> >
> > not required.
>
> To spare the _adults_ on this ng the indignity of me having to drop down to
> nospam's level to respond to his childish brazen denials of fact, this is
> my one and only response (just as with the well-known troll, Savageduck).
>

Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak anything.
Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock yuor iphone
so you can use it with another provider.

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2009/07/10/difference-jailbreaking-unlocking/

obviously as we say in the UK some people can't tell their arse from their elbow, and that isn a FACT.

[nospam]

In article <b6c03872-3b21-4f6c...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),
> > >
> > > not required.
> >
> > To spare the _adults_ on this ng the indignity of me having to drop down to
> > nospam's level to respond to his childish brazen denials of fact, this is
> > my one and only response (just as with the well-known troll, Savageduck).
> >
>
> Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak anything.
> Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock yuor
> iphone so you can use it with another provider.

not even that. iphones are unlocked unless financed, same as other
phones.

[Whisky-dave]

Well that is what I meant in that a friend who bought a iphone7 on an EE
contract wants to sell his phone to someone that has a virgin contract he has been told to contact EE and ask for the phone to be unlocked so another provider can be used. Now EE might charge a small fee for this, or apparently he can go to a shop who will charge him a small fee but he needs to provide evidence that he is the owner of the phone and not just stolen it before a shop should do this service.
Jailbreaking here in the UK has always been a term that is used to describe a procedure to allow you to use none apple approved apps (in the ealry days) or override apple security which jailbreaking does but unlocking doesn't, which is what I meant.

[nospam]

In article <a810871c-c884-4017...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),
> > > > >
> > > > > not required.
> > > >
> > > > To spare the _adults_ on this ng the indignity of me having to drop
> > > > down to
> > > > nospam's level to respond to his childish brazen denials of fact, this
> > > > is
> > > > my one and only response (just as with the well-known troll,
> > > > Savageduck).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak anything.
> > > Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock yuor
> > > iphone so you can use it with another provider.
> >
> > not even that. iphones are unlocked unless financed, same as other
> > phones.
>
> Well that is what I meant in that a friend who bought a iphone7 on an EE
> contract wants to sell his phone to someone that has a virgin contract he has
> been told to contact EE and ask for the phone to be unlocked so another
> provider can be used. Now EE might charge a small fee for this, or apparently
> he can go to a shop who will charge him a small fee but he needs to provide
> evidence that he is the owner of the phone and not just stolen it before a
> shop should do this service.

financing is what matters, not a contract.

a financed phone is still partly owned by the carrier and they don't
want you using it on a competing carrier.

once paid off, they no longer have any say in the matter, although they
may still try.

being locked into a contract just means you are stuck for whatever term
that contract is. ending it early normally results in a penalty.

> Jailbreaking here in the UK has always been a term that is used to describe a
> procedure to allow you to use none apple approved apps (in the ealry days) or
> override apple security which jailbreaking does but unlocking doesn't, which is what I meant.

yep. separate issue.

[Whisky-dave]

On Monday, 9 December 2019 15:54:45 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <a810871c-c884-4017...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> I've jailbroken an iOS device (to switch from AT&T to T-Mobile),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > not required.
> > > > >
> > > > > To spare the _adults_ on this ng the indignity of me having to drop
> > > > > down to
> > > > > nospam's level to respond to his childish brazen denials of fact, this
> > > > > is
> > > > > my one and only response (just as with the well-known troll,
> > > > > Savageduck).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak anything.
> > > > Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock yuor
> > > > iphone so you can use it with another provider.
> > >
> > > not even that. iphones are unlocked unless financed, same as other
> > > phones.
> >
> > Well that is what I meant in that a friend who bought a iphone7 on an EE
> > contract wants to sell his phone to someone that has a virgin contract he has
> > been told to contact EE and ask for the phone to be unlocked so another
> > provider can be used. Now EE might charge a small fee for this, or apparently
> > he can go to a shop who will charge him a small fee but he needs to provide
> > evidence that he is the owner of the phone and not just stolen it before a
> > shop should do this service.
>
> financing is what matters, not a contract.

What is financing then ?

Here in the UKm one way of having a phone is to got to a companyb who will give you either a free phone and a 1-2 year contract of say £30 per month.
After that time you can renew your contract or more likely they'll offer yuo a new phone if yuo aprt with more nomey and a higher contract for say £35 per month and yuo can keep your old phone locked into them as providers.
If yuo wish to sell yuor old phone it is still locked to you on contract
if yuo wish to cancel that contract rather than just igmore it in most cases you can go back to your provider and ask them for a code that can unlock the phone so it can be used on another providers network. Depending on yuor old contract and who it is with you may be charge something like £10 admin for them to do this or they might do it for free, or charge more.
Some places will unlock your phone for you at a cost without going to your provider but usually you need to prove you actually own the phone rather than just stolen it from someone minuites before.

>
> a financed phone is still partly owned by the carrier and they don't
> want you using it on a competing carrier.

But they don't always care if you've just got a new phone from them and paying a higher premium per month.

>
> once paid off, they no longer have any say in the matter, although they
> may still try.

If they are every truely paid off, depending on the contract.
If yuo get a contract like a friend has with EE for £50 a month for 2 years and it's for an iphone10 as when my friend took on a new contract he wasn't asked to return his old iphone7 which he had on contract for 2 years before.

>
> being locked into a contract just means you are stuck for whatever term
> that contract is. ending it early normally results in a penalty.

But he never ended it early, he was contacted with a list of options after his current contract ended.

> > Jailbreaking here in the UK has always been a term that is used to describe a
> > procedure to allow you to use none apple approved apps (in the ealry days) or
> > override apple security which jailbreaking does but unlocking doesn't, which is what I meant.
>
> yep. separate issue.

Yes and yuo need to be clear on which is being referred to.

[nospam]

In article <a410ef1b-5f06-47ef...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > > > Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak
> > > > > anything.
> > > > > Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock
> > > > > yuor
> > > > > iphone so you can use it with another provider.
> > > >
> > > > not even that. iphones are unlocked unless financed, same as other
> > > > phones.
> > >
> > > Well that is what I meant in that a friend who bought a iphone7 on an EE
> > > contract wants to sell his phone to someone that has a virgin contract he
> > > has
> > > been told to contact EE and ask for the phone to be unlocked so another
> > > provider can be used. Now EE might charge a small fee for this, or
> > > apparently
> > > he can go to a shop who will charge him a small fee but he needs to
> > > provide
> > > evidence that he is the owner of the phone and not just stolen it before a
> > > shop should do this service.
> >
> > financing is what matters, not a contract.
>
> What is financing then ?

paying off over time.

> Here in the UKm one way of having a phone is to got to a companyb who will
> give you either a free phone and a 1-2 year contract of say £30 per month.
> After that time you can renew your contract or more likely they'll offer yuo
> a new phone if yuo aprt with more nomey and a higher contract for say £35 per
> month and yuo can keep your old phone locked into them as providers.

here those are separate things.

you could finance a phone but have no contract. if you cancel service,
you still have to pay any remaining balance on the phone. usually,
people who do that default and sell the phone anyway, which will then
fail an fec, financial eligibility check, regardless of sim lock
status.

you could sign up for a 1-2 year contract with a fully paid for phone,
usually to obtain a lower price, however, if you cancel early, you will
need to pay an early termination fee. if the phone is paid in full,
it's normally unlocked. if it's an existing phone you already had, it's
whatever its lock status was and the carrier has no say in the matter.

you could do both, finance the phone and have a service contract, and
when the phone is paid off, that portion of the bill goes away.

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 14:41:28 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <a410ef1b-5f06-47ef...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Adults where I haven't seen any, and you don't need to jailbreak
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > Ypou just go to yuor provider who sometimes charge a fee can unlock
> > > > > > yuor
> > > > > > iphone so you can use it with another provider.
> > > > >
> > > > > not even that. iphones are unlocked unless financed, same as other
> > > > > phones.
> > > >
> > > > Well that is what I meant in that a friend who bought a iphone7 on an EE
> > > > contract wants to sell his phone to someone that has a virgin contract he
> > > > has
> > > > been told to contact EE and ask for the phone to be unlocked so another
> > > > provider can be used. Now EE might charge a small fee for this, or
> > > > apparently
> > > > he can go to a shop who will charge him a small fee but he needs to
> > > > provide
> > > > evidence that he is the owner of the phone and not just stolen it before a
> > > > shop should do this service.
> > >
> > > financing is what matters, not a contract.
> >
> > What is financing then ?
>
> paying off over time.

Like hire purchase then that doesn't involve a provider.
Yes I know it's the provider that locks yuo into their network and not
the HP company.
But most peole in the UK that I know of either have a contract with a provider or they buy the phone outright like I did.
Until very recently financing wasn;t a popular choice because you still needed a service provider and that was expensive. But service poviders have over the last few years been offering sim only offers I have taken one of these options
which cost me £6.36 a month whereas a friend who's just gone on a contract with his iphone10 has a 2 year contract for £50 per month. He know has a spare 2-3 yearold iphone7 that is locked.

> > Here in the UKm one way of having a phone is to got to a companyb who will
> > give you either a free phone and a 1-2 year contract of say £30 per month.
> > After that time you can renew your contract or more likely they'll offer yuo
> > a new phone if yuo aprt with more nomey and a higher contract for say £35 per
> > month and yuo can keep your old phone locked into them as providers.
>
> here those are separate things.
>
> you could finance a phone but have no contract.

It's possible here to but not very enticing to do so until recently.

> if you cancel service,
> you still have to pay any remaining balance on the phone. usually,

Here it depends on the provider and how long yuor contract was and whether or not they can convinceyou to go on a match higher cost per month contract.

I'm suprised my friend still has his iphone7 sitting in a draw, he has his previous iphone6 too in the same draw.
When his contract runs out he goes into EE they tell him the best iphone that is avaible and they pick his package for him and he walks out the store.
Any idea why EE haven't sked him to return his old iphones ?

> people who do that default and sell the phone anyway, which will then
> fail an fec, financial eligibility check, regardless of sim lock
> status.
>
> you could sign up for a 1-2 year contract with a fully paid for phone,
> usually to obtain a lower price, however, if you cancel early,

he's never cancelled early.

> you will
> need to pay an early termination fee. if the phone is paid in full,
> it's normally unlocked. if it's an existing phone you already had, it's
> whatever its lock status was and the carrier has no say in the matter.

>
> you could do both, finance the phone and have a service contract, and
> when the phone is paid off, that portion of the bill goes away.

I can't be bothered to go to EE to find out, I'll leave that to you.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 19:12:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> In summary, thanks for letting me know that your pictures show up
> immediately, where I think my problem is my hierarchy isn't honed yet.

UPDATE:

I think I found the problem, which, turns out, likely, to be simple.
o Google Gcam takes some time to post processing the pictures
<https://i.postimg.cc/4y9mqZtF/googlecamera.jpg>

Do others see this notification for a while after they snap Gcam photos?

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

o Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo quality of results (but why?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/LtY49dG01mc>

See also this related thread, but this time for the iPhone Halide port:
o $6 Halide app supposedly unlocks secret camera abilities of the new 2020 iPhone SE
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/vnr2jEdC-Ag>

NOTE: I've been using the free GCAM APK port on the Android 9 Moto G7 since
this thread was authored, where it works well with only minor caveats:
a. Google Lens doesn't seem to work
b. Any app that doesn't allow you to choose where photos go is brain dead (IMHO)
c. The HDR+ processing of photos takes about ~30 seconds to complete
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful sharing of facts for common benefit.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:
o Google Camera v7.3.017.291043786 port for Android `0 phones
<https://fff.celsoazevedo.com/file/cfiles/gcm1/MGC_7.3.017_Parrot043-v1.apk>

o [GCam APK Download] *Latest Google Camera APK for All Android Devices*
<https://androidleaker.com/gcam-apk-download>
"the latest version of Gcam 7.2 is now available"

o *Latest Google Camera 7.3 APK Is now Available* for Android Device [GCAM 7.3 APK]
<https://www.androidslash.ch/google-camera/latest-google-camera-7-3-apk-for-android-device-gcam-7-3-apk/>
"Google Camera or GCam APK is currently the best camera application that
you can install on your device. Google Camera comes with so many
interesting features like Slow motion, portrait mode, slow-motion mode,
Astrophotography mode, HDR +, Night Mode, Video (30fps, 60fps,
Video Stabilization, Autofocus, etc.), Time Lapse, Panorama, Lens Blur,
PhotoSphere, etc."

o My December-installed Moto G7 Google GCAM APK port is version 6.1:
<https://i.postimg.cc/T1S56M8L/gcam01.jpg>
But apparently version 7.0 is available for my Android 9 Moto G7:
<https://fff.celsoazevedo.com/file/cfiles/gcm1/F1v10.3_7.0.009.apk>

I generally don't update anything unless there is a good reason to do so.

Claimed new features appear to potentially be...
o Do not disturb feature
o Dual exposure controls
o Astrophotography to Night Sight
o Frequent Faces
o Touch and hold
o Tweaks flash menu
o Bug fixes

If you have the latest version, have you seen value in updating the port?

Note:
o Download Google Camera Port for Any Android Device
<https://www.thecustomdroid.com/download-google-camera-port/>
Compatibility:
o Google Camera 7.2 Ports are compatible only with Android 10
o Google Camera 7.0, 6.3, 6.2, and 6.1 Ports are compatible with Android 9+
o Google Camera 5.1 Ports are compatible with Android 8+
--
The beauty of helping others on Usenet is we all learn more together.