Peter wrote:
Secondary are image stabilisation, which new DSLRs do superbly, but most phones do it in software which is ok but an order of magnitude less good than moving the sensor around mechanically.
Yes; those two are much closer together than from a Samsung S6. I have not tried the S7 RAW yet (need to do a hack of some sort, I think). I guess Apple do colour correction on the RAW, at least. As with the S6, your RAW one is more natural, due to the missing unsharp mask, and one would sharpen as required at the final resolution.
I wonder if anyone has the outrageously priced £1000 Iphone X? 
Low light pic just for you
IMHO, Noe, one could post any number of photos and they don’t prove anything, especially as there is no EXIF data to judge by (unlike facebook, whatsapp, etc, EuroGA doesn’t strip out EXIF). Also any camera can deliver great low light performance if there is no movement, via using a slow shutter, because silicon sensors don’t really suffer from reciprocity failure. The real challenge with low light is to make it work in more challenging situations i.e. movement, or just hand-held shooting.
You asked about the phone and I took a pic while still in bed and uploaded directly from phone to euroga. I haven’t done any testing and most likely won’t do do!
Sorry; I didn’t see in your post that it was from the X.
Archie wrote:
Phone RAW vs JPG at ISO20, shot at home.
But the RAW picture has been transformed in both in terms of contrast and colour. Quite possible by the program that opened the files, I have no idea, but it is certainly not what the sensor has recorded.
Ted wrote:
But the RAW picture has been transformed in both in terms of contrast and colour.
In other news, I found out the iPhones have internally ditched the (dinosaur) JPEG format and gone to the futuristic HEIF/HEIC standard meaning improved quality.
Yes I too think that RAW was heavily processed – except for the lack of unsharp mask. But I don’t see a problem with that. Preventing sharpening is great.
Just looked up that HEIF stuff.
Hmmm… I don’t think so. Jpeg is totally timeless, with pics from decades ago being totally compatible with all software. Storage costs almost nothing these days, but this image format will at a stroke obsolete all your image processing software. Unless of course you are on the tenner a month monthly subscription to Adobe in which case you will get the latest Photoshop and Lightroom 
Then what about all the other tools, for processing EXIF etc date stamps so you can get your trip pics all in order especially if multiple cameras were used. No way would I bother… I read somewhere on the internet that somewhere between 90 and 99% of pics people take are lost due to HD crashes etc and a new image format is going to accelerate that. “People with full Iphones” → people losing all their pics pretty soon
Video is different. For 4K video I can understand that good compression is required, because video hosting hit the buffers a few years ago, with Vimeo downsampling 1080P to 5mbps and 4K to 22mbps, which is really borderline. Youtube is probably worse. And there is no sign this will change anytime soon because while storage is cheap, bandwidth per $ is only very slowly improving. And people, especially the younger people who form the bulk of the customer base, are moving from stills to video clips. But already we have e.g. the new “wonderfully efficient” Sony XAVCS Long GOP format crashing even the €500 video editors like Vegas (formerly Sony and now owned by Magix in Germany) Pro 14 and with no fix in sight. So… I shoot in mp4, 50mbps, and it doesn’t matter how hard you look at the screenshot frames, you cannot see any difference between that and XAVC.
