I got mine last week - it's still in the box. No time to open.
Lol seriously?
I got mine last week - it's still in the box. No time to open.
Lol seriously?
When i got mine instore i opened it in the car before i got home.
So far it's at the top of my list for when I upgrade in November but I have a feeling it'll get bumped by the Pixel 4 once I play with the 90 hz refresh. Just have a feeling that's a feature that you can't go back from once you try it.
That’s more like it.
Seriously though, my own fault for “pre-ordering” later, but I ordered 10 days ago now and still have 2 more weeks of waiting!![]()
Why that long what a pain![]()
That’s more like it.
Seriously though, my own fault for “pre-ordering” later, but I ordered 10 days ago now and still have 2 more weeks of waiting!![]()
Oh poo! My husband's arrives on Wednesday. Samsung really knows how to create a disincentive for preorders. Given that they deliver late anyway. Rubbish!For anyone who still looking to get one, the $600 trade in offer has been extended to carrier models on the Samsung website.
Alright, what does Samsung have against faces? I'd taken a photo in really poor light of my beautiful daughter. She is young and her face is flawless in the way young faces are. There is no need for the software to soft focus her face and make everything else crisp and clear. The photo was an amazing example of low light capabilities except for the weird beauty blur.
One thing I'm used to with iPhones is that when I get a new iPhone I can backup from a restore and essentially clone the phone I've been using. I thought I'd done that between my S10+ and Note 10+ but instead I am having to go through and re customize settings when I least expect it.
Anyway I need to figure out again how to turn this stupid face blurring off if possible. It does not make faces look prettier. It makes us look weird.
Carp! The beauty mode IS turned off. Okay well I will have to give the camera the benefit of a doubt because I did have to take the photo quickly. Maybe I didn't focus properly. I will have to do some experimenting. ...Here kitty kitty kitty....
I suppose. I can't say I like how Pixels make me look like the walking dead, but I can't say I like to have my face oddly blurred and the rest of me in crisp focus.You'd think by now Samsung would catch on not everyone is a teenager who applies a million filters to photos. Normal people like the detail, blemishes and all!
Okay thanks for posting that. So I don’t need to fear I did something wrong with how I took the picture.that's my one complaint of Samsung photo processing. I don't have beauty mode or anything turned on and it just makes people's faces and skin kind of soft and almost oil painting like... did that with my kids last night. I also had Gcam installed and it did not do this. So It looks like I'll be using Gcam for people and samsung camera for everything else.
thing is, this isn't the first Samsung phone to be like this for me... all the previous phones from the last few years were very similar.
I'm not so sure on this but my quick play taking some pictures of my Swiss army knife on a black marble worktop in low light in auto/night/pro mode on wide/normal/tele all showed depth of field is extremely short maybe an inch or so with the f1.5 force the f2.4 in pro mode and it is a little betterAlright, what does Samsung have against faces? I'd taken a photo in really poor light of my beautiful daughter. She is young and her face is flawless in the way young faces are. There is no need for the software to soft focus her face and make everything else crisp and clear. The photo was an amazing example of low light capabilities except for the weird beauty blur.
One thing I'm used to with iPhones is that when I get a new iPhone I can backup from a restore and essentially clone the phone I've been using. I thought I'd done that between my S10+ and Note 10+ but instead I am having to go through and re customize settings when I least expect it.
Anyway I need to figure out again how to turn this stupid face blurring off if possible. It does not make faces look prettier. It makes us look weird.
Carp! The beauty mode IS turned off. Okay well I will have to give the camera the benefit of a doubt because I did have to take the photo quickly. Maybe I didn't focus properly. I will have to do some experimenting. ...Here kitty kitty kitty....
Nice kitchen!I'm not so sure on this but my quick play taking some pictures of my Swiss army knife on a black marble worktop in low light in auto/night/pro mode on wide/normal/tele all showed depth of field is extremely short maybe an inch or so with the f1.5 force the f2.4 in pro mode and it is a little better
Turn on the lights above and it increase 3 fold or more immediately
It's a lens thing IMO and your daughters face is blurring/smoothing from short depth of field in low light
Everyone wants super low light and Bokeh results and that's part of the trade off small glass small sensor etc
Ok not done in a labhand held in my kitchen
Images resized down but think you can still see the difference look at the number 1 on the CM ruler,
This is reasonable representation of brightness in kitchen with lights off
View attachment 854900
This is at F1.5
View attachment 854898
This is at F2.4
View attachment 854897
This is auto with lights on
View attachment 854899
PS Do not tell the wife I forgot to wipe the glass marks off first![]()
Okay I think I’ll be able to take the kinds of shots I want but it will take practice and effort. Thanks for those pictures.I'm not so sure on this but my quick play taking some pictures of my Swiss army knife on a black marble worktop in low light in auto/night/pro mode on wide/normal/tele all showed depth of field is extremely short maybe an inch or so with the f1.5 force the f2.4 in pro mode and it is a little better
Turn on the lights above and it increase 3 fold or more immediately
It's a lens thing IMO and your daughters face is blurring/smoothing from short depth of field in low light
Everyone wants super low light and Bokeh results and that's part of the trade off small glass small sensor etc
Ok not done in a labhand held in my kitchen
Images resized down but think you can still see the difference look at the number 1 on the CM ruler,
This is reasonable representation of brightness in kitchen with lights off
PS Do not tell the wife I forgot to wipe the glass marks off first![]()
Your welcome and thanksOkay I think I’ll be able to take the kinds of shots I want but it will take practice and effort. Thanks for those pictures.
And yeah that is a gorgeous kitchen!
It’s gotta be Video Enhancer I returned my iPhone XSMAX because it does not have Video Enhancer, like the Note 9 or S8+ or Note 10 Plus, co-workers all with iPhones always ask why my YouTube looks waaay better.Both turned on with same graphic resolution and same clips
[doublepost=1566912263][/doublepost]Video enhancer on in both phones
Can’t have had any serious interest in an iPhone if that’s the reason you returned it.It’s gotta be Video Enhancer I returned my iPhone XSMAX because it does not have Video Enhancer, like the Note 9 or S8+ or Note 10 Plus, co-workers all with iPhones always ask why my YouTube looks waaay better.
[doublepost=1566944859][/doublepost]Question for anyone who see this.
Is the Note 10 Plus 6.8” (non 5G) a 2 year phone ?
Okay I think I’ll be able to take the kinds of shots I want but it will take practice and effort. Thanks for those pictures.
And yeah that is a gorgeous kitchen!
If you want good pics of people/pets indoors without natural light, you should download the pixel camera onto your note. Much more realistic photos in those situations. Look at the difference
The 2nd one where the dogs face is closer is taken by the pixel. The first one the dogs fur on its face looks smoothed out or painted on.Which is which? I think both look really good.
I think the second one is the Pixel app. Fur is clearer.Which is which? I think both look really good.
The 2nd one where the dogs face is closer is taken by the pixel. The first one the dogs fur on its face looks smoothed out or painted on.
Funny enough that I actually showed these photos to a couple of none tech friends and they couldn't decide which photo was better. So it could be that the problem is overblown and the masses don't really care about the beauty mode. I can clearly see the difference though and prefer the more natural pixel picture.
Ah cross posted. I am slow to put my posts up because I have to correct so many typos.The 2nd one where the dogs face is closer is taken by the pixel. The first one the dogs fur on its face looks smoothed out or painted on.
Funny enough that I actually showed these photos to a couple of none tech friends and they couldn't decide which photo was better. So it could be that the problem is overblown and the masses don't really care about the beauty mode. I can clearly see the difference though and prefer the more natural pixel picture.