We subjected the Google Pixel 6 Pro to our rigorous SBMARK Selfie test suite to measure its performance in photos and videos from an end-user perspective. This article explains how the device performed in a variety of tests and different common use cases and aims to highlight the most important results of our tests with an extract of the acquired data.
Overview
Main specifications of the front camera:
- 11.1MP sensor, 1.22μm pixels
- aperture f / 2.2
- 94 ° field of view
- Fixed focus
- 4K / 30fps, 1080p / 30fps
Pros
- Generally good exposure in photos and videos
- Accurate white balance and beautiful color
- Well controlled noise
- Pretty wide dynamic range in the video
- Neutral white balance and beautiful skin tones in the video
- Effective video stabilization
versus
- Loss of fine details
- Face out of focus at close range (30cm)
- No blur gradient in bokeh mode
- Noise in video clips, especially in low light conditions
- Lack of detail in videos in low light conditions
- The hue changes on the face and increases sharpness in bright light and indoor video
The Google Pixel 6 Pro offers the best selfie camera currently available in the US market, outperforming estimated competition such as Apple’s new iPhone 13 series or Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra. It also takes a position very close to the top of our global ranking, where it is only surpassed by recent Huawei phones.
The excellent photo score is based on excellent rendering for exposure and color. Google’s HDR + system offers well-exposed portrait subjects and good contrast, even in scenes with strong backlight. Skin tones are rendered well for any skin type and in all light conditions. Image artifacts are overall very well under control as well.
The soundtrack of the video is also one of the best we’ve seen. Stabilization stands out in this category, with excellent stabilization when holding the device and facial movement in the frame. Dynamic range is also good, but not quite at the same high level as the latest Apple devices.
Overall, the hardware design of the Pixel 6 Pro’s front camera offers an excellent compromise between a wide depth of field that keeps all subjects in group photos in focus and high light sensitivity, which helps produce good quality. image in difficult low-light scenes. It is therefore an easy recommendation for any selfie enthusiast.
Test summary
About SBMARK selfie tests: For scoring and analysis, SBMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 1,500 test images in both controlled laboratory environments and natural outdoor, indoor and low-light scenes, using the front camera’s default settings. The photographic protocol is designed to take into account the user’s needs and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as close-ups and group selfies. Assessment is done by visually inspecting images Cons a natural scene reference and making objective measurements on graphical images captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 1 to 1,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K. For more SBMARK Selfie Test Protocol information, please click here. More details on how we rate smartphone cameras can be found here. The following section collects the key elements of SBMARK’s comprehensive testing and analysis. Comprehensive performance evaluations are available upon request. Contact us to find out how to receive a full report.
Photo
135
Huawei P50 Pro
Huawei P50 Pro
Google Pixel 6 Pro Photo vs Ultra-Premium scores
Photo tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise under various lighting conditions. Focus range and presence of artifacts on all images captured under controlled laboratory conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All of these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help in understanding the main strengths and weaknesses of the camera.
Exposure and color are the key attributes for technically good images. For exposure, the main attribute evaluated is the brightness of the face in various use cases and lighting conditions. Other factors evaluated are contrast and dynamic range, eg. the ability to make details visible in both light and dark areas of the image. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera’s ability to deliver the same rendering when shooting consecutive images in a row.
For color, the analyzed image quality attributes are skin tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability.
These samples show the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s exposure performance in bright light conditions. Target exposure is generally accurate and more consistent in consecutive shots than competitors. The dynamic range is quite wide, and the shadow contrast is better than the comparison devices.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, precise target exposure and fairly wide dynamic range, great contrast in the shadows (hair and background)
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, precise target exposure and fairly wide dynamic range
Huawei P50 Pro, precise target exposure and fairly wide dynamic range
This graph shows the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s exposure performance in all light levels.
Exposure comparison: The Pixel 6 Pro achieves brighter exposure in low light than the iPhone 13 Pro, and the metered target exposure is generally high.
These samples show the color performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro in bright light conditions. Skin tones and color are generally accurate. While many devices struggle to produce accurate white balance in scenes with monochrome backgrounds, the Pixel 6 Pro delivers better results in such conditions than the iPhone 13 Pro and Huawei P50 Pro.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, neutral white balance, beautiful skin tones
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, warm white balance and skin tone
Huawei P50 Pro, desaturated skin tones, accurate white balance
These samples show the color performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro indoors. In this type of scene, the white balance is generally neutral with beautiful skin tones on all skin types, even in difficult shots with high contrast. The Apple iPhone 13 Pro generally has a white balance cast with an orange skin tone rendering.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, neutral white balance, accurate skin tones
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, cast white balance, orange skin tone
Huawei P50 Pro, neutral white balance, accurate skin tones
Focus
84
Huawei P50 Pro
Huawei P50 Pro
Autofocus tests evaluate the accuracy of focusing on the subject’s face, the repeatability of precise focus, and depth of field. While a shallow depth of field can be nice for a single-subject selfie or close-up shot, it can be problematic in specific conditions like group selfies; both situations are tested. The accuracy of the focus is also evaluated in all real images taken, from 30 cm to 150 cm, and in low light conditions up to the outdoors.
These samples show the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s focusing performance at a distance of 30cm from the subject. At this close range, the face is slightly blurry, with less sharpness than the comparison devices. At 120cm (selfie stick distance) the sharpness is on the same level as the iPhone 13 Pro.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, focus
Apple iPhone 13 Pro, focus
Structure
62
Asus ZenFone 7 Pro
Asus ZenFone 7 Pro
Texture tests analyze the level of detail and texture of subjects in images taken in the laboratory as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, special attention is paid to the level of detail in the facial features, such as the eyes. Objective measurements are performed on map images taken under various lighting conditions from 1 to 1000 lux and different types of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary SBMARK (DMC) chart and the Dead Leaves chart.
This graph shows the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s texture performance in the lab under different light levels. The measured texture acuity is slightly lower than that of the iPhone and Huawei, especially in scenes with motion. This results in a greater loss of detail than the comparison devices.
Texture comparison: The Pixel 6 Pro’s front camera offers high sharpness, comparable to that of the Huawei P50 Pro.
These samples show the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s texture performance inside.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, interior textures
Apple iPhone 13 Pro, internal structure
Huawei P50 Pro, interior texture
Evolution of the sharpness of the texture with the level of illuminance
This graph shows the evolution of texture sharpness with the lux level for two sealing conditions. Texture sharpness is measured on the Dead Leaves graph in the Close-up Dead Leaves setting.
Noise
80
Huawei P40 Pro
Huawei P40 Pro
Noise tests analyze various noise attributes such as intensity, chromaticity, grain and texture on real life images as well as graphical images taken in the laboratory. For natural images, special attention is paid to noise on faces, but also on dark areas and in conditions of high dynamic range. Objective measurements are performed on graphical images taken under various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux and different types of dynamic range conditions. The graph used is the SBMARK Dead Leaves graph and standardized measurement such as visual noise derived from ISO 15739.
This graph shows the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s noise performance in the lab under different light levels.
Visual noise is a metric that measures the noise perceived by end users. It takes into account the sensitivity of the human eye to different spatial frequencies under different observation conditions.
Noise comparison: Noise is well controlled on the Pixel 6 Pro and Huawei P50 Pro. Noise is noticeable on the Apple iPhone 13 Pro.
These samples show the noise performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro under indoor lighting conditions.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, visual noise
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, visual noise
Huawei P50 Pro, visual noise
Artifact evaluation examines lens shading, chromatic aberrations, distortion measurement on the dot and MTF chart, and ring measurements on the SFR chart in the lab. Particular attention is paid, among other things, to ghosting, quantization, halos and variations of shades on the face. The more severe and frequent the artifact, the greater the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts observed and the corresponding point loss are listed below.
Main penalties for photographic artifacts
Overall, our testers observed few artifacts on the Pixel 6 Pro, and in this respect, Google’s phone outperforms many of its competitors. In these swatches, you can see ghost artifacts and white spots in low light conditions.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, artifacts
Google Pixel 6 Pro, artifacts
Bokeh
65
Huawei P40 Pro
Huawei P40 Pro
Bokeh is tested in a dedicated mode, usually in portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all images captured in the lab and under natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to that taken with a DSLR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes to look out for are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and bokeh blur spotlight shape. The attributes of the portrait image quality (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.
These samples show the performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s bokeh mode in an outdoor scene.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, no blur gradients, slight artifacts in depth estimation
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, blur gradient is applied, slight artifacts in depth estimation
Huawei P50 Pro, blur gradient is applied, slight artifacts in the depth estimation
video
143
Huawei P50 Pro
Huawei P50 Pro
About SBMARK Selfie Video Tests
SBMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 2 hours of video in controlled laboratory environments and natural scenes in low light conditions, indoors and outdoors, using the default settings of the front camera. The assessment consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken under various conditions and carrying out objective measurements on graphical videos recorded in the laboratory under different conditions from 1 to 1000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300 K to 6,500 K.
Google Pixel 6 Pro Video vs Ultra-Premium scores
Video tests analyze the same image quality attributes as still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, as well as temporal aspects such as speed, exposure uniformity and stability, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
79
Apple iPhone 13 mini
Apple iPhone 13 mini
Color
86
Asus ZenFone 7 Pro
Asus ZenFone 7 Pro
Exposure tests evaluate facial brightness and dynamic range, eg. the ability to make details visible in both light and dark areas of the image. The stability and temporal adaptation of exposure are also analyzed. Image quality color analysis examines skin tone rendition, white balance, color shading, white balance stability, and its adaptation when the light changes.
Exposure of the video target is generally accurate, even in low light conditions. The dynamic range is quite wide but not as wide as on the Apple iPhone 13 series. These video samples show the video exposure performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro in outdoor conditions.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, precise target exposure on the face, wide dynamic range
Apple iPhone 13, wider dynamic range, better shadow details
Huawei P50 Pro, high contrast on the face, shadow clipping
In videos, the camera usually produces beautiful colors and skin tones with a neutral white balance. These video samples show the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s video color performance in an outdoor scene.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, neutral white balance, accurate skin tones
Apple iPhone 13, evident but acceptable yellow cast
Huawei P50 Pro, slight green white balance cast, inaccurate skin tone
Structure
75
Asus ZenFone 6
Asus ZenFone 6
Consistency tests analyze the level of detail and texture of real-life videos, as well as graph videos recorded in the lab. Natural video recordings are evaluated visually, with particular attention to the level of detail of the facial features. Objective measurements are performed on images of graphs taken under various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart.
Evolution of the sharpness of the texture with the level of illuminance
This graph shows the evolution of texture sharpness with the lux level for two sealing conditions. Texture sharpness is measured on the Dead Leaves graph in the Close-up Dead Leaves setting.
These video samples show the performance of the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s video textures under lighting conditions of 1000 lux and at a distance of 55cm to the subject.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, good texture and detail
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, slightly lower detail
Huawei P50 Pro, good texture and detail
Noise
62
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
Noise tests analyze various noise attributes such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, texture, temporal aspects on real-life video recordings and graph videos taken in the laboratory. Natural videos are evaluated visually, with particular attention to noise on faces. Objective measurements are performed on card videos recorded under various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux. The graph used is the SBMARK visual noise graph.
Spatial evolution of visual noise with the level of illuminance
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise graph in the video noise setting. SBMARK visual noise measurement is derived from the ISO15739 standard.
Time evolution of visual noise with the level of illuminance
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Visual temporal noise is measured on the visual noise graph in the video noise setting.
Noise is generally visible on Google Pixel 6 Pro video cls, especially in low light conditions. The Huawei P50 Pro is capable of outputting images with lower noise levels in comparison.
These video samples show the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s video noise performance in low light conditions.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, coarse luminance noise
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, high but slightly lower noise level than Pixel 6 Pro
Huawei P50 Pro, lower noise
The stabilization assessment verifies the device’s ability to stabilize footage using software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any other means. The assessment examines overall residual motion on the face and background, smoothness and yellow artifacts, during walking and panning use cases under various lighting conditions. The video below is an excerpt from one of the tested scenes.
Stabilization on the Google Pixel 6 Pro is generally effective, but some camera shake is still noticeable on faces when walking while recording. Overall, the performance of the Pixel is quite similar to that of the P50 Pro. Both devices stabilize the background. Conversely, the iPhone 13 stabilizes the face and shows more camera shake. This sample clip shows the Google Pixel 6 Pro video stabilization in outdoor conditions.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, effective stabilization while walking
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, more movement than comparison devices
Huawei P50 Pro, effective stabilization while walking
Manufactured goods
86
Apple iPhone 12 mini
Apple iPhone 12 mini
Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ring measurements on the SFR graph in the lab, as well as frame rate measurements using the Universal Timer LED. Natural videos are visually evaluated with special attention to artifacts such as quantization, hue shift, and face rendering artifacts, among others. The more severe and frequent the artifact, the greater the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and the corresponding point loss are listed below
Main penalties for video artifacts
Some unnatural rendering artifacts are sometimes visible due to excessive sharpness. Variations in hue may also be visible near the cropped areas. This sample clip was recorded in the laboratory at 1000 lux.
Google Pixel 6 Pro, hue shift near cropped areas in bright lab conditions.
Start a new Thread