[HN Gopher] Halide Mark II
___________________________________________________________________
Halide Mark II
Author : jmorgan
Score : 105 points
Date : 2020-10-22 16:45 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (halide.cam)
(TXT) w3m dump (halide.cam)
| post_break wrote:
| I wish trials didn't require me signing up for a subscription. I
| have a bad habit of doing a trial and then life happens and
| suddenly I'm charged for something I forgot to cancel and can't
| get a refund. I might give this a go for a trial but I'm always
| so hesitant.
| hinkley wrote:
| That dark pattern is so old it has whiskers.
|
| Subscriptions of this sort are done that way on purpose,
| because lots of people forget to cancel. And if you have to
| call a human to do the cancellation, well, that's the beauty of
| doing an ad campaign. Most of the people who need to cancel
| will try to do it at the last minute and find out that the
| phone lines are tied up with other people who signed up on the
| same couple of days they did.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| The App Store definitely has its capital-I Issues, but the
| way it handles subscriptions really isn't one of them -- you
| can cancel online with no hassle, and you're sent an email
| reminder before you're charged or your subscription renews.
| (This is at least true with annual subscriptions; I don't
| know about monthly offhand.) And you can always check what
| you're subscribed to, when things will renew, and for how
| much.
| ericlewis wrote:
| I bought Halide quite literally last night and this sucks. The
| app I just paid $20 for now wants me to pay $29, again. Or pay
| monthly till I die.
|
| Requesting a refund.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Sorry. You should have gotten the upgrade for free. There was a
| bug checking the receipt for who qualifies for the free
| upgrade, due to differences between the App Store's sandbox and
| production receipts.
|
| We rushed out a fix as quickly as possible, and this should now
| be fixed. If you contact support, we'll make things right.
| jvzr wrote:
| You bought it while its price was temporarily inflated before
| the launch of Mk II. This was a move to push users to wait. You
| should probably ask for a refund then get it again
| pzumk wrote:
| Existing users are getting MKII for free for one year
| bmarquez wrote:
| It's yearly, not monthly.
|
| But I'm also confused about the pricing model. What is the
| benefit of buying the $9.99 subscription if the $29.99 purchase
| covers everything (or does it?), and you keep the app for more
| than 3 years?
| deadmutex wrote:
| Any chance of this landing for Pixel phones anytime soon? Many
| people that really care about photo quality on their phones also
| buy Pixels :).
| saagarjha wrote:
| I'm surprised Apple is OK with those "Get it on the App Store"
| images.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Great app, but an FYI for previous purchasers - you're supposed
| to be able to hit "Restore purchase" and get access to the new
| version without doing the new in-app purchase. It's currently
| bugged and will lock you out of the app, so hold off on updating.
| moritz64 wrote:
| They fixed it. Just downloaded the bugfixed version and it
| restored my purchase.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Confirmed, got the update and can get in to the camera now.
|
| It sounds like we get one year free?
|
| EDIT: I have "Early supporter membership"
|
| _> All current features available forever. Free updates
| until Oct 22, 2021._
| qubex wrote:
| 24 minutes later from EU I downloaded the update and I'm
| locked out from Restore with a "Purchase Not Found" error.
| moritz64 wrote:
| I downloaded from Germany, hopefully you get the update
| soon as well
| sandofsky wrote:
| Sorry about the v1 upgrade experience. Sadly, it's hard to
| predict how long it takes the App Store CDN to propagate. A
| few years ago we had a launch that took 11 hours(!) before
| people started seeing it. Luckily we did not hit that snag
| this time, so hopefully you'll see it in the next few
| hours.
| [deleted]
| pvg wrote:
| The free upgrade worked for me, but trying to sort out
| how to actually go back and pay (app + new stuff looked
| good, no reason not to pay for it) and I have to say,
| figuring out how to do that (and how to get back to the
| settings in general) was more than $10 worth of
| frustration.
|
| By my calculations, you now owe me $2.71828 and I was
| trying to give _you_ money!
| wlesieutre wrote:
| That's the same error we were having, hopefully the update
| rolls out soon over there
| r-r-r wrote:
| Oh I thought this was a new release of https://halide-lang.org/
| but it's a photography app for iphone.
|
| Funny enough, this language is actually useful for optimized
| image processing pipelines, especially when targeting such
| "uniform" devices.
| perardi wrote:
| I think Halide is a great name for this app's target audience:
| photo nerds.
|
| _(I know of which I speak. I carry around a Fuji X100F when I
| walk the dog.)_
|
| This app ain't no Snapchat clone so you can give yourself cat
| eyes and freakishly smooth skin. It trying to suck as much data
| and control as possible out of the iPhone's camera system. And
| for the people who are into that, they get the name.
| dpzmick wrote:
| I too was confused by this. Bad naming!
| skavi wrote:
| Why? Halides are used to make film. Both products are
| somewhat related to that.
| sorenjan wrote:
| That was my first thought as well. Google uses it for their
| camera app [0], so it's definitely related.
|
| [0] https://www.blog.google/products/pixel/pixel-visual-core-
| ima...
| danellis wrote:
| So, what, we're just advertising products on HN now?
| xenihn wrote:
| To be fair, Halide is pretty great. I found it through HN. I'm
| surprised Apple didn't buy them yet, since they don't seem to
| be at risk of being Sherlocked.
| whalesalad wrote:
| It happens all the time. What's the problem? The community
| decides with little up and down arrows if they like it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I love Halide on my iPhone. Having a great UI for your camera
| makes such a big difference. My big camera still takes better
| images, though. I wish it were possible to use a great interface
| like Halide but acquire the image from another device. There
| should be a protocol or something.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Good on the Lux team for making it optional, but this is yet
| another app that wouldn't have needed to introduce a subscription
| model if Apple would just relent on its unbending services push
| and add a mechanism for paid upgrades to the App Store.
| machello13 wrote:
| How so? The only way in which the App Store doesn't support
| paid upgrades is that you can't offer a discount for existing
| users, and the new version needs to be a separate app. But
| Halide 2 isn't any cheaper for existing customers anyway
| (there's just a launch discount).
| m_eiman wrote:
| Upgrades should already be possible, using bundles and the
| Complete My Bundle functionality. It's not terribly user-
| friendly perhaps, but should (in theory) work.
|
| A bit more expanded at
| http://www.eiman.tv/blog/posts/upgradepricing/index.html -
| haven't looked at this since 2016 though so perhaps something
| has changed since then.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Halide dev here. We _might_ write more about our upgrade
| strategy in the future, but we did explore app bundles. There
| were a number of concerns. For example, many blog posts out
| there point to the old version of our app in the App Store,
| and App Store Search is non-deterministic, so it's way less
| confusing to replace the existing SKU than have folks buy the
| wrong version.
| codezero wrote:
| I wonder if Apple is pushing this because subscription models
| potentially provide more long term value? Apple apps tend to
| need regular updates to stay valid/relevant over long periods
| of time and early on Apple had a lot of "abandoned" apps in the
| app store - subscriptions 1) keep the app developer
| funded/engaged 2) keep the user hooked / showing explicit value
| or bailing.
|
| Fwiw, I agree, I am getting tired of the pervasiveness of
| subscription models, but I assume they are making good sense
| business wise.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Whew! I had a bit of a "PTSD" flash, there. I worked with the
| Halide language (https://halide-lang.org). It was...
| _interesting_.
|
| It sounds like an excellent app, and I wish you the best!
| bmarquez wrote:
| Instant RAW is a fascinating feature. If you normally shoot RAW,
| they'll be a bit "flat" since no post-processing is done, but
| Halide will post-process them to make them similar to jpg output
| (while retaining the editing flexibility that RAW gives).
|
| What I can't figure out...are the Instant RAW settings baked into
| the file as it is captured? Basically, if I open up a Halide RAW
| in Lightroom or DXO, will they be able to see the edits?
| jvzr wrote:
| DNG are capable of embedding processing settings. I believe
| Halide is using DNG. I'm sure Ben will have more to say
| sandofsky wrote:
| Yup. We save DNGs, but aside from attaching your geo tag (if
| you have it enabled), we don't touch the DNG at all.
|
| DNGs support XMP, which is an XML based way of describing
| edits. However, we're doing post processing that can't really
| be described in XMP.
|
| We're launching Instant RAW as an MVP to see how people use
| it, so to that end we've only focused on "I want amazing
| details from RAW but I have no idea how to use Lightroom.
| Just let me share it on Instagram." For now.
| mattalbie wrote:
| Even someone like me, a VFX professional who does a lot of
| RAW processing, dealing with RAW is sometimes such a chore.
| There are plenty of times where I want to use Halide and I
| want to shoot RAW but I also want to easily share a photo
| (without going through the laborious processing thing). So
| I'm really looking forward to that.
|
| I'm curious in what way you believe your processing
| pipeline for "getting to jpg" (RAW -> Instant Raw
| Processing -> JPEG) is superior to Apple's (capture ->
| Apple's Processing -> JPEG). Does it just come down to
| different aesthetic preferences and one-frame-per-image? Or
| is there something else to it?
|
| Also, love the XDR Analysis. So cool.
| ebg13 wrote:
| Are there meaningful benefits from using Halide for people who
| don't want to shoot RAW or manipulate their photos in Lightroom?
| Articles like e.g. https://fstoppers.com/apps/why-you-shouldnt-
| waste-money-came... say I shouldn't bother.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Browsing the spec sheet, IF it floats your boat, this feels a
| useful option:
|
| "Halide's Depth mode lets you capture Portrait mode shots of
| pets and people -- even if Apple's Camera app can't. "
|
| That feels it makes it more similar to my Samsung where I can
| choose what to "Live focus" on and create fake depth (although
| I feel Apple's people-only system allows them to recognize and
| transition borders better)
| paxswill wrote:
| That article waves away the manual focus, but for me it's been
| very useful to manually focus when shooting through some near
| obstruction (ex: a fence, or low hanging leaves). There are
| also still situations where HDR falls a bit short and manual
| exposure results in a better picture (I have an Xs, so it might
| be better now).
| sandofsky wrote:
| Halide developer here. Since we're in the middle of a launch, I
| don't have time to dig super detailed into that article you
| posted, but from a quick skim it doesn't appear to be
| particularly well-researched.
|
| All the goodness of the first party camera's deep fusion, etc,
| is exposed to third-party developers. So if you're using a
| third party app (that knows what they're doing) then at _worst_
| you get the same results as the first party camera.
|
| Here are some things off the top of my head that you don't get
| with the first party camera, excluding RAW:
|
| Manual focus, Control over ISO vs duration, Manual white
| balance, Explicit control over which lens is being used (the
| first party camera switches without telling you), tell what
| parts are clipping or hitting your noise floor (histogram,
| waveform, and zebras), focus loupe and focus peaking that tell
| you exactly what is in focus (rather than tapping and hoping
| for the best) a reviewer lets you view the component images
| that make up the image asset in your library (e.g. depth data
| on portrait photos)...
|
| With MKII, we're now investing in education to help beginning
| photographers become better.
|
| That said, writing this out are just the checkboxes on a
| spreadsheet of features. It's harder to quantify the value of
| design. While we think the first party camera is great, it's
| also tasked with doing many, many things, from videos to
| panoramas.
|
| Halide is designed to only shoot photos. Not even video, just
| photos. We're aiming to be the absolute best tool to do that
| one thing.
| PStamatiou wrote:
| Well said Ben!
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I love Halide but I do wish it could shoot quick videos so
| I'd stop accidentally opening it and then saying "wait, wrong
| camera app." As-is I keep Halide on my home screen for
| pictures, and get to Camera through control center for video.
| But it's pretty frequent that I forget and tap on Halide
| thinking I'm going to record a quick video.
|
| I'm not even talking about professional quality video, just
| "I want to record 5 seconds of my cat being cute." But I
| guess the reservations are partly that if you added basic
| video capability, people would expect it to be amazing in the
| same sorts of ways that it is for stills?
| ulfw wrote:
| None that would warrant paying a subscription for in my mind.
| Especially considering I've bought Halide 1, which was a one-
| time purchase.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Halide's UI for things like setting exposure is faster for
| people who want to learn how to use it, versus Apple's stock
| camera being made for mass markets. And you can set more
| things, like shutter speed, instead of having it all be
| automatic.
|
| You also get features like a live histogram and focus peaking
| that can help when shooting even if you aren't going to edit it
| afterward.
|
| Can't try the new version yet because of an update bug, but I
| like the old version a lot.
| hopfenspergerj wrote:
| The only real advantage to shooting raw on your phone, is that
| all the hdr processing tends to flatten out the global contrast
| between dark and light regions. If you shoot raw, you can get a
| more natural photo with less processing. Even shooting raw with
| this app, I just use the auto exposure and auto focus.
| bydo wrote:
| It gives full manual control, live histograms, and a nice one-
| handed interface. I'm not sure what you get for free, and
| obviously whether the upgrade is worth it is up to you, but I
| bought the full unlock when it first came out and haven't
| regretted it.
| cynix wrote:
| As a v1 user, I'm confused about the payment options. From
| reading the blog post, it seems a new user could choose to either
| pay once for lifetime access, or pay yearly. However, since I've
| been given the upgrade and 1 year of membership for free, I don't
| see the lifetime option. Presumably the discounted lifetime price
| will no longer be available by the time my 1 year runs out. How
| can I lock in the discounted price now?
| chris_st wrote:
| Wow, a free update... much appreciated. I figured that with a new
| number, it'd be an upgrade. And a loupe! Thanks so much! That was
| my number one request (that I never made).
| Borlands wrote:
| Quite surprised when opened the app, download with in-app
| purchases to find out a paywall - it's unusable without buying
|
| sorry to ask, but inflating downloads number this way? Can't find
| a good reason...
|
| The app looks great btw
| AnonHP wrote:
| That was confusing. When I saw the app and that it offers in-app
| purchases, I thought something minimal would be possible without
| a purchase. But after downloading and launching it, I see the
| prompt to buy the subscription or the one time purchase, and
| nothing more. The app description on the store doesn't make this
| -- that a purchase must be made to use it -- clear either.
|
| Edit: An observation I've had is that third party camera apps on
| iOS have a niche audience because they cannot be the default app.
| If you swipe left on the Lock Screen or tap on the camera icon on
| the Lock Screen, only Apple's stock camera will open. I hope
| Apple adds more app types to have defaults set to third party
| apps. I know Apple cares about camera launch time and how quickly
| photos can be taken. There could be a minimum performance
| threshold set for that. It's high time!
| sandofsky wrote:
| Halide author here. Previously, you would pay-once at the time
| of download, so this isn't much different than what we had
| before.
|
| That said, we wish the App Store offered a better solution than
| what we had to settle with; we'd _much_ rather people know up-
| front the business model than download the app, be surprised,
| and possibly leave a negative review.
|
| As far as replacing the first party camera, it's by far our top
| user request. Some users have come up with interesting hacks
| via shortcuts or the back-tap gesture, but we'd much rather the
| user be able to customize it similar to how iOS now lets you
| set a different default browser. Hopefully someday!
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| I hate apps that you download and the first thing you have to
| do is to pay.
|
| It is a dark pattern as far as I am concerned. Peple have
| invest a little more In an when they dowloaded it to their
| phones so it might possibly get a better conversion rate.
|
| What is even more annoying in this pattern is that you have
| to fill out all sorts of data and configuration and once yo
| are done with all that and the app owner has collected all
| that nice data, you are prompted to pay and no other action
| is possible.
|
| Further it hides the true cost of the app, unless you go to
| the app page on the app store scroll al the way down the page
| and click on the little arrow to see what the in app prices
| are.
|
| I strongly prefer pricing up front. It is easy to understand,
| honest, and clear.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| So, genuine question-- why did Apple allow Mk II into the App
| Store if the first screen is a "you must make a purchase",
| which is exactly what they rejected Hey for? Is there a trial
| of some sort to satisfy the requirement that your app has to
| "work" on download (edit: or are Apple IAP paywalls ok and I
| am just misunderstanding the App Store rules, which is very
| easy to do...)?
| [deleted]
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Apple's issue with Hey was that you couldn't pay for it via
| IAP.
| red_trumpet wrote:
| This article
| (https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-
| reject...) suggests that Hey was rejected because it didn't
| use Apple's in-app purchases?
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Which could make sense, but Phil Schiller actually
| directly said
|
| > "You download the app and it doesn't work, that's not
| what we want on the store,"
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-
| schiller-...
|
| Now, he does follow with (quoting the TechCrunch
| article):
|
| > This, he says, is why Apple requires in-app purchases
| to offer the same purchasing functionality as they would
| have elsewhere.
|
| So, even though _I_ , as a user, may consider the app to
| "not work" if it just asks me for a purchase immediately,
| Apple appears to consider an IAP prompt to be ok.
|
| Anyways, I am an Halide v1 user so I have access to Mk II
| and love the app, but I'm just curious about how Apple
| makes these decisions.
| cpmsmith wrote:
| He was certainly being disingenuous about that. Whether
| or not an app requires a payment to do anything is
| entirely orthogonal to its method of accepting the
| payment. Hey was rejected because they didn't use in-app
| purchases, no question about it.
| K0balt wrote:
| IAP increases their valuation because it is categorized
| as recurrent revenue? Is this some kind of accounting
| hack? Or is it just that they get a bigger percentage of
| IAP?
|
| Scummy at any rate, Apple.
| xcrjm wrote:
| The problem with Hey is that they were directing you to
| their website, circumventing apple's payment mechanisms. If
| you're using their stuff and giving them their cut you're
| gucci.
| [deleted]
| ValentineC wrote:
| Random Halide user here. (I haven't upgraded the app because
| I'd rather any bugs be ironed out first.)
|
| I think there should be more details on what customers get
| with either Pay-Once (which all existing purchasers get),
| and/or the Membership.
|
| If I were a new user, I would think that Pay-Once means that
| I'm set for life(time of the product) (seeing as how it's
| equivalent to slightly under 3 years of membership payments),
| but the comments here sound like there's a basic feature set
| that new users would have to pay ~$30 for at first, and newer
| features would be restricted to people who commit additional
| regular annual payments.
|
| It's _very_ confusing.
| jrrrr wrote:
| What's the backstory here? (why did you have to settle on
| free-with-immediate-IAP?)
| deergomoo wrote:
| I'm guessing because they want to offer both a pay upfront
| option _and_ a subscription option. There's no way to do
| this on iOS.
| iamunr wrote:
| Such a sad part of iOS.
|
| I have several high quality photo apps I prefer, and almost
| always end up using the default one because its easier to
| access.
| skavi wrote:
| To be fair, Android also doesn't make third party camera apps
| accessible while locked.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| I can bind double-tap on the side key to any app, and my
| lock screen launcher can have any complication it likes.
| So, yes?
| jotux wrote:
| Just installed a 3rd party app on my pixel 3, made it the
| default and tried this. Worked just fine and popped up the
| 3rd party app.
| ayoisaiah wrote:
| That's not true. You can change the lockscreen shortcuts on
| Samsung phones for example
| comeonseriously wrote:
| But why bring up Android at all? Halide doesn't work on
| Android and this entire discussion is about iOS.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-22 23:00 UTC)