We put the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL through our rigorous suite of SBMARK Selfie tests to measure its photo and video performance from an end-user perspective. This article takes a closer look at how the device fared across a range of tests and common use cases, and highlights the key results from our tests with a snippet of the data we captured.
Overview
Front camera main specifications:
- 42MP sensor, Dual PD
- Lens with f/2.2 aperture
- Auto focus
- 4K video at 30/60 fps (tested 4K at 30 fps)
Pros
- Pleasing colors and accurate skin tones in most conditions, for both photos and videos
- High contrast levels when images are viewed on HDR displays
- Good exposure in photos and videos
- Precise focus on the face
- Good details in daylight and indoors, both for photos and videos
- Smooth video stabilization while panning
Against
- Occasional image noise, especially in high-contrast scenes
- Video contrast slightly strong in high contrast scenes
- Slight depth artifacts in bokeh mode
The Google Pixel 9 Pro XL performed very well in SBMARK’s selfie tests, securing a spot near the top of our list. The new model features upgraded front-facing camera hardware over its predecessor, the Pixel 8 Pro, including a longer focal length and a larger sensor with a higher pixel count. These changes have contributed to significantly improved overall image quality.
The larger sensor allowed for higher levels of detail, which our testers found particularly useful when capturing close-ups. There were also significant improvements in color accuracy and exposure, partly due to the HDR format.
In HDR video mode, the Pixel 9 Pro XL competed closely with class-leading devices like the Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max and Honor Magic 6 Pro, delivering a well-rounded video performance, with accurate exposure, wide dynamic range, vibrant colors, and good levels of detail. The device also offered smooth video stabilization, which was especially noticeable in panning shots and in motion.
Test summary
About SBMARK Selfie Tests: For evaluation and analysis, SBMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 1,500 test images in both controlled lab environments and natural outdoor, indoor and low-light scenes, using default front-facing camera settings. The photography protocol is designed with the user in mind and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as close-ups and group selfies. Evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images Cons a natural scene reference and performing objective measurements on chart images captured in the lab under various lighting conditions from 1 to 1,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K. For more information on the SBMARK Selfie Test Protocol, click here. More details on how we evaluate smartphone cameras can be found here. The following section summarizes key elements of SBMARK’s comprehensive testing and analysis. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Contact us to learn how to receive a full report.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL Selfie Scores vs Ultra-Premium
This chart compares overall SBMARK Selfie scores for photos and videos between tested devices and references. The average and maximum scores for the price segment are also shown. The average and maximum scores for each price segment are calculated based on the SBMARK database of devices.
Photo
146
Honor Magic6 Pro
Honor Magic6 Pro
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL Photo scores vs Ultra-Premium
The Google Pixel 9 Pro XL did a great job in photo mode. Its pleasing color rendition and wide dynamic range were particularly impressive, with the device earning new top scores in color and exposure. On the other hand, Google’s latest flagship failed to keep up with the best in its class in terms of balancing detail preservation with noise reduction.
Note: Google Pixel 9 Pro XL HDR images were evaluated using an HDR display. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max comparison photos were also evaluated as HDR files on an HDR display. However, Apple HEIC files cannot be displayed on this web page. We have therefore embedded converted SDR files, which may not fully represent the capabilities of the iPhone.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Good exposure, wide dynamic range, nice colors and skin tones
Exposure is one of the key attributes for technically good images. The primary attribute evaluated is the brightness of the face (or faces) in various use cases and lighting conditions. Other factors evaluated are contrast and dynamic range, i.e. the ability to render details visible in both bright and dark areas of the image. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera’s ability to provide the same rendering when shooting consecutive images in a row.
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Bright facial exposure, wide dynamic range in the background, nice skin tones but slightly too red
Honor Magic6 Pro – Bright facial exposure, wide dynamic range in the background, nice skin tones but slightly too red
In our tests, the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL’s front-facing camera consistently produced accurate target exposures and a wide dynamic range. Strong contrast made images look vibrant and pleasing, despite some occasional slight shadow clipping.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Good exposure, wide dynamic range but slight highlight clipping in the background
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Face exposure is a little low, wide dynamic range but very light highlight clipping in the background
Honor Magic6 Pro – Good exposure, wide dynamic range but very slight highlight clipping in the background
Color is one of the key attributes for technically good images. The image quality attributes analyzed are skin tone rendition, white balance, color hue, and repeatability.
In terms of color, the Pixel 9 Pro XL delivered a natural warm white balance. Additionally, overall color rendition was better than most rivals in the Ultra Premium segment, delivering exceptionally accurate skin tones.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Beautiful skin tones and warm white balance
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Beautiful skin tones and cool white balance
Honor Magic6 Pro – Color contrast slightly too strong
Focus
94
Honor Magic6 Pro
Honor Magic6 Pro
Autofocus tests evaluate the accuracy of focusing on the subject’s face, the repeatability of accurate focusing, and depth of field. While a shallow depth of field can be nice for a single-subject selfie or a close-up shot, it can be problematic in specific conditions such as group selfies; both are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all real-world images taken, from 30cm to 150cm, and in low-light or outdoor conditions.
Like its predecessor, the Pixel 9 Pro XL features an autofocus system for the front-facing camera. Compared to the system in the previous model, our testers noted several improvements, which allow for more stable focusing. In addition, the camera offers a wider depth of field and more optimized focus points. In our tests, this resulted in better detail across all image planes, from the foreground to the background. This was especially noticeable in group selfies and similar scenes with multiple planes.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Faces in foreground and background in focus, slight loss of detail in background
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Foreground faces and background in focus, slight loss of detail in background
Honor Magic6 Pro – Faces in the foreground and background in focus
Structure
71
Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
Texture tests analyze the level of detail and texture of subjects in images shot in the lab and in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, special attention is paid to the level of detail in facial features, such as the eyes. Objective measurements are performed on chart 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.
Evolution of texture sharpness with illumination level
Texture and noise left a little room for improvement, especially when shooting in high contrast conditions where a loss of detail could be noticed. This also resulted in a higher level of noise.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Detail and Noise
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Slight loss of detail, slight noise
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Detail and Noise
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Good fine details
Honor Magic 6 Pro – Detail and Noise
Honor Magic 6 Pro – Good fine details
Noise
71
Huawei Mate 50 Pro
Huawei Mate 50 Pro
Noise tests analyze various noise attributes such as intensity, chromaticity, grain and structure on real images and on chart images taken in the laboratory. For natural images, special attention is paid to noise on faces, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux and different types of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the SBMARK Dead Leaves chart and the measurement standardized as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.
Evolution of visual noise with illuminance levels in portable conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the visual noise metric with lux level in handheld conditions. The visual noise metric is the average of the visual noise measurement across all Dead Leaves plot patches in the Close-up Dead Leaves configuration. The SBMARK visual noise measurement is derived from the ISO15739 standard.
Compared to previous generations of Google Pixels, image noise was generally quite well under control in most use cases. Overall noise characteristics were better than the iPhone 15 Pro Max, especially when shooting in low-light conditions.
Artifacts
87
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Artifact evaluation examines lens shading, chromatic aberrations, distortion measurements on the Dot and MTF chart, and ring measurements on the SFR chart in the lab. Special attention is paid to ghosting, quantization, halos, and facial hue variations, among others. The more severe and frequent the artifact, the higher the points deducted from the score. The main artifacts observed and the corresponding loss of points are listed below.
In terms of unwanted image artifacts, our testers observed only minor issues, and the Pixel 9 Pro XL did very well in this category. That said, color quantization was evident in some scenes, as was some slight anamorphosis with subjects near the edge of the frame (expressed by the facial rendering artifact score in the graph below).
Penalty for main photo artifacts
Blurry
75
Honor Magic6 Pro
Honor Magic6 Pro
Bokeh is tested in a dedicated mode, usually portrait mode or aperture, and analyzed by visually inspecting all images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce a portrait photograph comparable to that taken with a DSLR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes that are paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur reflectors. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.
Compared to the Pixel 8 Pro, the new model’s bokeh performance has improved, with smoother gradient blur and better subject isolation, especially when shooting in low-light conditions. That said, occasional depth estimation artifacts were still noticeable.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Good subject isolation, slight depth artifacts, handheld blur
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Good subject isolation, slight depth artifacts around hair
Honor Magic6 Pro – Good subject isolation, slight depth artifacts around hair
Video
150
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
About SBMARK Selfie Video Tests
SBMARK engineers capture and evaluate over 2 hours of video in controlled lab environments and natural low-light scenes, indoors and outdoors, using the front camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural video captured under various conditions and performing objective measurements on lab-recorded chart videos under various conditions from 1 to 1000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL vs. Ultra-Premium Video Scores
In our front-facing camera video tests, the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL delivered solid, consistent performance, with slightly better overall results than its predecessor, the Pixel 8 Pro.
Video exposure was accurate, with nice contrast in most conditions. A wide dynamic range allowed for good highlight and shadow detail, as well as smooth transitions during lighting changes. Video color rendition was mostly pleasing, with accurate skin tones and a natural white balance. Some slight color casts could be evident when recording indoors and in low-light conditions. Video autofocus was fast and reliable. Texture/noise compromise was quite good in bright light, with high levels of detail, but fell off in dimmer light. Noise could be evident in most recording conditions, ranging from a little noise in bright light to quite intrusive noise levels in low-light recordings. Video stabilization was very effective, especially when standing still while recording. When shooting moving footage, camera shake could be more noticeable.
Please note that we tested the Google Pixel 8 Pro video with HDR setting, analyzed on an HDR display.
Exposure
84
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Exposure tests evaluate facial brightness and dynamic range, i.e. the ability to make details visible in both bright and dark areas of the image. Exposure stability and temporal adaptation are also analyzed.
In our tests, the Pixel 9 Pro XL delivered very good video exposure, accurately exposing the target, especially when recording in daylight and typical indoor lighting. However, in low-light conditions, the camera occasionally struggled to get a good exposure on the target. Dynamic range was quite wide and slightly improved over its predecessor, especially in low-light conditions. The HDR format helped recover highlight detail and allowed for more pleasing contrast overall.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Accurate facial exposure, wide dynamic range, smooth adaptation
Google Pixel 8 Pro – Accurate face exposure, wide dynamic range
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Accurate face exposure, wide dynamic range, high contrast (on HDR displays), smooth adaption
Color
86
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Image quality color analysis examines skin tone rendition, white balance, color hue, white balance stability, and its adaptation to changing light.
Color rendition was exceptional when recording in bright outdoor and indoor lighting, especially in terms of skin tone accuracy and white balance. However, the camera occasionally struggled with color rendition in low-light conditions and in some high-contrast scenes.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Correct skin tones
Google Pixel 8 Pro – Correct skin tones
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Correct Skin Tones
Focus
91
Huawei Mate 40 Pro
Huawei Mate 40 Pro
Overall, the autofocus system worked better than the Pixel 8 Pro, delivering consistent and reliable focus.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Wide depth of field, good background details
Google Pixel 8 Pro – Wide depth of field, loss of fine background details
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Wide depth of field, good background details
Structure
83
Asus Zenfone 6
Asus Zenfone 6
Texture tests analyze the level of detail and texture of real videos and lab-recorded chart videos. Natural video recordings are evaluated visually, with particular attention to the level of detail of facial features. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken under various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart.
The trade-off between noise reduction and detail retention in video mode left a little room for improvement. The level of detail recorded was quite high in bright light, but dropped significantly in low light.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Loss of fine details, strong noise
Google Pixel 8 Pro – Loss of fine details, noise
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Loss of fine details, noise
Evolution of texture sharpness with illumination level
This graph shows the evolution of texture sharpness with lux level for two holding conditions. Texture sharpness is measured on the Dead Leaves graph in the Close-up Dead Leaves setup.
Noise
68
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
Noise tests analyze various noise attributes such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real video recordings and lab-shot chart videos. Natural videos are evaluated visually, with special attention to noise on faces. Objective measurements are performed on chart videos recorded under various conditions from 1 to 1000 lux. The chart used is the SBMARK Visual Noise Chart.
Video noise and loss of detail may sometimes be noticeable, especially in high-contrast scenes and low-light conditions. Slight noise may also be visible in video clips recorded in bright light.
Evolution of spatial visual noise with the illuminance level
Temporal evolution of visual noise with the level of illumination
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with lux level. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise graph in the video noise configuration.
Stabilization
81
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Stabilization rating tests the device’s ability to stabilize footage using software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS or any other means. The rating looks at overall residual motion on the face and background, smoothness and gelatin artifacts, during walking and panning use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an excerpt from one of the scenes tested.
Video stabilization was generally very effective, with minimal camera shake, especially when hand-holding the camera while recording.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL – Effective stabilization, slight residual movement on the subject, slight background deformation
Google Pixel 8 Pro – Effective stabilization, slight residual movement on the subject, slight background deformation
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Effective stabilization, slight residual movement on the subject, no background deformation
Artifacts
86
iPhone 12 mini
iPhone 12 mini
Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab, as well as frame rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are evaluated visually with special attention to artifacts such as quantization, hue shift, and face rendering artifacts, among others. The more severe and frequent the artifact, the higher the points deducted from the score. The main artifacts and the corresponding point loss are listed below
Penalty for major video artifacts
Start a new Thread