Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 467 posts

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#391

Post by tagoregrtst »

sudosysgen wrote: post #326
tagoregrtst wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuously linear implemented with an analog device vs digital “linear” (ie, watch your floats! Take care of quanization error! Have you kept the colors separated according to the Beyer pattern?). No one has a problem with a mathematically perfect linear transformation, and film enlargers come very close to that ideal (yes they distort, but in a very obvious way and by degrading detail not adding detail that isn't…

Film development is actually VERY, VERY far from linear. Because of film grain, it's not continuous either, but actually discrete too.

Film development is very non linear in the exposure (call it z dimension), not in the dimension (x and y). That is to say it might exaggerate or diminish a gradient that was already there but not create one from nothing.

The grain is random size and randomly distributed which cancels out a lot of the effects of discritzation (eg you wont get patterns due nyquist sampling error).

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#392

Post by Retric »

creato wrote: post #188
judge2020 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply adjusting light levels and sharpness wouldn't produce this good/clear of a photo in the conditions presented - AI/ML image post-processing is a hard requirement for sensors like these.

The "hard requirement" is just multi-frame noise reduction, which has been around for a lot longer than the AI/ML hype wave, and has always had a risk of producing similar artifacts to this one.

Multi-frame noise reduction only gets you so far. Rotating objects for example present huge issues and result in their own artifacts. In the end there isn’t a free lunch, any system that improves resulting images is making trade offs.

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#394

Post by elif »

Gigachad wrote: post #63
alkonaut wrote: post #29

Those of us who have been shooting large digital cameras for the past decade and are some times sad that our photos often come out unsharp in poor light compared to smartphones can at least take some joy in this “no free lunch” demonstration. If this is due to stabilization and not some background blur face detection then it’s probably not something you can (or would want to) disable. Taking a telephoto shot with a t…

No free lunch, but an incredibly good value lunch. The quality that comes out of phone cameras is remarkable. And the times it messes up are so rare that it becomes a talking point worthy of hundreds of comments.

That depends entirely on what you consider "messing up"

if it had put that leaf over some other leaves in the background that weren't captured well, would we have noticed? would it be a better photo?

What if it was meant to be a beautiful leaf photo? If you want an accurate representation of reality, the moment, etc, the majority of cellphone photos would be considered "messed up" imo

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#395

Post by tagoregrtst »

dagmx wrote: post #340
tagoregrtst wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuously linear implemented with an analog device vs digital “linear” (ie, watch your floats! Take care of quanization error! Have you kept the colors separated according to the Beyer pattern?). No one has a problem with a mathematically perfect linear transformation, and film enlargers come very close to that ideal (yes they distort, but in a very obvious way and by degrading detail not adding detail that isn't…

Film development is actually quite a bit more subjective. There's a much larger variance in film type, and the chemical process. Perhaps it's harder to doctor, but it's also not necessarily truer either. With regards to sensor size and detail recorded...well that depends. Are you assuming 35mm sensors? Because people shot 8mm and 16mm too back in the day. That's not far off from smaller sensors today. Are we also acc…

Sensitivity of digital is amazing. You cant really get past ISO 400 on film without large compromises.

But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Yes Kodak had the advantax (?) system and some other weird cameras here and there, but the vast majority of consumer pictures were taken on 35mm.

As to the subjectivity of film, as I mentioned in the other post, most of the subjectivity came from what I called the “z” dimension, i.e exposure. There was little subjectivity about the enlargement itself.

That is to say, the subjectivity was largely limited to the contrast and brightness sliders of today. Anything else is far more difficult to do with film.

There is another advantage for digital, cost. Video was much more rare with film, and the video we’re talking about certainly would not exist.

But I think that’s the greatest advantage of film - it contains within it an inherent protection of the public’s privacy completely absent in our society today

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#396

Post by yoav »

kingcharles wrote: post #261
lkois wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't quite understand the leap to controversy, which seems to rest on the assumption that this person does not have a pile of leaves for a head.

Right. To me the photo was set up for the retweets and likes. They got their leaf-headed friend to stand in front of some leaves and took a photo. Probably didn't even use an iPhone. This might have been some Samsung psy-op to discredit the iPhone neural processor.

I think it’s absurd to assume this guy has friends or that there are people with leaves for heads. These are clearly a couple of jackets stuffed with leaves. You don’t see the hands or the other friend except a sleeve. This is the same ploy I did many years ago trying to convince the internet I had friends.

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#397

Post by Zak »

numpad0 wrote: post #290
Zak wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not accurate to compare the capacity in Amp-hours because the Nikon EN-EL15C battery has twice the voltage (two Li-ion cells in series) of a single-cell smartphone battery.

Napkin math: 7V/2280mAh = 16Wh or equivalent to 3.7V/4300mAh (USB power banks are always measured and marked in 3.7V and mAh as unit to produce largest comparable numbers)

I've always thought it was odd powerbanks didn't advertise in mWh. That's a bigger number and comparable regardless of voltage.

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#398

Post by mateo1 »

mikewhy wrote: post #178
literallyaduck wrote: post #123

Remember the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed? Digital evidence and photos are suspicious for the purpose of evidence. Not commenting on the results of the trial. Sidebar not specific to that trial, slow motion, and slowed video shouldn't be shown to jurors because it creates the illusion of having more time to think. Everything in real life happens at one speed, you can'…

> the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed I keep thinking about this, and was already when the case was going on. If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed, no iPhone photo after a certain time should be.

Well, it appears that we are rapidly approaching the point in time when these companies are no longer going to be able to deceive consumers like this. After that there will be an off button and perhaps legally mandated metadata, although I'm sure forensics people can already tell when AI trickery has been applied.

Re: iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

#400

Post by djrogers »

tagoregrtst wrote: post #395
dagmx wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Film development is actually quite a bit more subjective. There's a much larger variance in film type, and the chemical process. Perhaps it's harder to doctor, but it's also not necessarily truer either. With regards to sensor size and detail recorded...well that depends. Are you assuming 35mm sensors? Because people shot 8mm and 16mm too back in the day. That's not far off from smaller sensors today. Are we also acc…

Sensitivity of digital is amazing. You cant really get past ISO 400 on film without large compromises. But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Yes Kodak had the advantax (?) system and some other weird cameras here and there, but the vast majority of consumer pictures were taken on 35mm. As to the subjectivity of film, as I mentioned in the other post, most of the subjectivity came fr…

> But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare.

Strong disagree here. 126 film is what brought color photography to the mass market, and others like the Kodak Disc were wildly popular among point-n-shoot users.

35mm was standard for pro photogs, but consumers went for convenience.

Post reply on HN