It takes 250 ms for something to fall 1 foot under the weight of gravity, which is also approximately how long it takes to go from arms crossed to arms at side. Which is well under the 2 seconds computational photography clip.
There is no computational photography "clip". Live Photos was not enabled and even still doesn't work like this.
Why does everyone assume it was a Live photo? Could’ve been night mode, which comes on automatically in low light scenarios, and does the same thing (takes multiple exposures over a longer timeframe).
I know you’re pretending to be dense on purpose, but taking a dozen pictures at once and automatically picking the best one can obviously save a lot of shots. Same with combining exposures.
The camera in this case wasn't taking many shots and selecting one. It wasn't just combining exposures either. It did a bunch of shitty cut/paste operations to produce an altered composite image which showed something that never happened. Some automatic features are wonderful. People have been able to take pictures of fast moving toddlers and pets for ages because of them. The camera "features" that secretly alter im…
I didn’t misunderstand what happened, and I know how the iPhone camera works. I was only noting a couple common cases where computational photography is really nice. I’m pretty picky about my photos and nothing I’ve shot with my iPhone has ever approached “lies”. I know those types of anomalies can happen, but they’re clearly design flaws, i.e. Apple doesn’t actually want their camera to make fantasy images. I don’t want that either.
Purists will always hate the idea of computational photography, but I love how well my iPhone captures handheld nighttime, low-light, and motion images. I’ve captured some photos at night that I never would have thought possible from a physically small sensor due to the laws of physics. Is it 100% pixel perfect to what was happening at the time? No, but I also don’t care. I’ve used HDR exposure stacking in the past.…
Why not both?
I am more in the purist camp, because when people take iOS photo, I remind them that someone else made that decision on how the photo should look. Additionally, we are in an era of not trusting anything on the internet or in a photo anymore. Do we want photojournalism to go that same path? I don't. So I enjoy being closer to "reality" than the computational photos, but for average entertainment photos, I don't mind.
> Are you saying that you're just bad at photography? That is a bit harsh. The vast majority of all people are worse at photography than apple's algorithm.
The claim was that any camera without this feature is "entirely unusable" and the photos couldn't be saved even with "hours of manual edits". The fact is that for decades countless of beautiful photos have been captured with cell phone cameras without this feature and most of them needed no manual edits at all. Many of those perfectly fine pictures were taken by people who would not consider themselves to be photogra…
traditionally phones took good photos in good light but as the light decreases so does photo quality (quickly). the point of the ai photography isn't to get the best photograph when you control the lighting and have 2 minutes before hand to pick options, it's to get the best photograph when you realize you need the best possible photo in the next 2 seconds
I had a related experience with my Pixel 7 a few months ago. In this picture of a deer: https://photos.app.goo.gl/qChwaw9C29WVdAmr6 If you zoom in, you'll note that .. everything at a detail level looks like an oil painting, especially the deer's face and the wall behind it. Very weird effect, and that's certainly not what the wall or deer actually look like. No filters applied. Computational photography is really aw…
That’s due to basic denoising, not anything more advanced. I have photos from my iPhone 6s circa 2016 that look similar when you zoom in.
That's not "basic denoising" and photos from my 8 look nothing like that; the "watercolor" or "oil painting" look started around the iPhone 12.
Basic denoising is stuff like chroma or hue smoothing. This is very aggressive patterning. That's a daylight photo that the phone turned into an oil painting.
> Are you saying that you're just bad at photography? That is a bit harsh. The vast majority of all people are worse at photography than apple's algorithm.
The claim was that any camera without this feature is "entirely unusable" and the photos couldn't be saved even with "hours of manual edits". The fact is that for decades countless of beautiful photos have been captured with cell phone cameras without this feature and most of them needed no manual edits at all. Many of those perfectly fine pictures were taken by people who would not consider themselves to be photogra…
The “burst” is actually a two second video. Plenty of time for that.
She said she never used live photo. And the latency for taking a standard photo is not 2 seconds.
Indeed, since it looks at data from before you press the trigger as well. The camera is always active while you have the camera app; storing a few seconds of pictures is a trivial amount of memory.
Live Photo means storing the video in the image file. Turning it off doesn’t mean the video is no longer used, just that it isn’t stored.