If it has not already happened, evidence will get thrown out of court because the image no longer represents the reality. Too many filters and other AI improvements.
A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
161–170 of 414 posts
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#162I’m gonna call bullshit here. The difference in arm pose couldn’t be covered in any reasonable burst period.
Surprised you were downvoted because this doesn't sound right at all. The poses would be at least a few seconds apart which rules out anything in Apple's computational photography pipeline e.g. focus and dynamic range stacking. At least based on what they have communicated to date. We know Google demonstrated an AI model that was capable of selecting human parts from multiple photos but that was a showcase feature no…
> The poses would be at least a few seconds apart
Are those 3 poses she's doing, or did she have her hands clasped, then performed some gesture where she dropped her left arm then right arm?
The right definitely looks like a deliberate pose, at first glance the middle does too, but the left doesn't at all, it looks like a gesture. The splay of the hands among other things indicate this to me.
I think the middle isn't a pose either, just a transition. I think only the right is a pose, and it goes Right > Middle > Left in time. Her hand is splayed in the middle like it is in the left.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is in what some photographers call “editorial integrity”. There’s nothing wrong with any kind of image manipulation, as long as it’s done knowingly and deliberately, and as long as the nature of the manipulation is known to the audience. But the typical iphone consumer is just taking snaps and sharing them around, and almost no one knows what’s really happening. It’s creepy and unethical.
> and almost no one knows what’s really happening And almost no one cares, btw. And what do you even propose? A mandatory “picture might not represent reality” watermark? Because the way I see it, you either take the computational features away from people, and prevent them from taking an entire class of pictures, or you add a big fat warning somewhere that no one will read anyway, or you keep things the way they are…
I’m not proposing anything mandatory. I would like it if the biggest corporation in the world would consider the effects of their technology on society, rather than solely on their profits. That they would at least let ethical considerations potentially influence their design decisions. But that’s not how they got to be the biggest company in the world, so I don’t expect this to happen.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#164Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not in these light conditions. Again, decades of people photographing themselves in wedding dresses while in dress shops (which tend to be pretty well lit) would disagree with you. Also, the things that help most with lighting (like auto-exposure) aren't the problem here. That's not why her arms ended up in three different positions at once.
> Apple's horrible tech featured in the article had nothing to do with the lighting. Of course it did. iPhones take an “exposure” (scare quotes quite intentional) of a certain length. A conventional camera taking an exposure literally integrates the light hitting each sensor pixel (or region of film) during the exposure. iPhone do not — instead (for long enough exposures), iPhones take many pictures, aka a video, and…
It could also have been taken with too much motion (either the phone or the subject), meaning some of the closer-in-time exposures would be rejected because they're blurry/have rolling shutter.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#166One is reminded of how Samsung cameras are trained to put the details of the moon over anything that looks vaguely like the moon, but just one, so you can photograph two blurry images of the moon and one of them will look like it was taken by Hubble.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#167I’m gonna call bullshit here. The difference in arm pose couldn’t be covered in any reasonable burst period.
Yeah this strikes me as half generated, especially since it's three different poses. This is the baby teeth thing all over again and it must suck knowing that your Wedding photos are just an AI's reinterpretation of the moment.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For decades people have had the ability to get great photos using cell phones Not in these light conditions. Simple as that. What iPhones are doing nowadays gives you the ability to take some photos you couldn’t have in the past. Try shooting a few photos with an iPhone and the app Halide. It can give you a single RAW of a single exposure. Try it in some mildly inconvenient light conditions, like in a forest. Where…
> Not in these light conditions. Again, decades of people photographing themselves in wedding dresses while in dress shops (which tend to be pretty well lit) would disagree with you. Also, the things that help most with lighting (like auto-exposure) aren't the problem here. That's not why her arms ended up in three different positions at once.
You can tell this scene isn't well lit - just look at her reflected face. It's too dark.
Sure, some of it is bright, but that just means it's backlit.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://www.google.com/search?q=pixel+photo+oil+painting+loo...
It’s just what happens when you really aggressively do noise reduction on small sensor data.
The noise pattern of any sensor that small will blotch in patterns that when combined with aggressive noise reduction, it will look this way.
It’s less apparent on bigger sensors but you’ll see the same if you really crank the noise reduction
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The SW backing it is much more powerful than what you get in standalone cameras that is very due to camera makers not giving a sh*t though. Maybe now they do, but it's overdue. And I'm not even talking about the phone apps for connection, or image processing, but more on a user interface and usability PoV, and also interesting modes for the user. Fuji and Ricoh are the only ones that I see are trying to make things…
I don't think it's only that. The processing in a phone is expensive. If you'd build a high end camera with a Snapdragon 8 gen 3 it would raise the price a lot. In a phone that's not an issue because you need the chip there anyway for other tasks. So there's just much more compute power available, not to mention a connection to the cloud with even more potential compute.
Also, many more people buy phones than standalone cameras, so they can afford a lot more software R&D.