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

A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 414 posts

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#321

Post by thfuran »

_kb wrote: post #217
flashback2199 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scenario: It's a decade from today and phones are not just stitching together multiple photos but also using generative AI. Apple and all of the other phone makers insist the implementation is safe. The suspect appears in the photo doing something they never actually did. In the chaos of the crime, the phone was left at the crime scene where it was found by law enforcement, no chance the photo could have been photosh…

There was a thread here a little while back [0] on cryptographic proofs for photojournalism. Ultimately, that style of attestation seems the end game. Journalists, security cameras, emergency service / military body cams and other safety systems provide a trust mechanism that enables provable authenticity from the point of capture (and some form of web of trust to weight or revoke that trust for different audiences).…

That doesn't really help when the edits are happening inside the camera as part of the acquisition process rather than in later manipulation.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#322

Post by DonHopkins »

thfuran wrote: post #277
sharkweek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I 100% agree - When I pull my phone out to take a picture of the kids/my dog/something randomly interesting, all I want is to point my camera at whatever I want to capture and have it turn out. Don’t care how it happens I don’t want to think about settings.

And you simply don't care if two different people are shown in the photo in poses that didn't happen at the same time? That doesn't seem to me like capturing whatever it was you wanted to capture.

How does that even affect your life or happyness? Do you have to sign an affidavit that the photo exactly depicts what happened or you go to jail? Will your friends never speak to you again if they suspect the phone you bought off the shelf at the Apple store is using computational photography? Do your religious beliefs prohibit photographing poses that didn't happen or you go to hell? Or are you just being ultra pedantic to make a meaningless point?

I want a phone with computational photography that automatically renders Mormon Bubble Porn!

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mormon-porn-bubble-porn

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#323

Post by thfuran »

PlunderBunny wrote: post #25
tmalsburg2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine such an image being used as evidence is a court case. E.g. showing someone pointing a gun at another person when that actually never happened.

As far as the phone knows, there were three people in the photo, and it captured the 'best' picture of each one and composited them.

Yes, and when there actually are three people, the so-called photograph could, by the same mechanism, show them in an arrangement that never actually happened.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#325

Post by vladvasiliu »

WWLink wrote: post #90
graypegg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devils advocate here: the best camera is the one you have with you, and computational photography does mean you can just push a button without thinking and get a clear picture that captures a memory. It’s obviously an argument to say that Apple shouldn’t get to choose how your memories are recorded, but I know I’ve captured a lot more moments I would’ve otherwise missed because of just how automatic phone cam…

I used to keep a powershot digital elph in my pocket whenever I left the house. TBH I took way more pictures with it. I could blindly turn it on and snap a picture while driving, without ever taking my eyes off the road. There's no way in the world I could do that with an iphone lol. I mean, I suppose if I happened to hit the bottom right corner button and then used the volume button maybe? Maybe. It's way more likel…

You can always configure it to start the camera by swiping left on the lock screen. Then, the volume buttons are big enough to easily hit one of them.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#326

Post by Kye »

Timshel wrote: post #218
justinclift wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, that seems like a bug which should be fixed. It's pretty inconvenient for users. :(

Probably not trivial since the back button might be linked to history and the container is doing it's job in isolation. I would expect there is a setting to force opening the container in a new tab if you want to be able to go back.

There must be since that's how it works for me. Either I changed it, or it stopped being default at some point.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#327

Post by hnburnsy »

rompledorph wrote: post #161

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.

Some one is writing an episode of law and order with AI photograohy getting defendant off.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#328

Post by fsloth »

jorvi wrote: post #309
fsloth wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, computational photography is actually closer to Terry Pratchet’s Discworld version of a camera - a box with an imp who paints the picture. Artistic interpretation of a scene is often very nice. But we would really need to be able to discern cameras that give you the pixels from the ccd from the irreversible kind. In the worst case scenario it’s back to photographic film if you want to be sure no-one is molestin…

> Yeah, computational photography is actually closer to Terry Pratchet’s Discworld version of a camera - a box with an imp who paints the picture. I mean… you’ve pretty much described our brain. Your blue isn’t my blue. People need to stop clutching pearls. For the scenario it is used in, computational photography is nothing short of magic. > In the worst case scenario it’s back to photographic film if you want to be…

”Your blue isn’t my blue.”

Is there actually sufficient understanding of qualia to state this concretely? Brain neurology is unknown territory for me.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#329

Post by timeon »

kaba0 wrote: post #287
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Photographs are not and never have been anything but an unrepresentative slice of a likeness of a moment in time, This is a complete absurdity Photos are used daily to find suspects of crimes to convict people to prison to establish the level of devastation in a war To find launch site for rocket attacks To make scientific measurements of distance,size, etc. in architecture and war By scientists to determine positi…

And some of those use cases require special cameras in the first place. Photography is basically just a measurement of light at different positions - there are endless priorities to make. You don’t need stacking multiple photos for scientific measurement of distance, as you would be having proper illumination in the first place. A smartphone camera works in a vastly different environment, and has to adapt to any kind…

> And some of those use cases require special cameras in the first place.

Yes same as with tools like ChatGPT, it is OK for some uses, but you can not use it for something where you need to have trust in the output.

Problem is that people are not making this distinction, in cases like when they are posting pictures as evidence. This was also the case with manual post-process. However, now it is by default.

Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography

#330

Post by underlipton »

Aurornis wrote: post #12

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.…

>Is it 100% pixel perfect to what was happening at the time? No, but I also don’t care.

I do. Photos can be material to court cases where people's money, time, even freedom are at stake. They can sway public opinion, with far-reaching consequences. They can change our memories. At the very least, there should be a common understanding of exactly how camera software can silently manipulate photos that they present as accurate representations of reality.

Post reply on HN