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

331–340 of 414 posts

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

#331

Post by underlipton »

actionfromafar wrote: post #302
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…

I kinda like that scenario!

That's the scenario where evidence of police/military misconduct gets dismissed out-of-hand because the people with the ability to capture it only had/could afford/could carry their smartphone, and not a film camera. Thanks, I hate it.

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

#332

Post by [deleted] »

actionfromafar wrote: post #307
Aurornis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s denoising. Those mosaic like patterns are more pleasing to the eye than a noisy photograph. The laws of physics put a limit on how well a tiny phone lens and sensor can capture light. We’re not at the limit yet even though hardware is quite good. Still, you wouldn’t like if your phone spat out raw, noisy images everywhere without any processing (beyond what’s necessary to translate it to the right pixel grid a…

These patterns more pleasing? Not to me.

[deleted]

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

#333

Post by drtgh »

Toutouxc wrote: post #156
drtgh wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"interpretation of that moment" from a camera it is not a photograph, it's a fake image kidnapping the word "photograph".

A photograph is always an interpretation. A photograph from, say, a modern $2000 big boy camera: Does not capture the color of every pixel, and merely infers it from the surrounding ones. Is usually viewed on a sRGB screen with shitty contrast and a dynamic range significantly smaller than the one of the camera, which is significantly smaller than the one of human eyes, which is still significantly smaller than what…

Yep, of course, the colors, the sensor or the film chemicals that react to the frequencies of those photons, the angles of those photons through the lenses, all adapted to our range of view and color perception could be considered even are in the limit of the physics within natural perception, what also could be being crossed when the parameters and mechanics takes certain values, and from MHO its more or less acceptable, our naked eyes can discern how are being evaluated those parameters and mechanics.

Nevertheless, what we are seeing with the post-process of the cameras described in the OP cross the threshold of what until this moment in the history is considered natural "photograph" that can be obtained analogically. Those are manipulated images, undetectable for the naked eye, that are incorporating elements, those are a "composition" that can not be obtained analogically. those images are fakes, lies.

and by the read in the comments it seems the user can not even disable such composed interpretation.

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

#334

Post by quesera »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #213
lukeschlather wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In circumstances where it really matters having a prettied up image might be worse than having no image at all. If you rely on the image being correct to make some consequential decision, you could convict someone of a crime, or if you were trying to diagnose some issue with some machine you might cause damage. While if the camera gave an honest but uninterpretable picture you would be forced to try again.

Couple other common cases: - Photographing serial numbers or readouts on hard-to-reach labels and displays, like e.g. your water meter. - Photographing damage to walls, surfaces or goods, for purpose of warranty or insurance claim. - DIY / citizen science / school science experiments of all kind. - Workshops, auto-repairs, manufacturing, tradespeople - all heavily relying on COTS cameras for documenting, calibrating,…

Can people taking documentary photos can disable the feature? Obviously casual users won't be aware of the option, if it exists at all.

I've often wished for an image format that is a container for [original, modified]. Maybe with multiple versions. I hate having to manage separate files to keep things together.

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

#336

Post by bhpm »

autoexec wrote: post #55
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. No photographer thinks images the they get on film are perfect reflections of reality. The lens itself introduces flaws/changes as does film and developing. You don't have to be a purist to want the ability to decide what gets captured or to have control over how it looks though. Those kinds of choices are part of what make photo…

The tech doesn’t “just” take control from me. It also exponentially increases the chances that the photo I wanted to take will be the photo that is saved on my device and shared with my friends.

It’s just picture of my dog. It’s not that serious.

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

#337

Post by octacat »

eproxus wrote: post #190
kazinator wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No lens is going to produce a straight arm out of one that was bent at the elbow, or vice versa, while not disturbing anything else. It is not "photography".

No lens is going to reproduce a perfectly straight line without lens compensation either. Lenses are bending light to distill a moment in space time into a 2D representation which by definition will always be imperfect. What counts as “photography” really? GP> In the end, this tech just takes control from you. In the end, any tech is always going to take control away from you one way or another. That’s the whole poin…

idk, sigma 50mm art will give you pretty straight lines. At least straight enough for people. Why would you even mention it? Are you taking photos of line meshes or something?

Life is imperfect. Lens specs are only good for reviews / marketing because it is hard to otherwise compare lenses for there real value.

I am fine with control I am getting from the big camera.

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

#338

Post by PawgerZ »

lloeki wrote: post #263
TeMPOraL wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot undo each and every effect. Fair enough. > Polarizing filters Yeah, I see it. This one is as pure signal removal as it comes in analog world. And they can, indeed, drop significant information - not just reflections, but also e.g. by blacking out computer screens - but they don't introduce fake information either, and lost information could in principle be recovered -- because in reality, everything is c…

The most extreme case being Samsung outright painting the moon in when it thinks a piece of picture is semantically likely to be the moon. Whether the detail data is encoded as PNG or as AI weights is immaterial, it is adding data that is not there , by a long shot. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moo...

That's weird. Whenever I tried to take a picture of the moon, it would look great in the camera view on the screem, but look terrible once I actually took the picture.

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

#339

Post by octacat »

makeitdouble wrote: post #243
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.…

How many "purists" are there in the wild ? I'd only see police and insurance agents needing pixel perfect depiction of reality as it's out of the sensor. Photography as an art was never about purity, and I think most of us want photos that reflect what we see and how we see it, and will take the technical steps to get that rendered. If the moon is beautiful and gently lights the landscape, I want a photo with both th…

oh, there are a lot of people who like control though. Journalists/competition photography probably also would go into purists.
Post reply on HN