Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this feature or similar features could be disabled, it doesn't need to be an either/or situation. I don't have an iPhone though, so no idea if it's configurable. But seems that it should be, assuming it's not implemented deep in hardware.
But why? Because out of the literally trillions of images shot with an iphone a tiny tiny percentage comes out wrong, similarly to how panorama images will look if you move? It unequivocally improves the quality of images in low light by a huge margin. This is a non-issue.
A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
371–380 of 414 posts
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
It opens Facebook and Instagram in a Facebook container by default. The container has no history.
Ugh, that seems like a bug which should be fixed. It's pretty inconvenient for users. :(
I quite like having that on by default.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naw, astrange is correct. At peak in 2010, 121 standalone cameras were shipped worldwide. By 2021, that number was down to ~8 million. By comparison, 83 million smartphones are shipped each quarter (~1.4 billion for the year). Those kinds of economies of scale means there's more R&D revenue to sustain a larger amount of HW & SW innovation. Even though smartphone shipments should come down over the next few years as t…
Good points. > Honestly, I'm surprised those device manufacturers haven't shifted their DSLR stack to just be a dumb CMOS sensor, lens, a basic processor for I/O, and a thunderbolt controller that you slot the phone into. Probably heat is one factor, the amount of batteries you'd need would go up, the BOM cost for that package could be largely the same, & maybe the external I/O isn't quite yet fast/open enough for so…
The form factor issue feels tractable - just have the housing that you slot your phone into be a cheap bit of molded plastic that adapts it to the thing you sell that contains the sensor, battery etc. That makes it a ~$50 part at most that you can support nearly every phone on. There’s also spring loaded designs (look at all the spring based universal car mounts). Now that even iPhones are usbc, this also standardized the I/O connector port which would have been harder/impossible to solve and a bigger obstacle. The SW support thing doesn’t seem real - the R&D cost for maintaining the camera OS with its own custom gui is going to be much more expensive than just hiring some mobile app developers. Form factor feel might be an issue (ie wright distribution / Feel in the hands) and that might be a real issue. Not sure but also feels solvable.
But the biggest issue is that computational photography in a mobile form factor just isn’t relevant to the space that these manufacturers are in. The creators will use tools like darkroom and newer generative AI tools to post process and the value add of computational photography isn’t relevant there. “Computational photography” techniques to help capture and set up shots might be but I’m not enough in the space to know whether or not there always doing that (eg automatically being able to capture back to back shots with different settings for later compositing, providing automatic tips on lighting, etc etc)
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
Denoising is often great, but sometimes it really destroys details. It is basically impossible to capture a snowy day (or heavy rain) with a digital camera. The denoiser will remove 90% of the snowflakes. Analog cameras, by contrast, remove nothing.
Interestingly, some phones now use a model of the camera sensor to detect how much noise there 'should' be (based on temperature, age of sensor, test results of the specific sensor from the factory, exposure time and light levels). They then only remove that much noise, hopefully leaving snow. Every other phone just has an algorithm to estimate how much noise is in an image by sampling a few patches - and that will r…
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Cellphones have been capable of HDR for a very very long time and yet none of those older phones were capable of producing a picture like the one in the article. I don't think this is true? You can easily get an image like this just by choosing a different keyframe for different areas of the photo when combining the stack of exposures. No AI needed. Nor is there any 'selective erasing'. You talk about 'detecting the…
HDR in older phones would have only merged/blended the images resulting in ghosting (the reflections would have shown the woman as having more than two arms) or blurring because they weren't using AI to select and cut out parts of the original image to swap in parts from other images. The "other photos" weren't older pictures pulled from her photo library, but were the photos taken in quick succession using different…
For this reason I’m skeptical of your claim that ‘HDR in older phones would have only merged/blended the images resulting in ghosting…or blurring’. Even if we assume this is true for the sake of argument, you undermine your own point here, as ghosting and blurring are also distortions of reality. You’re apparently ok with a photo showing a person with ‘more than two arms’, but not ok with a photo combining slightly different time-slices of the same scene (which is actually any photo taken using a focal plane shutter above flash sync speed :)). You're entitled to your subjective preference there, but I certainly don't share it myself.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how all my bird and squirrel photos look. It really disappoints me
Well, in the big camera world, birding and wildlife means huge and expensive lenses that are both fast (i.e. they let a lot of light in) and have a large focal length. The fact that you can even attempt to take similar photos on something as tiny as a phone camera and have the object come out recognizable is nothing short of amazing.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one, the Instagram post says "Full story in my highlights (THE MIRROR)" but I can't figure out how to actually view those highlights. (Without creating an account at least.)
Can't, those are login-walled.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#379It's funny that the iPhone has half a dozen cameras, uses the cameras as the main selling point (look at posters!) yet the image generated is coming essentially from a piece of code.
Code is important too. They sell a good combo.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though it may be that no lens will reproduce a perfectly straight line, the transformation which warps the line is a relatively simple and invertible mapping which preserves local as well as global features. It might not be a conformal mapping but, say, if the image of a grid is projected through the lens, the projected image will have the same number of divisions and crossings, in the same relation to each other. We…
There’s no AI transformation altering her body posture. It’s just that the phone is blending multiple exposures during which she was posing in different ways. The phone doesn’t realize that the images of the women in the mirror correspond to the woman in the center, so it hasn’t felt it necessary to use the same keyframe as the reference for the different parts of the photo. People are jumping to crazy explanations f…
1. I didn't call it "photography", computational or otherwise.
2. My work was nearly flawless: certainly no glaring fuckups like reflections or shadows.
3. Everyone knew: I loudly announced that this picture is a composite: look how cool!