And people laughed at Samsung's moon shot thing.
I still use my phone camera, but man do I appreciate that all my Sony a7 may do is interpret the sensor using a colour profile and that's it.
A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
401–410 of 414 posts
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#402Purists 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…
Yes but every photographer strives for a baseline of "as close as possible" otherwise lenses wouldn't be expensive bc "photographers don't strive for reality" so who cares about chromatic aberration, vignetting etc.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#403Purists 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.…
Well actual photographers will use phone computational photography the same as anybody else "the best camera is the one you have with you" but they'll also laugh if anyone tries to say that computational photo is still "taking a photo". It's not.
There's the right tool for every job, an actual camera with a nice lens is the tool for the job when you want to "take a photo", situation permitting.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#404This happens more and more, I guess it's an unholy mix of "better compression as long as you don't actually look at the image" and "ai improvement".. A few weeks ago, I took a really lovely picture of my son, composition, facial expression, focus, light, it was _PERFECT_ except.. The algorithms in my phone had decided that it'd be better to scrape off his fucking skin and replace it with the texture of the wall behin…
I have a Samsung S23U and previously a S22U (and before that one plus) and I've never had that happen to any of my photos (and I take a lot).
Hell, I don't think it's using computational photography besides basic denoising/lightening magic for low light (and their stupid moon replacement thing...they already beat Apple just having the 10x lens, no need for the moon bs).
I think the default camera app is fine.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#405If not already, I expect examples like this will be accumulated and trotted out as part of legal defenses. Valid or not, gross examples like this will probably nudge some judges and juries over their threshold for reasonable doubt. AI manipulations are happening and their bounds can be hard to predict.
Imagine a politician photoed reacting to a member of the public in disgust, except the face was stitched in from moments after. Or, worse, someone captured at the scene of a bomb reacting before the bomb went off? We have an inbuilt set of assumptions about causality that this AI now violates. That's potentially huge in some very specific scenarios...
Hey I have a free energy machine to sell you
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
That will be the denoising. Legs are thin and can easily be interpreted as noise - especially when using digital zoom and dim light so there are very few pixels and each pixel is very noisy.
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.
My A7ii does that just fine and it's pretty old now.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#407I was in a butterfly house, and closeup photos removed the legs of the butterflies to keep only the wings lol. e: image link https://ibb.co/nwbw5xY
Looks like you are using the portrait effect to blur the background. The phone just assumed the legs were part of the background. Happens to hair as well.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#408Well, duh.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you have the Live photos option turned on (the default) it will automatically take a burst every time you hit the red button.
Video, although there might be a configuration option somewhere. Historically Live Photos were of poorer overall image quality, so I only turn them on when I want to simulate a long exposure. Not sure whether that's still true.
If I go into the photos app edit menu for a live photo, it allows me to scroll through the timeline and pick “make key photo” for any moment during the video. Maybe it’s lowering the res or something if I do that but from UI, it seems like I’m getting a photo captured from whenever.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case in the article is obviously one that any idiot could have taken without these tools. But "in difficult scenarios", as the GP comment put it, your mistake is assuming people have been taking those photos all along no problem. They have not. People have been filling their photo albums and memory cards up with underexposed blurry photos that look more like abstract art than reality. That's where this sort of te…
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.
Man, I just wanna take pictures of my kid when she's sleeping and looks super adorable. It's sucks that me doing so is going to send people to jail and delay machinery diagnostics and cause insurance fraud, but I'mma keep doing it anyway.