11–20 of 414 posts
So this wasn't just rolling shutter?
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. I’ve used focus stacking in the past for shallow depth of field. I’ve even played with taking multiple photos of a crowded space and stitching them together to make an image of the space without any people or cars. None of them are pixel perfect representations of what I saw, but I don’t care. I was after an image that captured the subject and combining multiple exposures gets the job done.
So this wasn't just rolling shutter?
[0]: https://petapixel.com/2023/11/16/one-in-a-million-iphone-pho...
So this wasn't just rolling shutter?
The article says that “The final composite image should be the best, most realistic interpretation of that moment.” But that doesn’t make any sense. If the there were three real people, rather than one person and two reflections, the algorithm would have created an image of a moment that never existed, stitching together different images taken at different times. The only difference is that we might not notice and mi…
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.
It’s really hard to imagine a scenario where two exposures a fraction of a second apart could be stitched together to tell a completely false story, but maybe it exists. In that case, I suspect the lawyers would be all over this explanation to try to dismiss the evidence.
I had a related experience with my Pixel 7 a few months ago. In this picture of a deer: https://photos.app.goo.gl/qChwaw9C29WVdAmr6 If you zoom in, you'll note that .. everything at a detail level looks like an oil painting, especially the deer's face and the wall behind it. Very weird effect, and that's certainly not what the wall or deer actually look like. No filters applied. Computational photography is really aw…
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 and color space).
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.
Seems extremely unlikely. The phone isn’t going to make drastic alterations to reality. It’s just combining multiple exposures. It can’t make someone point a gun if they’re not pointing a gun. You could try to imagine a scenario where someone was moving extremely fast through the frame while someone was whipping a gun around at high speed in the same direction and the phone just happened to stitch two moments a fract…
So this wasn't just rolling shutter?
So this wasn't just rolling shutter?
Rolling shutter could in principle explain this, but it’s probably too fast to capture these three poses which must be temporally rather far apart.