iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo

Regardless of the validity of the objection in this specific case, yes it's already happening.

See also: https://www.axios.com/san-francisco-orange-sky-smartphone-40...

You should be allowed to photograph what reality looks like if you want to.

An aside, the judge's demonstrated understanding of pixels, despite being slimed by most media, was actually quite good. During the trial he demonstrated understanding of how an algorithm can take as input the original pixels and calculate estimated (or interpolated, whatever you want to call it generically) pixels from that input.

Basically, a one second really dark video can be summed up into one very blurry but bright enough photo. But if you carefully move each frame to compensate for camera movement when summing it up - you might also get a sharp picture. But then the subject moves, or a leaf moves, and the algorithm has to decide which parts of the photo should be a priority for not being blurry. And that would be faces, usually. So the camera now needs to decide what is a face and what isn’t. Just to take one single telephoto picture.

Only doing “in camera processing” like a 2015 digital camera with some sharpening, color curves etc doesn’t cut it anymore. If your phone does that, it’ll be laughed at. Phones these days need to do clever long exposure stacking with image recognition and all.

I’ve done a lot of research on this as a recording artist myself and what you’re saying here is a misunderstood meme.

Eg Half the records released before 80s have been remastered to sound different to what the musicians originally recorded.

Plus any medium adds colour, vinyl adds warmth to the playback, digital formats (unless you’re using lossless, which most people don’t) add artifecting, etc. Songs are often written for their preferred medium.

So there isn’t really an exact “as intended” but rather a broader “Goldilocks zone” (for want a better term). This is especially true if you listen to a broad variety of genres.

You’ll also find that most songs record in the last 20 years will be compressed to hell and back so they sound good regardless of how shitty the sound systems are in peoples homes and cars. This isn’t an artistic decision, it’s what producers and sound engineers do to make records sound good for the lowest common denominator. It’s also part of the reason why live music sound better (if the gig or club has a half decent sound engineer anyway).

> Intentionally having a non-flat frequency response is equivalent to adjusting the colour space / colour grading of your monitor to not accurately represent colours.

Some content is actually deficient in some spectrums due to the limitations of the media or technologies of the era. Those limitations were intended to be compensated by speakers that added that colour. There’s a reason why studio monitors with zero frequency curve are less common to for rock fans than acoustic speakers (for example).

Lastly it’s also worth noting that not everyone’s ears hear spectrums equally. Our ears don’t have a zero frequency curve and that curve will differ from person to person. Which is why some of the best headphones out there are ones that profile your hearing and then perform post processing on the music based on your hearing profile.