Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

googleresearch.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 249 posts

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#111

Post by marshray »

georgemcbay wrote: post #105
darkmighty wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I think it's ok to edit as long as it doesn't produce significant logical inconsistencies from the original (A=>B) - e.g. two missiles are turned into three; or it seemed to be late afternoon which can be made to seem nighttime from color balance (when that's significant). Procedures like blurring shouldn't be able to cause those because like you mentioned the could have been done in situ with a camera, and they…

There are certainly some cases where the line is a bit blurry. Consider this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544662/Pulitzer-Pri... The edit doesn't really introduce any "logical inconsistencies", it just acts to "remove" the photographer from the scene (by way of removing his other camera), and yet it was ultimately a fire-able-offense.

The photographer, Narciso Contreras had manipulated a photo of a Syrian rebel by using a common Photoshop technique called 'cloning' in order to remove a fellow reporter's camera out of the picture, before sending it to an AP photo desk.

He removed another photographer's camera, essentially exaggerating his own ability to get pictures that other photographers cannot.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#112

Post by niels_olson »

jawns wrote: post #41
grecy wrote: post #12

We had an interesting discussion about this a few nights ago at a Photojournalism talk. In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits. It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not ve…

When you say "digital edits are seriously banned," I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo. What's not allowed, as you allude to, is retouching a photo. So does introducing blur after the photo was taken count as retouching, or does it fall into the same category as color correction? It…

> the same effect with a DSLR and there would be no outcry.

I think at some point the metadata would have to set the precedent. If the image capture device were forensically examined and showed the image was taken as it, then it's untouched. If it was downloaded and blurred, then it's not untouched.

I think a similar, albiet reverse, comparison would be the iPhone's panorama function. If your cousin jumped from one end of the frame to the other, the camera's not lying. It's the person.

If the Google Camera app took the picture and the metadata prove it, the camera's not lying.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#113

Post by cclogg »

georgemcbay wrote: post #76
grecy wrote: post #12

We had an interesting discussion about this a few nights ago at a Photojournalism talk. In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits. It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not ve…

On a slightly related tangent, every time I see someone post a "#nofilter" photo on facebook I have to bite my tongue to stop from asking them how their camera managed to separate the RGB channels without a Bayer (or similar, eg Foveon) filter. I mean, I sort of get what they are saying and I hate the overuse of Instagram filters probably much more than the next guy, but the odd relevance people place towards getting…

Regarding no filters, I've been shooting on 35mm film for the last year and been really enjoying it, almost never have to color correct, and the photos look so damn good! (especially skin tones)

I just do develop + scan at the drug store, no prints lol.

Doesn't work for everyone though, as waiting a day for photos might not be ideal (but I enjoy the anticipation heh).

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#114

Post by randyrand »

servowire wrote: post #79

I'm no photographer, but I was tought this was called bokeh not blur. Blur is more because of motion during open shutter.

I think it's more accurate to call bokeh a type of blur. But I still agree with you in that the name Google Lens Bokeh is more accurate, but it sounds worse so...

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#115

Post by sneak »

grecy wrote: post #98
jawns wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "digital edits are seriously banned," I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo. What's not allowed, as you allude to, is retouching a photo. So does introducing blur after the photo was taken count as retouching, or does it fall into the same category as color correction? It…

> I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo. Yep, sorry. I was a bit rushed when I wrote my comment. I should have said "digital edits beyond basic color correction".

...and cropping.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

georgemcbay wrote: post #105
darkmighty wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I think it's ok to edit as long as it doesn't produce significant logical inconsistencies from the original (A=>B) - e.g. two missiles are turned into three; or it seemed to be late afternoon which can be made to seem nighttime from color balance (when that's significant). Procedures like blurring shouldn't be able to cause those because like you mentioned the could have been done in situ with a camera, and they…

There are certainly some cases where the line is a bit blurry. Consider this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544662/Pulitzer-Pri... The edit doesn't really introduce any "logical inconsistencies", it just acts to "remove" the photographer from the scene (by way of removing his other camera), and yet it was ultimately a fire-able-offense.

It seems to me that photojournalists in general ought to be disclosing any digital editing (especially if it is near the boundary), and it ought to be an editorial decision on the part of the publication on using the photos. The only thing that ever ought to be a firing offense (in this area!) for a photojournalist is undisclosed edits which interfere with ability to make informed editorial decisions.

On the other hand, while I agree that firing might be an extreme response, the edit in question does seriously effect the implied context of the picture. On the third hand, it does so in a way which photojournalist often seek to do through composition, so as you say, the ethics are a bit blurry -- which gets back to why I think disclosure and editorial decisions on whether and how to use photos is more important than blanket policies on edits (digital or otherwise).

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#117

Post by refrigerator »

guardian5x wrote: post #99

I guess that is exactly the same as Nokias Refocus that is on the Lumia Phones for quite some time: https://refocus.nokia.com/

Refocus is awesome and I owe many but not as powerful as this at all - Refocus takes like 10 photos at different levels of focus, so you're limited to the amount of bokeh that the small phone sensor can produce, i.e you only get a nice blurred background when you're taking a really close up picture of something. The new Google Camera feature lets you take a portrait at a normal distance, and simulate f1.8, which is a lot better than what Refocus can do.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#118

Post by justincormack »

bronson wrote: post #59
JTon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a photography layman and I really can't tell it was done with postprocessing. What gives it away for you?

The blur is far too uniform and boring. Actual bokeh has more intrigue to it: lens aberrations, crazy highlights, wonderful patterns, even when the depth of field isn't very extreme. Check out some real examples on google image search: https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_s... I'm impressed! Looks like Google solved the hard problem. Implementing a more pleasing blur than plain gaussian doesn't…

Especially in large format petzval and similar lenses eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/721576...

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#120

Post by caycep »

jawns wrote: post #5

Regarding the technology (achieving shallow depth of field through an algorithm), not Google's specific implementation ... Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR). You can simulate it in Photoshop, but generally it takes a lot of work and the results aren't great. The "sh…

Eh...$15 used 50mm f1.4 or F2.0 lens and $25 film body from KEH.com...
Post reply on HN