131–140 of 159 posts
So, we get worse SNR data from the device and then enhance it with compressed knowledge from millions of past MRI images? Isn't it like shooting the movie with Grandpa's 8mm camera and then enhancing and upscaling it like those folks on YouTube do with historical footage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still remember the zoom and enhance joke they played on red dwarf. Parody has become reality.
Immortalized in Super Troopers (2001). https://youtu.be/KiqkclCJsZs
That Science let this through peer review and editor filtering is pretty damning. This wouldn't pass 5 minutes of review here on Hacker News.
Neither did Dropbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been. Courts, for example. Forensic science was revolutionized by widespread adoption of photography leading to a reduction of the importance given to witnesses. Who also hallucinate what might have happened.
Pretty much all modern digital cameras are using heuristics and algorithms to construct the image you see - it's not just a sensor grid and a bitmap file and it hasn't been for a long time.
The important property is how the pixels are correlated with the physical reality being imaged - because the goal is to reason and learn about the depicted subject though information in the photo. Heuristics and algorithms for demosaicing, white balance, auto-brightness/dynamic range, lens collection, removing motion blur, etc. improve the correlation or improve our ability to see it. This is fine, though you need to be aware at time which properties of the image are to be treated as relative vs. absolute.
This is also a far cry from having your camera think, "I'm a consumer camera! Normies often shoot pictures of the Moon, so this fuzzy circle must be it; let me paste a high-resolution photo of the Moon there", or "gee, normies often shoot sportsball, so this green thing must be astroturf, and this grey blob is probably the ball", etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an excellent ponit, and I don't know where to exactly draw the line ("I know it when I see it"). I personally use "auto" (probably heuristic, maybe soon-ish AI-powered) features to adjust levels, color balance etc. Using AI to add things that are _not at all present_ in the original crossed the line into digital art vs photography for me.
There was the small complication of the fact that the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.
I would object slightly less if they made a model (3D or AI) that captures the whole side of the Moon in high detail, and used that, combined with precise location and date/time, to guide resolving the blob in camera input into a high-resolution rendering *that matches, with high accuracy and precision, what the camera would actually see if it had better optics and sensor*. It still feels like faking things, but at least the goal would be to match reality as close as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been. Courts, for example. Forensic science was revolutionized by widespread adoption of photography leading to a reduction of the importance given to witnesses. Who also hallucinate what might have happened.
Pretty much all modern digital cameras are using heuristics and algorithms to construct the image you see - it's not just a sensor grid and a bitmap file and it hasn't been for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water. Welcome to England!
I still remember the zoom and enhance joke they played on red dwarf. Parody has become reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an excellent ponit, and I don't know where to exactly draw the line ("I know it when I see it"). I personally use "auto" (probably heuristic, maybe soon-ish AI-powered) features to adjust levels, color balance etc. Using AI to add things that are _not at all present_ in the original crossed the line into digital art vs photography for me.
There was the small complication of the fact that the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.
Probably not exactly the same side and orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration: “over time, slightly more than half (about 59% in total) of the Moon's surface is seen from Earth due to libration”
A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.
People were commenting on that thread how apple phone ie mirrored only bunny within bigger picture of a bunny in the grass (thats rather hilarious 'bug'), and we all know how apple consistently removes all moles and wrinkles, changes completely skin tone and overall tonality like every single picture looks like its taken in the golden sunset hour. Ie that nasty samsung is much more truthful when it comes to this, including latest flagships.
That's outright lying too, IMHO much worse - moon is tidally locked so showing exactly same side with same features for millions of years, so they were adding details that are there, just impossible to see on non-stabilized tiny plastic lens&sensor combo in the night.
Making somebody 20 years younger, much prettier and changing their overall look on most important feature we humans have, doing it by default without any real option to turn it off, does a lot of long term body-perception damage in young folks.