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

Roc Camera

roc.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#131

Post by MarcelOlsz »

barrell wrote: post #120
peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment t…

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

Re: Roc Camera

#132

Post by ajdlinux »

ellenhp wrote: post #113
dusted wrote: post #85

I don't understand how the "proof" part works, like, what part of the input to the "proof generation" algorithm is so inherently tied to the real world that one cannot feed it "fake" data ?

If someone cared enough to spend money on this I think it would be an easy to medium difficulty project to use an FPGA and a CSI-2 IP to pretend to be the sensor. Good luck fixing that without baking a secure element into your sensor.

I'd be shocked if the major sensor vendors don't already have engineers working on exactly that, though.

Re: Roc Camera

#133

Post by pjerem »

vineyardmike wrote: post #107
Gigachad wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI slop. People in general don’t want the slop, but it’s seeping in everywhere with no easy way to mass remove. The problem with the linked product is it’s basically DRM with a baked in encryption key. And we have seen time and time again that with enough effort, it’s always been possible to extract that key.

Respectfully, I completely disagree. People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop, even if they point and say eww when it's discussed. Some people care, and some additional people pretend they care, but it just isn't a real issue that is driving behavior. Putting aside (for now) the idea of misinformation, slop is socially problematic when it puts artists out of work, but social media slop is just a new, sad…

Saying that there is a market for a sane social network does not means it's a market as big as the other social networks. You don't have to conquer the world to have a nice product.

Re: Roc Camera

#134

Post by foxglacier »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

People absolutely care that photos are real. There was somebody on here recently who had to read the photographer's story of how he planned it all to be comfortable it was real. Especially for those bird-in-front-of-sun type photos.

Re: Roc Camera

#135

Post by russellbeattie »

This shouldn't be a product, but a licensed patented technology like Dolby or CDMA, sold to OEMs and directly integrated into cameras and phones.

It should be an industry standard system for guaranteeing authenticity by coordinating hardware and software to be as tamper proof as possible and saved in a cryptographically verifiable way.

No system like this would be perfect, but that's the enemy of the good.

Re: Roc Camera

#136

Post by quietfox »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

I really need to get back to that mindset. I keep catching myself unconsciously checking my hobbies and abilities for marketability. I've been playing guitar for almost three decades, one of them spent in a touring metal band. When I started, I used to enjoy making music so much that I played and composed so often an album would just come together naturally. And then another one and another one, I just couldn't stop. These days, I no longer sit down to play just for myself and the moment — instead, I catch myself thinking, “Can I sell sample packs from this? Record a course? Should I code a VST plugin for it and sell that?” And after weeks of moments like this, all I have are three random riffs and frustration.

Re: Roc Camera

#137

Post by Bengalilol »

The main argument of this product is to "capture verifiably real moments". Though I find it interesting (and am quite liking the object), I do not tend to think this is a strong argument for this product: capturing a picture of a unreal picture would make it real (as discussed in this thread), moreover what would prevent any phone manufacturer from integrating the same type of "validation" into their hardware?

Re: Roc Camera

#138

Post by grey-area »

This looks interesting. I love the retro styling and transparent case. The proofs and selling it as some sort of fight-back against AI seems tenuous and as the user controls the hardware - going to be hard to keep that system hermetically sealed due to giving the user the keys on device. Also though almost nobody actually cares very much about attesting that their photos are somehow real and untouched by AI.

There are larger problems when you consider this question. What is real and not in photography is a long and storied debate - any photograph is ultimately a curation of a small part of the real world - what is just out of frame could completely change the interpretation of the viewer if they saw it, regardless of whether the picture is unaltered after taking. The choice of framing, colours, subject etc etc can radically alter meaning. There is no getting away from this.

So ultimately I don't think the biggest problem facing photography is attested reality. I actually think the democratisation of photography offers a better way out - we have so many views on each event now that it's actually harder to fake because there are usually hundreds of pictures of the same thing.

PS for the site author, there is a typo in the sentence beginning - remove the an 'By combining sensors, an on-device zero-knowledge proofs'.

Re: Roc Camera

#140

Post by woodpanel »

vineyardmike wrote: post #107
Gigachad wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI slop. People in general don’t want the slop, but it’s seeping in everywhere with no easy way to mass remove. The problem with the linked product is it’s basically DRM with a baked in encryption key. And we have seen time and time again that with enough effort, it’s always been possible to extract that key.

Respectfully, I completely disagree. People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop, even if they point and say eww when it's discussed. Some people care, and some additional people pretend they care, but it just isn't a real issue that is driving behavior. Putting aside (for now) the idea of misinformation, slop is socially problematic when it puts artists out of work, but social media slop is just a new, sad…

> People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop

I fear, your statement is impossible to be denied its validity, when "Tung Tung Tung Sahur"-Trading-Cards and "Tralalero Tralala"-T-Shirts are a thing.

Post reply on HN