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

141–150 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#141

Post by t43562 »

Bengalilol wrote: post #137

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?

They are already doing it e.g. Sony.

https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-annou...

It needs a certificate issuance and validation system https://c2pa.org/

Re: Roc Camera

#142

Post by t43562 »

echelon wrote: post #58
modeless wrote: post #31

Seems to me that a camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the software or hardware on the device you supposedly own. It's hard for me to think this is a good direction. And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display. It's not feasible or desirable for our hardware devices to verify the informat…

This feels like pearl clutching. We do not need "proof". We lived without it, and we'll live without it again. I grew up before broadband - we survived without photographing every moment, too. It was actually kind of nice. Social media is the real fluke of our era, not image generation. And hypothetically if these cryptographic "non-AI really super serious real" verification systems do become in vogue, what happens i…

Back to the time before photographs then - the 1800s.

Crime scene photographs won't be evidence anymore. You photograph your flat (apartment) when you move in to prove that all the marks on the walls were already there and that won't be evidence anymore. The police mistreat you but your video of it won't be evidence either. etc

Re: Roc Camera

#144

Post by dimas_codes »

I am sorry if I missed something or someone already asked it, but:

If I generate image with AI, print it, then take a photo of it with Roc Camera so that you can't tell that this is actually a printed image, I will then have an AI image with ZKP of its authenticity?

Re: Roc Camera

#145

Post by oxalorg »

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 have clicked about ~20,000 photographs on a Sony camera in the last year and a half. And I have published exactly 0 of those photos on social media.

Whenever I meet my friends and family, I show them the pictures myself and the story behind them.

I love the thrill of street photography and it gives me immense pleasure to capture candid moments of humans. It's a great creative outlet for me and helps me think about life and philosophy through my pictures.

Maybe one day I will care enough about publishing these pictures, maybe one day I will care about AI. But right now, I don't. This is the closest I've been to my "kid"-like self, just enjoying something for the heck for it.

Re: Roc Camera

#146

Post by blharr »

merelysounds wrote: post #112

I’m a photographer in my spare time; looks like this product isn’t about what images are being produced, or about the shooting experience - and this discourages me. When the goal is having a proof that the photo hasn’t been edited or ai generated, using an analog camera and shooting on film seems more practical to me than using a device like this.

Could an AI not be trained to emulate the look of analog film and its artifacts?

Re: Roc Camera

#147

Post by ludicrousdispla »

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…

This might have immediate application in certain business sectors, such as real estate and insurance.

Re: Roc Camera

#148

Post by ajdlinux »

My initial reactions:

- I hope they succeed and eventually deliver a solid version of this product - verifiable photography is going to become important, and it's good to see startups working on this - While I'm sure some artists will like the idea of verifiable photography, the applications that matter to me are any kind of photography that has the potential to end up in a news article or in court - Selling what is essentially a prototype is fine, it's extremely obvious that's what it is, they explicitly say it! Who cares if it's not very good as a camera? - The almost complete lack of information on their site about their security model or how their ZKPs work is not particularly encouraging - It follows that my faith that either the cryptography or the hardware anti-tamper measures in this beta device would stand up to even some decent amateurs, given a couple of weeks to have a crack at it, is not high. I'm almost tempted to buy one just to see how far I, a random kernel engineer who gets modestly decent scores at my local hacker con CTF, could get. But I may well be completely underestimating them! Hard to tell with the fairly scarce information - Why did they pick a name that's similar to a) AMD's GPU stack, and b) the law enforcement/natsec computer vision business, ROC (https://roc.ai)?

Re: Roc Camera

#149

Post by flyinglizard »

Good thinking, but the problem here is that in order to make a good camera which takes verifiable photos you first need to make a good camera, and that's quite hard.

Re: Roc Camera

#150

Post by anigbrowl »

I like the concept (because I was proposing such a couple of years back) and the software implementation seems good. But holy shit that thing is ugly. They could(should) have worked with a cheap camera maker like Lomokino to make a bare-bones rangefinder or twin lens reflex. This is one of the worst designs I have ever seen. Sorry.
Post reply on HN