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

What an unprocessed photo looks like

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 418 posts

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#171

Post by Forgeties79 »

nospice wrote: post #51
Forgeties79 wrote: post #27

For those who are curious, this is basically what we do when we color grade in video production but taken to its most extreme. Or rather, stripped down to the most fundamental level. Lots of ways to describe it. Generally we shoot “flat” (there are so many caveats to this but I don’t feel like getting bogged down in all of it. If you plan on getting down and dirty with colors and really grading, you generally shoot f…

"Flat" is a bit of a misnomer in this context. It's not flat, it's actually a logarithmic ("log profile") representation of data computed by the camera to allow a wider dynamic range to be squeezed into traditional video formats. It's sort of the opposite of what's going on with photography, where you have a dedicated "raw" format with linear readings from the sensor. Without these formats, someone would probably hav…

I said “flat” because I didn’t feel like going into “log” and color profiles and such but I’ll admit I’m leaning hard into over-simplification, because log, raw, etc. gets messy when discussing profiles vs codecs/compression/etc. In video we still call some codecs “raw,” but it’s not the same necessarily as how it’s used in photography. Like the Red raw codec has various compression ratios (5:1 tends to be the sweet spot IME) and it really messes with the whole idea of what raw even is. It’s all quasi-technical and somewhat inconsistent.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#175

Post by acomjean »

kdazzle wrote: post #163
brookst wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even old school chemical films were the same thing, just different domain. There is no such thing as “unprocessed” data, at least that we can perceive.

Exactly - film photographers heavily process(ed) their images from the film processing through to the print. Ansel Adams wrote a few books on the topic and they’re great reads. And different films and photo papers can have totally different looks, defined by the chemistry of the manufacturer and however _they_ want things to look.

Excepting slide photos. No real adjustment once taken (a more difficult medium than negative film which you can adjust a little when printing)

You’re right about Ansel Adams. He “dodged and burned” extensively (lightened and darkened areas when printing.) Photoshop kept the dodge and burn names on some tools for a while.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCtni-WWVs

When we printed for our college paper we had a dial that could adjust the printed contrast a bit of our black and white “multigrade” paper (it added red light). People would mess with the processing to get different results too (cold/ sepia toned). It was hard to get exactly what you wanted and I kind of see why digital took over.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#176

Post by RestartKernel »

DonHopkins wrote: post #133
MarkusWandel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Better"...

"AIer"... Who even needs a lens or CCD any more? Artist develops a camera that takes AI-generated images based on your location. Paragraphica generates pictures based on the weather, date, and other information. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/ai-camera-images-paragr...

Thanks for the link, that's a very interesting statement piece. There must be some word though for the artistic illiteracy in those X/Twitter replies.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#177

Post by Gibbon1 »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #94

But does applying the same transfer function to each pixel (of a given colour anyway) count as "processing"? What bothers me as an old-school photographer is this. When you really pushed it with film (e.g. overprocess 400ISO B&W film to 1600 ISO and even then maybe underexpose at the enlargement step) you got nasty grain. But that was uniform "noise" all over the picture. Nowadays, noise reduction is impressive, but…

Was mentioning to my GF (non technical animator) about the submission Clock synchronization is a nightmare. And how it comes up like a bad penny. She said in animation you have the problem that you're animating to match different streams and you have to keep in sync. Bonus you have to dither because if you match too close the players can smell it's off.

Noise is part of the world itself.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#178

Post by mgraczyk »

userbinator wrote: post #146
mgraczyk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? What algorithm was used for downsampling? What was the high frequency content of the downsampled imagine after doing a psuedo inverse with upsampling? How closely does it match the Samsung output? My point is that there IS an experiment which would show that Samsung is doing some nonstandard processing likely involving replacement. The evidence provided is insufficient to show that

You have clearly made no attempts to read the original article which has a lot more evidence (or are actively avoiding it), and somehow seem to be defending Samsung voraciously but emptily, so you're not worth arguing with and I'll just leave this here: I zoomed in on the monitor showing that image and, guess what, again you see slapped on detail, even in the parts I explicitly clipped (made completely 100% white):

> somehow seem to be defending Samsung voraciously but emptily

The first words I said were that Samsung probably did this

And you're right that I didn't read the dozens of edits which were added after the original post. I was basing my arguments off everything before the "conclusion section", which it seems the author understands was not actually conclusive.

I agree that the later experiments, particularly the "two moons" experiment were decisive.

Also to be clear, I know that Samsung was doing this, because as I said I worked at a competitor. At the time I did my own tests on Samsung devices because I was also working on moon related image quality

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#179

Post by mgraczyk »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #126
mgraczyk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mistaken and the original experiment does not distinguish between classic edge aware upscaling/super resolution vs more problematic replacement

I'm mistaken about which part? Let's start here: You did not link an example of upscaling, the before and after are the same size. Unsharp filters enhance false edges on almost all images. If you claim either one of those are wrong, you're being ridiculous.

I think if you paste our conversation into ChatGPT it can explain the relevant upsampling algorithms. There are algorithms that will artificially enhance edges in a way that can look like "AI", for example everything done on pixel phones prior to ~2023

And to be clear, everyone including Apple has been doing this since at least 2017

The problem with what Samsung was doing is that it was moon-specific detection and replacement

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#180

Post by make3 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #115
make3 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a crime but applying post processing in an overly generous way that goes a lot further than replicating what a human sees does take away from what makes pictures interesting imho vs other mediums, that it's a genuine representation of something that actually happened. if you take that away, a picture is not very interesting, it's hyperrealistic so not super creative a lot of the time (compared to eg painting…

Do you also want the IR light to be in there? That would make it more of 'genuine representation'.

"of what I would've seen"
Post reply on HN