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

Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

diyphotography.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 274 posts

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#261

Post by arghwhat »

jobigoud wrote: post #254
arghwhat wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Samsung Gear S3 Frontier smart-watch, paired with a Sony Xperia X Compact (i.e. no samsung). My friend has a Samsung Galaxy Wear, paired with a Sony Xperia XZ Compact. Neither of us use any Samsung applications other than the required "gear"/"galaxy" app. I'm getting Gmail, Telegram, Slack, and all sorts of other notifications just fine, and can reply to them. So while their software sucks (unlike the hardwa…

Do they vibrate the watch? GP is saying the notifications come through but only samsung apps vibrate.

Yes. Any notification causes vibration, wakes up the watch to show the notification (or if the watch is in use, show it as a small overlay), from which one can read the content and take actions, including replying straight from the watch.

I always have the watch on silent, so no notification tone. I have no Samsung apps short of the Gear app and Samsung Health.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#262

Post by thirdsun »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #55
amatecha wrote: post #2

Ah man, I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). Just a single instance of this kind of fraud is enough for me to write off a brand forever, frankly. If you're lying to my face before I even bought your product, who knows how much else you're lying about. Zero trust for companies like this. [0] https://www.diyph…

While Huawei may have cheated that particular phone's photo taking ability, I have a Huawei P20 Pro, and can vouch it's easily the best phone camera I've ever used or seen (it has triple Leica lenses). It doesn't match my Fuji mirrorless camera in some ways, but its shockingly good for a phone.

Doesn't that render the fake images even more silly? Smartphone cameras are pretty good these days - I don't see the need to fake the results.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#263

Post by crashingpancake »

zik wrote: post #143
cgriswald wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung is completely untrustworthy. I might buy another television from them in the future as the screen quality on my Samsung televisions has always been great. But their smart appliances are a joke. Read the reviews for any of the required Samsung "Smart" Apps and you'll find terrible software that doesn't work. Where it does work, at best it technically meets the advertised criteria, but in other cases it seems l…

Samsung internet connected TVs monitor what's on your screen and send super low res snapshots up to their servers - just enough that they can automatically work out what you're watching. Your IP can then be cross-correlated with other web companies like google so they can keep a record against your full identity of everything you watch. So even their TVs aren't safe if you care about privacy. https://www.consumerrepo…

Every single TV manufacturer does that. In US, Vizio the largest HDTV brand openly sells this as a service to media agencies. Samsung and Japanese TV manufacturer data is much harder to access to and Japanese brands are generally scrupulous over permissions. No one matches any personally identifying info with this viewership data... It's all anonymized.

Source: work in ad-tech and have personally worked with this kind of data from different firms.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#264

Post by manyxcxi »

covercash wrote: post #82
cgriswald wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung is completely untrustworthy. I might buy another television from them in the future as the screen quality on my Samsung televisions has always been great. But their smart appliances are a joke. Read the reviews for any of the required Samsung "Smart" Apps and you'll find terrible software that doesn't work. Where it does work, at best it technically meets the advertised criteria, but in other cases it seems l…

I keep hoping someone will kickstart a display company that sells just really amazing displays and none of the “smart” garbage. I read that some manufacturers even serve up ads in their latest smart UIs. That’s infuriating!

I’ve been complaining about this for a few years as well. When I went to buy a new TV last year my options were so horrifically limited that I gave up, bought a highly regarded model and have purposefully never connected it to any networks.

It’s getting worse, we couldn’t even find a new fridge with the options we wanted that wasn’t ‘smart’. I wound up taking apart my LG fridge to disable the WiFi module after we bought it. Not connecting it to the WiFi wasn’t enough, the damn thing broadcasts it’s own wireless network and I got sick and tired of seeing it. Shocker, there was no way to turn it off.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#265

Post by kup0 »

brianpan wrote: post #229
kirykl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True many car ads are actually cgi

CGI is not lying. Faking photos as a demo of the camera is lying.

Depends on one's definition of lying, I suppose. At the very least CGI car ads are implying that you're watching the actual cars being sold being used in the various situations shown, when in actuality it is a generic rig that a CGI image has been stretched over.

I don't know that it materially makes much of a difference or really matters for car ads... as long as the cars shown can accomplish/look like in reality what they appear as in the ads. Still yet I think the intent is to have the public believe that they are watching video of the actual vehicles, in which case, one could call this "lying" in some form (whether or not we want to ascribe any particular moral bent to the term)

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#266

Post by kup0 »

namibj wrote: post #228
dawnerd wrote: post #120

Samsung just isn’t a company you can trust. Period. The only consumer product they make that’s even half decent are their SSDs and even those are starting to lose to competitors. Their TVs alone have had so many instances of them injecting ads into the ui, to spying on what you watch in plex, and many more. Last thing I’d want from Samsung is a phone.

Can you recommend any other SSDs, or some site that has meaningful tail latency/MTBF data? I don't like sticking to them for SSDs, but I have yet to hear of one breaking, compared to a bunch of other name brands.

Indeed, I have an old 64GB 830 that is still working as if it's brand new.

So far I've had good experience with Crucial MX series, PNY CS11xx series of drives (YMMV widely depending on series, etc) and Sandisk, all have lasted through quite some use, but honestly I still prefer Samsung or Intel. I've been using the Crucial drive for long enough now that I'd probably make them a top choice too. Samsung, Intel, Crucial would be my top 3.

I've been running a Western Digital nvme for a couple of weeks now and it's great- but that says nothing about longevity. The speed of nvme is incredible though, so I really hope this drive lasts.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#267

Post by phasetransition »

shard wrote: post #215
phasetransition wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is classic galvanic corrosion. The manufacturing engineer in me understands why they made this choice, but the materials engineer in me is surprised they did. (And, yes, I own a Samsung washer). If you want to learn more about the electrochemistry here, Google "Pourbaix Diagram"

Could you clarify what the manufacturing angle and the materials angle is for this choice? Thanks.

The short version is that it is much easier to form complicated shapes in aluminum than stainless. Easier to form and more processes to do so.

On the materials side, When you connect dissimilar metals, their is a potential that forms between them (long topic). This drives redox reactions at the surfaces of the two metals, and the stable species depend on the pH of the water they are in. In this case the aluminum will preferentially dissolve into solution. If you must connect dissimilar metals, you want the surface area of the more Noble (i.e. SS) to be small, and the metal that corrodes large. This is because you actually care about current density (current/area) on the part that is corroding. Here you have a lot of surface area of stainless, which, in broad strokes, is probably not a good decision.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#268

Post by DenisM »

tptacek wrote: post #221
DenisM wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite that Apple shipped a watch face in iOS 6 that was ripped from Mondaine: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-accused-of-ripping-off-famou... This crap can happen to anyone, it's how they handle it what matters most. Apple apologized (and paid for it).

Using a trademarked design doesn't misrepresent the capabilities of the device. Using a DSLR photo in promotional material about a phone camera obviously does. The two incidents are not comparable.

Both cases are due to lack diligence and supervision in the media assets accusation.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#269

Post by tptacek »

DenisM wrote: post #268
tptacek wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a trademarked design doesn't misrepresent the capabilities of the device. Using a DSLR photo in promotional material about a phone camera obviously does. The two incidents are not comparable.

Both cases are due to lack diligence and supervision in the media assets accusation.

No, Samsung legitimately acquired the IPR for their promotional material, but used it to lie to consumers; Apple failed to secure rights to a watch face, but did nothing to mislead anyone. The two cases aren’t comparable, other than “both cases represent mistakes”.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#270

Post by hacym »

ttty wrote: post #210

Well iPhone ads use DSLR lens in front of the iPhone. A bit closer to reality, but net effects are the same, fake advertising. This is not to excuse Samsung, it's just to remember that most of the companies does that and all should be mentioned, not just one.

I find it funny that people care about the equipment a photo is taken on. Those photos are taken by professional photographers with professional lighting setups and professional models. I subscribe to Ken Rockwell's belief that you don't need a fancy camera to take a good photo, you just need to be a good photographer [0].

I used to sell cameras in high school/college, and ALWAYS steered people away from DSLRs/high megapixel cameras that flaunt the quality of their cameras. Likely, those people will never get close to needing a high-quality camera's features, and their purchase of one would almost always result in a return.

[0] https://kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

Post reply on HN