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

261–270 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#261

Post by kristo »

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'm not sure this is targeting you, but possibly rather journalistic photos where being able to prove authenticity is important

Re: Roc Camera

#262

Post by realharo »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #191
abricq wrote: post #183

What I am waiting for is something similar to this (proof of image ownership / authenticity) embedded in smartphones cameras. Not sure if ZK is the right way of achieving this. Even if the cryptographic guarantees are strong, generating these proofs is very expensive.

That's tricky because it needs to store and verify metadata that the user cannot edit and that allows one to distinguish a "normal" photo from a professional photography of a photo. The only place where this can happen are the camera settings but these are limited on smart phones and it's not easy to discern the two cases. I'm sure someone would print a 10x10 meter fake image, put it at just the right distance, and w…

Just include a depth sensor, lidar, etc. I'm sure over time that will become increasingly easy to defeat too, but then we can just keep improving the sensors too.

Re: Roc Camera

#263

Post by noduerme »

xg15 wrote: post #121
noduerme wrote: post #72

It's wild that it's already come to this: The camera itself becomes more important as the instrument to provide zero-trust proof. This is a brilliant solution to one of the most critical emergent problems. I can see a world where no digital image can be trusted if it doesn't come with a hash. There is also something called "film" which might be a retro answer to this problem.

Until people start to make AI images, print them out and then make a "real" photo of the printout to get the hash.

I think there would be ways to detect that from the final image. Also if the hash contains date/time/location info.

Re: Roc Camera

#264

Post by swores »

m00x wrote: post #81
nayuki wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canon gave users the option to sign their photographs with "add original decision data". It got cracked. * https://petapixel.com/2010/12/01/russian-software-firm-break... * https://www.elcomsoft.com/presentations/Forging_Canon_Origin...

and you think this rushed product won't be?

I would broadly expect software made by most camera brands to be shit, while I would expect a developer who creates their own hardware projects (generally, not talking specifically about cameras) to range from idiots who have no idea what they're doing (like me, though to be fair I also wouldn't release it believing it to be good) to highly skilled coders who would get it right despite being on their own.

So I wouldn't automatically assume that a product like this would be better designed, but I would think there's a chance it might have been!

Re: Roc Camera

#265

Post by aspenmayer »

lynx97 wrote: post #260
aspenmayer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t make fun of you, though. I’m saying it’s not your right to complain about things you don’t know about if you don’t suffer harm, even and especially if you come to know about them. People make fun of other people for reasons or in the absence of them. For you to make a logical leap to imply I’m saying it’s okay to make fun of people, or saying that having a disability is a slight, or blameworthy, or deserving…

The "you" in my writing was refering to any photographer who takes a picture of me without my consent. I should probably mave made that clearer. IOW, I am not suggesting that you in particular are making fun of me or anyone you photograph. But since we were talking about strangers, I have no way of knowing how that photoographer will act. Sure, you in particular probably have a morale compass. However, in the general…

> And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do that, simply because I can never know what they will end up doing with that photo.

Jurisprudence in my country can’t preempt legal activities because they might lead to wrongdoing in the future. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t know what you think folks are likely to do, but there are likely already laws against doing most things you would take umbrage with.

There’s no need to winnow our rights out of concern for your “mights.”

Re: Roc Camera

#266

Post by danielbln »

keepamovin wrote: post #87
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 think real photography is sort of like archery, you know, in the moment, feeling it, release at the right time, to capture that. I think in a sense of the candid street, or Magnum photogs. That kind of spirit. And that is innately satisfying and a fun way to engage with the world around you. :)

Even "unreal" photography can be like that . My phone may do all of the mechanical work + post-processing, but framing, angle, foreground/background and capturing just the right moment is just as much fun (well, for me anyway).

Re: Roc Camera

#267

Post by foldr »

MarcelOlsz wrote: post #182
mikepurvis wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.

Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?

I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option.

I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.

Re: Roc Camera

#269

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

Commoditization is a good way to phrase it; first with affordable digital cameras, then with smartphones, photos have become more content than art. With smart filters and digital enhancement, mistakes and imperfect conditions have been fixed.

AI won't replace that, just creates an alternative way to generate content without needing to be physically present somewhere.

Re: Roc Camera

#270

Post by Mistletoe »

jeswin wrote: post #96

I am actually willing to support DIY camera efforts, but if you're semi-serious about taking pictures, this just wouldn't work. First, Raspberry Pi (I'm guessing this is a CM4/CM5) is a disaster for a camera board. Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a picture, cameras need to be near instantaneous. And you can't keep it on either, because the RPi can't really sleep. There are boards that can actually…

I think almost everyone here is missing the point of this camera. In the post truth AI future, this is the camera you want when you photograph the billionaire or President or your spouse doing something awful. Any other photo proof won’t work because it can always be called fake. And yes I’m being serious. You are missing the point if you say the quality isn’t good enough or it’s too slow or bulky. The idea is the provable authenticity, which is going to be very important in the coming decades.
Post reply on HN