Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try to photograph a toddler without this feature. Good luck. Does the fact that the iPhone allows me to do this pretty reliably without any fuss mean I have more or less control?
[flagged]
[flagged]
A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
291–300 of 414 posts
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try to photograph a toddler without this feature. Good luck. Does the fact that the iPhone allows me to do this pretty reliably without any fuss mean I have more or less control?
It's solved with constantly taking pictures into a ring buffer, either compensating for the touchscreen lag automatically or letting you select the best frame manually with a slider after the shot. Most cameras can do that (if you disable the best frame auto-selection).
The two features are not exclusionary. For low-light situations you will need this feature either way, a bunch of noisy pictures doesn’t help you.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#293I was in a butterfly house, and closeup photos removed the legs of the butterflies to keep only the wings lol. e: image link https://ibb.co/nwbw5xY
That will be the denoising. Legs are thin and can easily be interpreted as noise - especially when using digital zoom and dim light so there are very few pixels and each pixel is very noisy.
More like the poor masking algorithm interpreted the legs as background and blurred them.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you’re pretending to be dense on purpose, but taking a dozen pictures at once and automatically picking the best one can obviously save a lot of shots. Same with combining exposures.
The camera in this case wasn't taking many shots and selecting one. It wasn't just combining exposures either. It did a bunch of shitty cut/paste operations to produce an altered composite image which showed something that never happened. Some automatic features are wonderful. People have been able to take pictures of fast moving toddlers and pets for ages because of them. The camera "features" that secretly alter im…
It’s literally photo stacking, which is as old as digital photography itself. Look up any astrophotographer, or any photographer that did an HDR shot.
This is a clickbait non-article, and people’s bullshit comments with no knowledge of cameras.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t misunderstand what happened, and I know how the iPhone camera works. I was only noting a couple common cases where computational photography is really nice. I’m pretty picky about my photos and nothing I’ve shot with my iPhone has ever approached “lies”. I know those types of anomalies can happen, but they’re clearly design flaws, i.e. Apple doesn’t actually want their camera to make fantasy images. I don’t…
> I’m pretty picky about my photos and nothing I’ve shot with my iPhone has ever approached “lies”. That you know of. There could be many lies in those photos, both subtle and blunt, which you didn't notice at the moment because you weren't primed to look for them, and which you won't notice now, because you no longer remember the details of the scenes/situations being photographed, days or months ago. Are you sure I…
A blurry limb is just as much a lie.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you simply don't care if two different people are shown in the photo in poses that didn't happen at the same time? That doesn't seem to me like capturing whatever it was you wanted to capture.
It won’t happen in direct sunlight, and yeah, I will definitely take it over not having that picture in a presentable state. How is that different than creating a panorama photo?
Panoramas are mostly taken of static scenes or at least with the knowledge that it's going to mess things up if people move around. Regular photographs are generally both taken and viewed with the assumption that all the things in it happened at the same time (modulo shutter speed).
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it 100% pixel perfect to what was happening at the time? No, but I also don’t care. No photographer thinks images the they get on film are perfect reflections of reality. The lens itself introduces flaws/changes as does film and developing. You don't have to be a purist to want the ability to decide what gets captured or to have control over how it looks though. Those kinds of choices are part of what make photo…
If this feature or similar features could be disabled, it doesn't need to be an either/or situation. I don't have an iPhone though, so no idea if it's configurable. But seems that it should be, assuming it's not implemented deep in hardware.
But why? Because out of the literally trillions of images shot with an iphone a tiny tiny percentage comes out wrong, similarly to how panorama images will look if you move? It unequivocally improves the quality of images in low light by a huge margin.
This is a non-issue.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#298Purists will always hate the idea of computational photography, but I love how well my iPhone captures handheld nighttime, low-light, and motion images. I’ve captured some photos at night that I never would have thought possible from a physically small sensor due to the laws of physics. Is it 100% pixel perfect to what was happening at the time? No, but I also don’t care. I’ve used HDR exposure stacking in the past.…
I have no objection with what we have today either but it does feel slippery slope-y, especially in the AI era. Before we know it our cameras won’t just be picking the best frame for each person, it’ll be picking the best eye, tweaking their symmetry, making the skin tone as aesthetically pleasing as possible, etc etc etc. It was always this way to an extent but now that we’ve given up the pretence of photos being “r…
It’s not slippery slope-y, it is slippery slope.
This is not at all like DALL-e and midjourney, this is literally putting together multiple images taken shortly after another, but instead of dumbly putting it on another as it would manually happen in photoshop with transparent layers, it takes the first photo as a key, and merges info from the other photos into the first where it makes sense (e.g. the background didn’t move, so even this blurry frame is useful for improving that).
This is just dishonest to mix AI into that.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Over-beautifying" never happened. Noise reduction/smoothing happens in camera processing even if you don't try to do it, because it's trying to preserve signal and that's not signal. If you want that noise, you have to actually put in processing that adds it back.
Sure it did, no wrinkles, no moles unless huge, skin tone like after 2 weeks vacation in Carribean. What previously had to be done in photoshop to make people look younger is now done automatically, for every photo, and you can't turn it off. They call it 'instagram look' for quite some time, Apple is the worst among all phone manufacturers (in form of furthest from actual ugly reality, but a lot of people got used t…
It’s called noise reduction, and has been done by the most primitive cell phones since forever.
Re: A reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography
#300I don't think this is true, Apple hasn't openly said they do this level of manipulation (although that doesn't mean they don't necessarily), and I don't think the range of motions she would have to go through would be possible within a single capture. Even with "Live Photos" this wouldn't happen.
Ya the uncritical acceptance of these very non-technical articles on HN is a little disappointing