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

311–320 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#311

Post by cesaref »

There's the C2PA standard which has picked up momentum recently to I guess help resolve some of the issues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2024-03-c2pa-verification-news...

I believe various cameras support this, e.g. https://www.canon-europe.com/press-centre/press-releases/202...

`C2PA Authenticity: Integrated support for the C2PA standard for photo authenticity verification – initially available exclusively for registered news agencies.`

Sounds like it's limited to some users for now, I guess this will change in the future.

Going too far won't really help, since the scene being photographed can be manipulated or staged, which sounds more likely to be a concern rather than the hardware being hacked.

Re: Roc Camera

#312

Post by divan »

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’ve been (really, really) into photography since I was six, and I’m still (really, really) at it three decades later. I never felt much appeal toward photography as an art form – it’s always been a way to capture moments and share them with people I care about.

These days I play with both AI photography and “normal” photography. My main camera is the A9 III with a global shutter – a machine gun that fires 120fps RAW files. I shoot a lot of sports, and the people I photograph are thrilled to get such high-quality shots of moments that mattered to them. It doesn’t really matter how much cultural value society attaches to photos – those captured moments will always be meaningful to them, and they feel joy when they see them. That’s the whole point of photography for me.

AI photography is a bit different. I take 15–20 photos of a friend’s face with my camera, train a LoRA model to use with Flux1.dev, and upload it to network storage on RunPod. Then I spin up a serverless worker on an H100 that runs the ComfyUI API, and use my own Flutter-based frontend to play with prompts and generate new photos of that person. I can make far better headshots this way than in a real studio. For some friends, it’s even been a therapeutic experience – seeing so many high-quality images of themselves looking confident, happy, and fully alive helped them feel that way, even if just for a moment. One friend told me, “You did more with these AI photos of me than therapy did in the past year.”

Re: Roc Camera

#313

Post by MontyCarloHall »

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…

>Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't inspect its digital authenticity hash.

This has rapidly changed over the last few months. As more and more pictures/videos going viral on social media are AI-generated [0, 1], real pictures/videos of remarkable things are increasingly falsely called out as AI-generated [2]. People are definitely starting to care, and while the toy camera in the linked article is merely an artistic statement, having some ubiquitously standardized way of unambiguously validating content generated by a real recording device is going to become paramount.

[0] https://www.today.com/news/bunnies-jumping-trampoline-viral-...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O-8kAnBL2s

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/skiing/comments/1oeda67/my_highligh...

Re: Roc Camera

#314

Post by JohnKemeny »

Mistletoe wrote: post #270
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 pr…

You can just AI generate a photo and snap a picture of that.

There's no such thing as provable authenticity.

Re: Roc Camera

#315

Post by rocqua »

rkomorn wrote: post #234
aspenmayer wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs, and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography, but in those places I’m familiar with, street photography is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t arg…

> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore. There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in publ…

There's legally usually quite a big gap between what pictures you can take of people, and how you can publish them.

In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there are significant limits to how such pictures can be published (including social media).

Re: Roc Camera

#316

Post by mig1 »

muldvarp wrote: post #116
Gigachad wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI slop. People in general don’t want the slop, but it’s seeping in everywhere with no easy way to mass remove. The problem with the linked product is it’s basically DRM with a baked in encryption key. And we have seen time and time again that with enough effort, it’s always been possible to extract that key.

> There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI slop. I fully agree, I just don't know how that could work. I think GenAI will kill the internet as we know it. The smart thing is (and always has been) to be online less and build real connections to real people offline.

There’s an assumption on HN that everyone can identify AI slop because pretty much everyone here can. But my personal experience and what I think might be more in line with reality is that the majority of social media users can’t tell or don’t care.

Re: Roc Camera

#317

Post by ACCount37 »

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 some of the modern iPhone cameras use SLVS, so non-iPhone Apple Silicon might have a way of connecting to that natively too. Good luck using that though.

Without a native connection option, what remains to you is probably an FPGA converter (to MIPI CSI-2 D-PHY), which is going to be expensive of course. But still not as expensive as the sensor itself and the associated optics.

Re: Roc Camera

#318

Post by Nextgrid »

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…

> Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a picture

But that's less due to the RPi and more due to lots of amateur projects that ship the RPi with a desktop Linux distribution like Raspbian (itself based on a very conservative one - Debian - that loves preserving decades of legacy crap).

You can absolutely get quick boot times on an RPi (or on an x86 machine for that matter, although you are limited by the time the firmware itself takes to boot) if you build your own read-only image with Buildroot/Yocto like any embedded shop would.

But I agree with the rest of the comment - an RPi is a terrible device for this (and for most purposes besides prototyping in fact). But not because of boot time reasons.

Re: Roc Camera

#319

Post by cardanome »

lynx97 wrote: post #224
bborud wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some drivers use my shots o…

I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is…

I find it strange how people consider taking pictures of strangers as some basic right.

Here in Germany, people have a right to their own image. You can't just photograph strangers. You can photograph a crowd at a public event but you can't zoom in on one specific stranger. Also you can photograph people that are of public interest.

Maybe it is me who is biased but I find these rules quite reasonable. It protects both my privacy while allowing photographers to do their job. If you want to photograph a stranger, ask for consent.

Re: Roc Camera

#320

Post by vanviegen »

vineyardmike wrote: post #107
Gigachad wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI slop. People in general don’t want the slop, but it’s seeping in everywhere with no easy way to mass remove. The problem with the linked product is it’s basically DRM with a baked in encryption key. And we have seen time and time again that with enough effort, it’s always been possible to extract that key.

Respectfully, I completely disagree. People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop, even if they point and say eww when it's discussed. Some people care, and some additional people pretend they care, but it just isn't a real issue that is driving behavior. Putting aside (for now) the idea of misinformation, slop is socially problematic when it puts artists out of work, but social media slop is just a new, sad…

> The ability of average citizens to film some injustice and share it globally with just their phone is a remarkably important social power we've unlocked, and would risk losing.

I'd say we've already mostly lost that due to AI. We might gain it back if cryptographic camera signatures become commonplace (and aren't too easy too crack).

Post reply on HN