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

321–330 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#321

Post by Razengan »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #128
ConorSheehan1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is it can't. The proof is "this photo was taken with this real camera and is unmodified". There's no way to know if the photo subject is another image generated by AI, or a painting made by a human etc.

^^This so much. I remember when snapchat were touting "send picture that delete within timeframes set by you!" and all that would happen is you'd turn to your friend and have them take a picture of your phone. In the above case, the outcome was messy. But with some effort, people could make reasonable quality "certified" pictures of damn near anything by taking a picture of a picture. Then there is the more technical…

3. Tech that can directly read memories from our brains.

Re: Roc Camera

#322

Post by micromacrofoot »

I find that most people who want to ground things in reality, that is at least "reality" without AI or whatever filters are put on photos by phones these days, don't have much interest in any sort of cryptographic proof of reality... this is in the same realm of technology they're trying to avoid.

Re: Roc Camera

#323

Post by swores »

jeswin wrote: post #171
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the stuff is off the shelf. Makes it way easier to develop. There is no reason to actually use RPi, compute module or not, as a base camera board (talking from experience) other than it is super easy to start with.

I disagree. If CM5 had the ability to sleep at tiny fractions of a watt, there are really practical and usable cameras you can pull off today, even when it's not the most efficient. For all the downsides, it would more than make up in the ease-of-development department. I believe if RPi6 adds sleep, you'd see a flurry of portable gadgets built on the platform.

You're agreeing with them, not disagreeing! :)

The person who you replied to said they only reason to choose them is easiness, and you've replied saying you disagree because for all the downsides the easiness makes up for it.

Re: Roc Camera

#324

Post by liqilin1567 »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #117

This has it all wrong. The truth is worse than anyone wants to face. It was never about authenticity or creativity. Those words are just bullshit armor for fragile egos. Proofs and certificates do not mean a damn thing. AI tore the mask off. It showed that everything we worship, art, music, poetry, beauty, all of it runs on patterns. Patterns so simple and predictable that a lifeless algorithm can spit them out while…

But I feel like some creativity comes from breaking existing patterns

Re: Roc Camera

#325

Post by whywhywhywhy »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #45
keyle wrote: post #9

This is rather expensive for what looks like a home 3D printed toy with some cute software. Other than that it's a 16MP Sony CMOS, I'd expect a pretty noisy picture... How do I get my photos off the camera? Coming soon. We're working on export functionality to get your photos off the camera. It would be more interesting if the software was open source.

> This is rather expensive for what looks like a home 3D printed toy with some cute software. This attitude really rubs me the wrong way, especially on a site called Hacker News. I think we absolutely should be supporting projects like this (if you think they're worth supporting), else all we're left with is giant corporation monoculture. Hardware startups are incredibly difficult, and by their nature new hardware pr…

>This attitude really rubs me the wrong way, especially on a site called Hacker News.

It's just that even in the realm of hardware by small teams built upon Pi boards this is very overprice and poor construction and cheap components for what it is.

Selling for $400 there are case solutions other than a cheap 3D print, and button choices other than the cheapest button on the market.

Re: Roc Camera

#328

Post by cassepipe »

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…

Photography is when the image is not moving right ?

Re: Roc Camera

#330

Post by bux93 »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #129
rendaw wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A different thread mentions "what if you take a photo of an AI photo with the Roc camera?" - I still think that would be hard due to perspective, lighting, various other artifacts. Scanning an image would be much easier to dupe though - scanners are basically controlled perspective/lighting environments so scanning an actual polaroid vs an ai generated polaroid printed on photo paper would be pretty indistinguishable…

Maybe I am just naive, but I don't see why taking a photo of a screen, projection, or print out would be hard. Wouldn't it just need even lighting and tripod? Adding something like a LIDAR and somehow baking that data into the meta data could be fun

Don't limit your thinking to taking photos - video also works fine. It's how The Mandalorian is produced. Instead of green screens, the actors are in front of floor-to-ceiling LED screens with live rendered CGI.

In old movies, going back to the 1930s and 40s, back-projection is usually seen when characters are driving in a car, and you can usually spot it. These days, not so much.

Post reply on HN