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

391–400 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#391

Post by cush »

modeless wrote: post #31

Seems to me that a camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the software or hardware on the device you supposedly own. It's hard for me to think this is a good direction. And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display. It's not feasible or desirable for our hardware devices to verify the informat…

> And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display

Are there systems that do prevent photographing a display? Like accompanying the photo with an IR depth map?

Re: Roc Camera

#392

Post by scottlamb »

mfer wrote: post #373
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 don't think about this as much for professional or amateur photography. I think of verifiable images as something for legal purposes. So much is easily made up with AI. Having verifiable real photos (and eventually video) can be a benefit for things like legal proceedings.

> I think of verifiable images as something for legal purposes.

That makes sense to me, but who is this particular $399 camera made for? Can you imagine someone choosing it for a photo they intend to be used in legal proceedings? The specs and appearance do not scream high-quality professional tool to me. The price is lower than a professional would be willing to spend (on something high-quality), higher than someone would drop on a whim.

It looks kinda like a designer's school assignment that they're trying to sell.

Re: Roc Camera

#393

Post by starky »

barrell wrote: post #120
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 also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment t…

Really? I don't go out and photograph near as much as I used to, but nobody has ever reacted with anything other than interest at what I'm doing. I was recently traveling to a couple cities I had last been to 5-10 years ago and was shocked at how packed places were with people getting their photos taken, I have photos that would be impossible to take again because there would be people in the way.

Re: Roc Camera

#394

Post by kelnos »

torginus wrote: post #342
vwcx wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a solution that prioritizes privacy over reality, and I'm not sure we collectively want that. Mutilation of truth in the name of protection etc...

Yes that's a tradeoff - but I was thinking it would still be better than stuff like Google street view's mess of blurs.

I don't think that's better. For something like Street View that's explicitly supposed to be capturing reality, I want to know when that reality has been censored. Realistic face replacement breaks that.

(And yes, I'm sure Street View imagery is edited in other ways before it makes it to production, but I think it's important that our view of reality remains as real as possible.)

Re: Roc Camera

#395

Post by lgleason »

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…

Back before digital became really high res I was into small, medium and large format silver halide cameras balancing cost with high quality optics. You could get Exackta's, Speed Graphics and Roleiflexes relatively inexpensively and take amazing high quality photos with them.

The larger you went though, the more you had to be mindful about the cost of eash shot both in terms of time and cost for film and developing. There is something to be said about the curation that happened when taking photos like that. You put a lot more though upfront into composition and had to think about your shutter speed, aperture etc..

One thing I learned about during that time was how the old time press photographers would use a Speed Graphic on 4x5 negative, grab a wide angled shot and then crop it. Also, press conferences used to create a lot of broken glass as photographers would snap a shot, shoot out the one time use flash bulb on the ground and then quickly put in another bulb to get another shot.

Re: Roc Camera

#397

Post by kelnos »

cardanome wrote: post #319
lynx97 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bot…

> Maybe it is me who is biased

Sure, and so am I. We're all biased toward what we are used to, especially if it's something we grew up with through childhood.

While I think it'd be creepy for someone to sit outside, zooming in on strangers and taking photos of them, I don't think that sort of thing should be illegal. (Aside from when it might break other laws, like if it were to turn into harassment.) I do think it we should require consent before publishing a photo that focuses on individuals, at least for most uses (I'm sure there are exceptions).

I don't think laws should try to spell out or enforce social norms (for the most part; again I'm sure there are exceptions I'd consider), and I think "don't be a creep with a camera" is a social norm, not a legal issue.

> It protects [...] my privacy

I just don't see getting photographed in public as a privacy issue, but I'll admit it depends on the "how". Dragnet surveillance with cameras on every corner is a privacy issue, but a single photographer with a manually-actuated camera is not.

But really, what is it about someone having a photograph of you while you're in public that violates your privacy? It may "feel icky", but I don't see that as being a violation of anyone's rights. (Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter.)

At the risk of diving into whataboutism, it seems weird to me to object to public photography -- something that has many legitimate artistic and historical uses and benefits -- when many of us are subjected to pervasive surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist kind.

Re: Roc Camera

#398

Post by BeFlatXIII »

spython wrote: post #195
barrell wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment t…

Absolutely. Running around with a large format camera (Graflex) with an Instax back (lomograflok) and making photos and immediately giving results back to people changed a lot. Strangers were basically lining up to ask about the camera and have their photo taken. That was a really fun experience, and I noticed how much I missed that excitement - before camera phones took over such moments were much more common. Now I…

Like a extra-fancy Polaroid?

Re: Roc Camera

#399

Post by angelgonzales »

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…

Yep, I make many pictures but don’t feel like I need to share them with others. Sometimes I show my girlfriend and sometimes I frame them or put them on my fridge. I actually don’t really want to show strangers my work because I make photographs for myself and I’m not looking for critique because I’m developing my own style and exploring what interests me. I don’t need to prove my photographs are authentic because I know I took them!

Re: Roc Camera

#400

Post by BeFlatXIII »

etrautmann wrote: post #282
foldr wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.

The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.
Post reply on HN