Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The limits of "computational photography"

yager.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#41

Post by wombat_trouble »

jlarocco wrote: post #32
wombat_trouble wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Real" cameras do a lot of postprocessing too, but it's generally oriented at producing faithful results. They might remove unambiguous and correctable issues such as vignetting or lens distortion, but they don't cross the line of inventing new details to make the photo look good. Computational photography techniques on smartphones, on the other hand, were always designed around squishy "user perception" goals to mak…

I didn't see any invented "new details" in the article's iPhone photos. Phones have small sensors and crap lenses, so they ramp up noise reduction and sharpness to make up for it. Turn up the ISO and max out the NR on the Fujifilm and the results would be nearly as bad.

I see invented texture and layering here: https://yager.io/comp/mi.jpeg

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#42

Post by Llamamoe »

I'm surprised the author is unfamiliar with Google Camera and its super-resolution features[1,2], which uses actually clever algorithms to push digital photography beyond what would be physically possible to get out of a naive set of HDR exposures, both in terms of resolution and dynamic range.

It's literal magic.

[1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/10/see-better-and-further-wit...

[2] https://petapixel.com/2019/05/28/how-googles-handheld-multi-...

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#43

Post by eru »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #17
nine_k wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensors may have the time, but our hands do not; they are unsteady in subtle ways. When making photos in low light, I always try to lean my phone against something (a bench, a lamppost, a tree, a building) to let the longer exposure be sharper.

as long as there is anything to key onto it's possible to remove the shake algorithmically

> as long as there is anything to key onto it's possible to remove the shake algorithmically

Why the requirement? The phone already has accelerometers, doesn't it?

In any case, less hake should still be easier for the phone to deal with. Those algorithms aren't flawless.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#44

Post by eru »

kridsdale1 wrote: post #5
neilpanchal wrote: post #3

> Ultimately, we are still beholden to the pigeonhole principle, and we cannot create information out of thin air. *Looks up pigeonhole principle*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle > If 5 pigeons occupy 4 holes, then there must be some hole with at least 2 pigeons. This is so obvious. > This seemingly obvious statement, a type of counting argument, can be used to demonstrate possibly unexpected resu…

Yes, it’s zero, and there are half a million of them.

The proof works, even if you exclude bald people.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#45

Post by eru »

moistly wrote: post #7
bediger4000 wrote: post #4

This article mystified me until I realized it was Computational Photography not Philosophy .

Computational Philosophy: “the use of mechanized computational techniques to instantiate, extend, and amplify philosophical research. Computational philosophy is not philosophy of computers or computational techniques; it is rather philosophy using computers and computational techniques. The idea is simply to apply advances in computer technology and techniques to advance discovery, exploration and argument within an…

Compare also https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=735

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#46

Post by dusted »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

They already are. However, most photographers do not appreciate this type of distortion being applied to their images.

At a glance, my samsung note 22 ultra takes better picture than my nikon d7500. At a glance.

However, as soon as you want to actually DO anything to it, like, view it in any real detail, or on anything but a tiny screen, reality returns.. While the phone is absolutely fantastic for a quick snapshot, it just does not come close to the definition of the older camera with the bigger sensor.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#47

Post by rocqua »

jlarocco wrote: post #26
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water. As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less th…

Not OP, but the ability to very quickly bracket photos. Say at 30fps for 10 frames, and then use software to process that data like how a smartphone does, but with my own control.

Let me figure out when a scene is static enough to combine multiple shifted pictures for better snr. Ideally, let me enable that feature on my camera. Combine that feature with image stabilization, and let me tweak the conversion from multiple images after the fact.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#48

Post by buildbot »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

There is no reason to do this. If you want to apply the algorithms and Iphone uses, simply take a burst and post process later for HDR or whatever. I remember being in middle school and messing around with Hugin and my Minolta bridge camera…

People value quick shots/edits and don’t care about quality or editing things later don’t mind an iPhone doing all this behind the scene - but it is irreversible. The sort of error in the article would drive myself and other photographers up the wall.

Also, an Iphone has a CPU and ISP that outclass desktops from only a few years ago - camera manufacturers simply don’t have the same compute available.

On the other hand, some brands do provide interesting computational photography in their cameras at the very high end. Panasonic mirrorless full frame cameras have a pixel shift mode for super res/no bayer interpolation, with some ability to fix motion between steps. Phase One has frame averaging and dual exposure in their IQ4 digital backs, for sequential capture into a single frame and super high dynamic range respectively.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#50

Post by Tepix »

zeckalpha wrote: post #29

The inverse has been how wowed I am when a camera is better than my vision. Night mode and giant aperture ratio lenses both wow me. Mirrorless cameras may have been delayed if it weren't for the competition with phones. DSLRs were only around a few years before camera phones.

Lenses in general can make things larger than with normal vision, so why are you so surprised?
Post reply on HN