401–410 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author makes this error every single time, in both articles by him I've read today. For some reason, as a person whose native language is not English, this particular error pisses me off so much.
We should blame English's crazy spelling system, not the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
didn't even notice the em dashes to be honest, i noticed the contrast framing in the second paragraph and the "It's impressive how" for its conclusion. as for the "assumption" bit, yeah fair enough. was just curious of AI usage online, this wasn't meant to be a dig at anyone as i know people use it for translations, cleaning up prose etc
No offense taken, but realize that good number of us folks who have learned English as a second language have been taught in this way (especially in an academic setting). LLMs' writing are like that of people, not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always edit the RAW files from the camera, which essentially means working with the same data the camera chip had to generate the JPEGs.
Not quite. At the very least, the RAW file is a static file. Whereas your camera chip can make interactive decisions. In any case, RAW files aren't even all that raw. First, they are digitised. They often apply de-noising, digital conditioning (to take care of hot and dead pixels), lens correction. Some cameras even apply some lossy compression.
Most cameras nowadays offer lossless RAW files, mine is entry level and a bit old already. I fix all of those things you cited through Darktable, which offers a scene referred workflow.
Basically all cameras cameras do offer compression for RAW files, but most times that's just lossless compression (i.e. no data is lost). Do you have any source to back your claims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that qualifier in stupid because there’s no start or stopping point for ultra processed versus all foods. Is cheese an ultra-processed food? Is wine?
There actually is a stopping point , and the definition of ultra processed food versus processed food is often drawn at the line where you can expect someone in their home kitchen to be able to do the processing. So, the question kind of goes whether or not you would expect someone to be able to make cheese or wine at home. I think there you would find it natural to conclude that there's a difference between a Cheeto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cones are the colour sensitive portion of the retina, but only make up a small percent of all the light detecting cells. The rods (more or less the brightness detecting cells) would still function in a deuteranopic person, so their luminance perception would basically be unaffected. Also there’s something to be said about the fact that the eye is a squishy analog device, and so even if the medium wavelengths cone…
The rods are only active in low-light conditions; they're fully active under the moon and stars, or partially active under a dim street light. Under normal lighting conditions, every rod is fully saturated, so they make no contribution to vision. (Some recent papers have pushed back against this orthodox model of rods and cones, but it's good enough for practical use.) This assumption that rods are "the luminance cel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that was the point the OP was making. Not that you couldn’t differentiate between white balance correction and generative fill, but rather that the intent of the change matters for determining if an image is “fake”. For example, I took a picture of my dog at the dog park the other day. I didn’t notice when framing the picture but on review at home, right smack in the middle of the lower 3rd of the photo and conve…
Well you changed the photo from an accurate representation of the scene into what you felt like it should be. The photo is no longer "real" but a story. Stories tell us things that are true too, but not in a physical evidence kind of way.
And if shot composition doesn't make it fake, what if I cropped the photo after the fact? I'm removing something the camera captured to better make the picture what I "felt like it should be" just using the removal tool. That's functionally no different from framing the shot differently, but it's modifying the actual captured image.
If we decide that removal, whether by framing or by post-hoc cropping is still "real" and it's the use of a tool that adds something that wasn't there, would the same apply to just cutting a square out of the photo without cropping the rest of the frame? A transparent square would be an interesting artistic choice for sure, but does that then get into the realm of "fake"? What if the square is black or white? Is adding a clearly "post process censor bar" crossing a line into making the photo "fake"?
If those are fine, it's the "adding content that looks like it should be there" is the problem, does that mean that dust or hair removal to remove something that was on the lens make it fake since that would also have to generate what the computer thinks is behind that hair or dust speck?
For what it's worth, I don't think there is a hard line here, like I said intent matters. But I do think that figuring out where ones personal and general lines are and when they might move that line or not is an interesting thought experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you changed the photo from an accurate representation of the scene into what you felt like it should be. The photo is no longer "real" but a story. Stories tell us things that are true too, but not in a physical evidence kind of way.
And this is why I think intent matters more than the tools. Lets say I had framed the photo when I took it such that the turd was not in the frame. Is that a "fake" photo because I framed it in such a way as to exclude something that was there? And if shot composition doesn't make it fake, what if I cropped the photo after the fact? I'm removing something the camera captured to better make the picture what I "felt li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. I had the same revelation when I learned that many of the colors we perceive don't really "exist". The closest thing to hue in nature is wavelength, but there is no wavelength for purple, for example. The color purple is our visual system's interpretation of data (ratio of trichromatic cone cell activation). It doesn't exist by itself. It's the same reason that allows RGB screens to work. No screen has ever prod…
All colors exist. Color is not the same as wavelength, color is the human perception of a collection of one or more wavelengths of light. They are all real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS added a camera mode for medical photos that extra doesn't do that. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2024/10162/
Huh wonder which camera apps enable use of this API?