441–450 of 467 posts
"Cameras" making changes to the image like this make the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial seem a little less bizarre.
So the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial" is just as bizarre as it was before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the leaf isn't so close to the foreground that it completely obscures the person's head, and there is clearly other distortion/artifacting in the image. Something more than that is going on. Useful skepticism actually takes evidence into account, rather than dismissing claims at a glance, or because "thats how the internet works right now."
https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026
Although to be fair(er), people didn't believe otherwise because, as you insisted, they were buying mindlessly into some internet hype/rage generator "mirroring their latest gripe or nightmare." The original photo did look odd and it generated a lot of interesting discussion. Honestly, it still does to me.
While that reasoning was (kind of) correct (the leaf didn't fall at just the right time, it was attached to a branch,) both you and root_axis above assumed people were being driven by stupidity rather than curiosity, which is still an attitude we could use a lot less of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sensitivity of digital is amazing. You cant really get past ISO 400 on film without large compromises. But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Yes Kodak had the advantax (?) system and some other weird cameras here and there, but the vast majority of consumer pictures were taken on 35mm. As to the subjectivity of film, as I mentioned in the other post, most of the subjectivity came fr…
Specifically, this thread originated with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial which would be video. So for the average person, it would be 8/16mm. Even for stills, 110/126 was very common. As for your last point, it only ensured privacy from the poor. Privacy was always invaded by those with means like paparazzi. There's also the flip side that the prevalence of digital has let people capture pivotal moments they wouldn't hav…
Now we spy on poor people, use AI to analyze the photos at scale, while the rich got anti-paparazzi laws put in places like EU and CA.
In this context, the Rittenhouse video would not exist and it would be better if it didn't. The prosecution, arguably, should get disbarred for the shenanigans they pulled (no discovery and dumping it in the last moment, giving a modified version, lying about the provenance).
As to George Floyd, cameras have done much more to erode our civil liberties than they have put bad cops away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sensitivity of digital is amazing. You cant really get past ISO 400 on film without large compromises. But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Yes Kodak had the advantax (?) system and some other weird cameras here and there, but the vast majority of consumer pictures were taken on 35mm. As to the subjectivity of film, as I mentioned in the other post, most of the subjectivity came fr…
> But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Strong disagree here. 126 film is what brought color photography to the mass market, and others like the Kodak Disc were wildly popular among point-n-shoot users. 35mm was standard for pro photogs, but consumers went for convenience.
35mm was the top selling film since the 1960s until digital took over.
You went to any drugstore and you found 35mm. Maybe a box or two of APS. Maybe some medium format. But you could find 35mm in every drugstore, gas station, street vendor in a tourist trap without fail.
Professionals used 35mm because it was snaller than MF and for many things good enough. Otherwise it was considered consumer grade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Film development is very non linear in the exposure (call it z dimension), not in the dimension (x and y). That is to say it might exaggerate or diminish a gradient that was already there but not create one from nothing. The grain is random size and randomly distributed which cancels out a lot of the effects of discritzation (eg you wont get patterns due nyquist sampling error).
It's non linear in the X and y dimension because of grain. Any camera with a good antialiasing filter will also have little to no discretisation error.
The image of a digital or a film photo is a mosaic. This mosaic can be mathematically enlarged into a large mosaic. If you enlarge far enough you’ll see the individual tiles. This is a linear operation no matter the shape of the tile.
Digital photos do not, however, just make the tiles larger. They could but its not done.
Even before enlarging, they interpolate between tiles to recover color (each pixel in the sensor is monochromatic).
When a picture is displayed, the screen resolution is not that of the photo, so an algorithm has to fit one grid into another. And this is before going into superesoltion techniques.
But none of this would matter if we had a standard, open source, way to utilize digital photos in court. Until then Mr. lawyer can get himself an expert to testify to the validity of each and every still he wants to show the court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026
Yep, fair enough I have to eat those words. Although to be fair(er), people didn't believe otherwise because, as you insisted, they were buying mindlessly into some internet hype/rage generator "mirroring their latest gripe or nightmare." The original photo did look odd and it generated a lot of interesting discussion. Honestly, it still does to me. While that reasoning was (kind of) correct (the leaf didn't fall at…
Now for my defensive response: stupidity of the respondents isn't my assumption, its their lack of considering other possibilities. user error of OP and the assumption OP went with does verge more closely towards something I would call stupid. but these are your words, I’m saying it was an obvious circumstance to ignore the crowd specifically because of internet crowd trends. And unsurprisingly to me, in hindsight, that turned out to be correct. The internet mirrors the desired predisposition because people troll, a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, this thread originated with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial which would be video. So for the average person, it would be 8/16mm. Even for stills, 110/126 was very common. As for your last point, it only ensured privacy from the poor. Privacy was always invaded by those with means like paparazzi. There's also the flip side that the prevalence of digital has let people capture pivotal moments they wouldn't hav…
Privacy for the poor, not from. Paparazzi have never been outside my door. They were taking pictures of rich people for gossip mags (ie poor consumers). Now we spy on poor people, use AI to analyze the photos at scale, while the rich got anti-paparazzi laws put in places like EU and CA. In this context, the Rittenhouse video would not exist and it would be better if it didn't. The prosecution, arguably, should get di…
Rich people and people in power have been able to invade our privacy whenever they wanted.
Making everyone capable of having digital cameras has enabled so much. With regards to cops, it's let the general public document and share examples of police brutality, in ways that would never have been possible before.
I think it's clear from your comment where your political biases lie and what your ethnicity bias likely is. You may subsequently argue that it's irrelevant, but you're also not walking in our shoes as minorities. Cameras have been a huge boon to being able to share our plight.
Emmett Till was a profound moment in Black history because his image could be shared in person with others. Similarly George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery etc were defining because the cameras were there...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It never has been accurate. Even on dumb traditional cameras, colors are more of an interpretation than a reality.
There is a difference between getting the colors subjectively wrong and replacing the entire texture of the material