461–467 of 467 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I can't be the only person who feels modern life is like perpetually flying through Miyazaki Hayao tentacles and making out the best of it.
Do you mean Junji Ito?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) I'm not sure what nit you are picking, RAW formats are typically not compressed, and if they are (I haven't encountered any personally) they would be losslessly compressed. They certainly aren't quantized. Edit: ok here's some lossless and lossy compression of RAW. IMHO, "lossy compressed raw" is an oxymoron. https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lo... B) the context is whether a raw photo can…
> I'm not sure what nit you are picking RAW photos are not “just” uncompressed versions of the JPEGs your camera usually gives you. That would be a TIFF. Rather, they contain raw sensor data.
The problem is vendors all seem to have their own definition of what RAW means nowadays. But the typical meaning is one with the raw pixels via color filter array (eg bayer8), and need debayering (to get the usual rgb8).
You can have raw/Bayer Tiffs, I've worked with them. So the file format is not enough, you gotta know the image encoding.
"RAW just means uncompressed" yes that is technically wrong, but the point I'm addressing is "You can still manipulate a RAW image" and "without the painting-like qualities of its default image processing." It does not matter what the color encoding is, you can still do painting-like processing. I've literally worked on detectors that detect manipulation of RAW, Bayer array images. This is not theoretical.
I guess what I am saying is, Apple giving the user a raw/.dng file is not a guarantee you are actually getting the ADC output straight from the sensor.
Really, the operant question is "what is the processing provenance of this image".
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…
> Which is still an attitude we could use a lot less of.
The attitude we could use less of is the one where you project your own false ideas about other people's thoughts onto their comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that smartphone photos will become inadmissible in court as evidence ... and will also give all shady characters like politicians a cover to change narratives
Good defense attorneys already will I am more shocked that you are not concerned that image manipulation technology could (and likely already has) been used to send an innocent person who can not afford the use of an expert to challenge the image to jail Evidence presented in court should reflect exactly what happen, a true and accurate representation. Not what some ML algorithm believes happened. This is especially…
The sheer scale and reach of smartphone cameras is helping the common man across the world capture day to day injustice and garner support to push back about abuse of power and authority, discrimination, harrassment etc.
I wish smartphone cameras stay reliable and continue to provide the best possible reflection fo reality -- and push boundaries on technological improvements that can be made to IMPROVE their accuracy and defensibility even in court settings or on crowdsourced social-media settings -- so that they can become a reliable aid in enabling justice and stand the test of time.
I recently got a Pixel and was disappointed to see that the stock camera app has no way to control the focus manually. I guess Google is so impressed with their post-processing they think users won't need any control. Turns out, their software isn't that great at focusing in many of the photos I take, so I need a different camera app. My only requirements are: 1. Manual focus 2. Wide angle lens support I thought a re…
Does Open Camera not show the switch multi-camera button on your phone? From https://opencamera.org.uk/help.html Switch multi-camera icon - This icon only shows on devices with more than one front and/or back cameras, and allows you to switch between those cameras. For example, a device might have two back cameras, one standard and one ultra-wide, this icon will switch between the standard and ultra-wide camera. If S…
Jesus this is annoying, and really scummy on Google's part. As long as I have this phone I'll have to swap between multiple camera apps just to access basic functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s ok to select jurors based some basic abilities. I don’t know if this considered discrimination based on IQ in the US. But if a grown person has the mind of a 5year old or doesn’t know how to walk up stairs I think it’s fair to say “you shouldn’t be in a jury”. Likewise if a person doesn’t understand the concept of zooming an image or slow motion, then I think it’s quite fair to exclude them from jury dut…
Understand concepts and removing bias are totally different. Consider: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-mo... https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-s... It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.
True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No free lunch, but an incredibly good value lunch. The quality that comes out of phone cameras is remarkable. And the times it messes up are so rare that it becomes a talking point worthy of hundreds of comments.
You guys are conflating 'adjusting light levels and sharness' with 'replacing whole objects in one area of scene with other objects from the scene' I think this particular big demonstrates a massive gap in what people think photoprocessing is, and what it has very recently become