Roc Camera • Hacker News Board

Re: Roc Camera

#461

Post by Brendinooo » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 2:34 AM UTC

LaGrange wrote: post #379

divan wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually working technique in sports psychology – one version of it called VSM (Video Self-Modelling), where edited video shows athlete performing correct/advanced technique. It tricks brain to belive in "future self". I'm not surprised it works with photos that well, but I think it's not studied yet. These AI photos I make a very different from, say, photoshopped faced. I tried it on myself too, and can confi…

Anything has an "psychological effect," and tricking a person into thinking any old junk is "better than therapy" is trivial - look at all the people who spend time and money on AI chatbots. It's also pretty clear it's not actually _good for them_. And there's zero surprise here it would be used to manipulate potential athletes.

When I was in grade school I got the whole pitch on visualization: picture yourself making the free throw and you're more likely to make the free throw.

Again, this stuff didn't start with AI.

Re: Roc Camera

#462

Post by aspenmayer » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 4:25 AM UTC

nandomrumber wrote: post #449

aspenmayer wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve spent some time down under myself, and I would hope if you were to ever find me lacking, to the degree that you needed to take care of me, that you have the foresight to have that moment on camera, because such a photograph ought to go straight to the pool room .[0] [0] (For those who haven't seen The Castle (1997), you really owe it to the Australians in your life to make an appointment with yourself to do so a…

Sorry, was going to reply but in rate limited in replying, probably because I’m a bit of a rude cunt. —- I’m in to that! It’d be a photo of me falling flat on my face / generally making a fool of myself. Perfect pool room photo. Have a lovely day.

Good on ya, mate. Cheers.

Re: Roc Camera

#463

Post by geor9e » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 4:29 AM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #338

geor9e wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't find slide printing services easily put AI images onto slide film for you? I think the point of this movement toward cryptographically signing image sensors is so people can confidently prove images are real on the internet in a momentary click, without having to get hold of the physical original and hiring a forensic lab to analyze it.

You can get things printed onto a transparency mounted in a slide frame. Actual slide film, though, must be done by exposing light. When you want another image put onto a slide, the easiest way to do it is to just take a picture using a camera. That’s beside the broader point that OP made: it doesn’t matter since you can just point a verifiable camera at a staged scene (or reproduction of an AI image) and have an ima…

>You can just point a verifiable camera at a staged scene

It's an emerging field, and attack vectors like that are hurdles to be solved. You can make faking more difficuly, for example, with a depth sensor.

Re: Roc Camera

#464

Post by efreak » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 5:29 AM UTC

matt_daemon wrote: post #70

Why do websites like this always try to be too clever? Let me scroll!

Scrolling is broken on mobile, it scrolls right past entire sections, like there's too much inertia. The last section is also wider than the screen and horizontal scrolling disabled.

Re: Roc Camera

#465

Post by barrell » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 5:37 AM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #368

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…

The quantities are what changed. Taking a photo used to be relatively difficult and rare, so it was mainly reserved for relatively meaningful subjects. Which meant that having your picture taken was also relatively rare, and was something of a validation that you were interesting enough to merit being photographed. For that photograph to be published, even more so. Now cameras are plentiful and cheap, "publishing" op…

100%

Re: Roc Camera

#466

Post by Defenestresque » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 7:10 AM UTC

barrell wrote: post #243

MarcelOlsz wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever,

May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.

Re: Roc Camera

#467

Post by noduerme » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 7:27 AM UTC

7952 wrote: post #279

noduerme wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes truth more scarce, hence more valuable.

Sure, but you were asking why truth is less gratifying. Also, "truth" is clearly something that requires more resources. It is a lifelong endeavour of art/science/learning. You can certainly luck into it on occasion but most of us never will. And often something fictional can project truth better than evidence or analysis ever can. Almost everything turns into an abstraction.

No, that is a nihilistic belief which does not get buildings built or software written.

One may "luck" into truth by being born in a poor neighborhood or by living in a warzone, and having eyes and a camera. Or by being rich and invited to a club and having a microphone.

Truth is everywhere, but capturing it is expensive. The tax on truth is the easy spread and generation of lies. The idea that the fictional can encapsulate truth is of course true, but it doesn't mean everything is better an abstraction. Losing a leg is more powerful as a reality than as an abstraction. Peddlers of falsehoods, then, only win when truth can be abstracted.

Moreover: People who read literature read it knowing it stands in for truth. People who watch TikTok believe it is true, and are disenchanted when shown otherwise. More power resides in a grain of truth than a mountain of falsehood; so any tool for proving veracity will always have an outsized value against tools for generating fakes.

The last redoubt of propagandists when faced with the threat of truth is to claim that no one cares anymore what's true. But that's false. In fact, that's when they begin to fool themselves. It's not that no one in China or Russia values the truth, for instance. It's just that they say what they're told to say, and don't believe a word of it.

Re: Roc Camera

#468

Post by foldr » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 9:11 AM UTC

dugidugout wrote: post #414

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.…

Curious how 4x5's inconvenience is "proportional" while 35mm's is "hugely disproportionate". I'm not familiar with the specifics of these formats, but you seem to be arbitrarily drawing the line for where the added friction is still serving the "magic" I believe is very real if not fragile. I think you recognize the value of photography isn't solely in the product. I'm curious what you personally find in 4x5 that sav…

It takes about 10 minutes to take a single 4x5 photo, and you have to carry around a tripod and a fairly bulky camera to do it. So the time and effort invested in taking the photo is similar to the time and effort required to develop and scan the negative.

In contrast, a 35mm camera is very convenient and you can expose an entire 30 frame roll of film in a few minutes. But getting high quality scans of all those frames requires either a lot of time or a lot of money. (Consumer flatbeds give poor results for 35mm, so your best bet is putting the negative on a light table and using a digital camera and macro lens. But that’s a physically fiddly process, the ‘scan’ needs manual spotting for dust, and if you’re shooting color negatives you also have to do some work to get the colors right.)

Back in the day, most users of 35mm cameras were satisfied with waiting a week to get a set of prints with absolutely no creative control over the printing process, but that’s not what most people want now.

Re: Roc Camera

#469

Post by thegrimmest » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 1:42 PM UTC

cardanome wrote: post #457

thegrimmest wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will find that some people will react quite badly to it It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves. > once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would…

> For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions. Information that you gained from observing me is not necessarily publicly available information. You can't camp in front of an abort…

Observing and publishing a list of who goes into the abortion clinic is a perfect example of the exercise of free speech. You don’t need a public interest to do so. Restricting what I can publish is a violation of that exact idea. Free speech means you can say very nearly anything without criminal penalty (libel is a civil matter).

My point is that the free people can do whatever they want, as long as they are not directly harming someone else. My right to waive my fists around ends where your nose begins. I don’t need to justify why I’m waiving my arms around. I don’t need to justify why I’m camped outside the abortion clinic. Maybe I hate abortions and am engaged in civil protest. These are all protected activities in a free country.

My assertion is that as a consequence of German policy with regards to speech, Germany is a fundamentally less free place. Who gets to decide whether something is in the public interest? Why is shaming abortion seekers not in that category?

Re: Roc Camera

#470

Post by cardanome » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #469

cardanome wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions. Information that you gained from observing me is not necessarily publicly available information. You can't camp in front of an abort…

Observing and publishing a list of who goes into the abortion clinic is a perfect example of the exercise of free speech. You don’t need a public interest to do so. Restricting what I can publish is a violation of that exact idea. Free speech means you can say very nearly anything without criminal penalty (libel is a civil matter). My point is that the free people can do whatever they want, as long as they are not di…

Germany has historical experienced how fascists can weaponize free speech to gain power. One of the core tenants of modern Germany is to let this happen again.

Now, we might not be doing well but certainly the US is currently doing much worse. You are already at the building camps stage and it is unclear whether you will have free elections for long.

What is the point of theoretically having free speech for a migrant worker that might deported without any trial by the ICE, for a women that might die during pregnancy because abortion was banned? Those that allow fascists to speak freely will end up with no one but fascists speaking.

People that want to murder me should not be allowed to speak.

> My point is that the free people can do whatever they want, as long as they are not directly harming someone else.

And yes, someone writing that I visited an abortion clinic can do me harm. Same as someone making lists of practicing Jews by camping outside a synagogue can get those people hurt. Your free speech ends where it can hurt me and certain information about me being public can and will hurt me.