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

What an unprocessed photo looks like

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 418 posts

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#81

Post by to11mtm »

card_zero wrote: post #60
XCSme wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone has this tech, plz let me know! I have no idea, it was my first thought when I thought of modern color filters.

That's how the earliest color photography worked. "Making color separations by reloading the camera and changing the filter between exposures was inconvenient", notes Wikipedia.

I think they are both more asking about 'per pixel color filters'; that is, something like a sensor filter/glass but the color separators could change (at least 'per-line') fast enough to get a proper readout of the color in formation.

AKA imagine a camera with R/G/B filters being quickly rotated out for 3 exposures, then imagine it again but the technology is integrated right into the sensor (and, ideally, the sensor and switching mechanism is fast enough to read out with rolling shutter competitive with modern ILCs)

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#82

Post by disillusioned »

ekidd wrote: post #69
bstsb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey, not accusing you of anything (bad assumptions don't lead to a conducive conversation) but did you use AI to write or assist with this comment? this is totally out of my own self-interest, no problems with its content

I have been overusing em dashes and bulleted lists since the actual 80s, I'm sad to say. I spent much of the 90s manually typing "smart" quotes. I have actually been deliberately modifying my long-time writing style and use of punctuation to look less like an LLM. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Alt + 0151, baby! Or... however you do it on MacOS.

But now, likewise, having to bail on emdashes. My last differentiator is that I always close set the emdash—no spaces on either side, whereas ChatGPT typically opens them (AP Style).

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#83

Post by userbinator »

nomel wrote: post #67
card_zero wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the example ("let's color each pixel ...") the layout is: R G G B Then at a later stage the image is green because "There are twice as many green pixels in the filter matrix".

And this is important because our perception is more sensitive to luminance changes than color, and with our eyes being most sensitive to green, luminance is also. So, higher perceived spatial resolution by using more green [1]. This is also why JPG has lower resolution red and green channels, and why modern OLED usually use a pentile display, with only green being at full resolutio [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/…

Pentile displays are acceptable for photos and videos, but look really horrible displaying text and fine detail --- which looks almost like what you'd see on an old triad-shadow-mask colour CRT.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#84

Post by melagonster »

stavros wrote: post #6
userbinator wrote: post #5

I think everyone agrees that dynamic range compression and de-Bayering (for sensors which are colour-filtered) are necessary for digital photography, but at the other end of the spectrum is "use AI to recognise objects and hallucinate what they 'should' look like" --- and despite how everyone would probably say that isn't a real photo anymore, it seems manufacturers are pushing strongly in that direction, raising iss…

One thing I've learned while dabbling in photography is that there are no "fake" images, because there are no "real" images. Everything is an interpretation of the data that the camera has to do, making a thousand choices along the way, as this post beautifully demonstrates. A better discriminator might be global edits vs local edits, with local edits being things like retouching specific parts of the image to make d…

Today, I trust the other meaning of "fake images" is that an image was generated by AI.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#85

Post by seba_dos1 »

card_zero wrote: post #43
nospice wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A better discriminator might be global edits vs local edits, Even that isn't all that clear-cut. Is noise removal a local edit? It only touches some pixels, but obviously, that's a silly take. Is automated dust removal still global? The same idea, just a bit more selective. If we let it slide, what about automated skin blemish removal? Depth map + relighting, de-hazing, or fake bokeh? I think that modern image proc…

What's this, special pleading for doctored photos? The only process in the article that involves nearby pixels is to combine R G and B (and other G) into one screen pixel. (In principle these could be mapped to subpixels.) Everything fancier than that can be reasonably called some fake cosmetic bullshit.

The article doesn't even go anywhere near what you need to do in order to get an acceptable output. It only shows the absolute basics. If you apply only those to a photo from a phone camera, it will be massively distorted (the effect is smaller, but still present on big cameras).

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#86

Post by piskov »

disillusioned wrote: post #82
ekidd wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been overusing em dashes and bulleted lists since the actual 80s, I'm sad to say. I spent much of the 90s manually typing "smart" quotes. I have actually been deliberately modifying my long-time writing style and use of punctuation to look less like an LLM. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Alt + 0151, baby! Or... however you do it on MacOS. But now, likewise, having to bail on emdashes. My last differentiator is that I always close set the emdash—no spaces on either side, whereas ChatGPT typically opens them (AP Style).

Just use some typography layout with a separate layer. Eg “right alt” plus “-” for m-dash

Russians use this for at least 15 years

https://ilyabirman.ru/typography-layout/

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#88

Post by kortilla »

stavros wrote: post #6
userbinator wrote: post #5

I think everyone agrees that dynamic range compression and de-Bayering (for sensors which are colour-filtered) are necessary for digital photography, but at the other end of the spectrum is "use AI to recognise objects and hallucinate what they 'should' look like" --- and despite how everyone would probably say that isn't a real photo anymore, it seems manufacturers are pushing strongly in that direction, raising iss…

One thing I've learned while dabbling in photography is that there are no "fake" images, because there are no "real" images. Everything is an interpretation of the data that the camera has to do, making a thousand choices along the way, as this post beautifully demonstrates. A better discriminator might be global edits vs local edits, with local edits being things like retouching specific parts of the image to make d…

But when you shift the goal posts that far, a real image has never been produced. But people very clearly want to describe when an image has been modified to represent something that didn’t happen.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#89

Post by card_zero »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #85
card_zero wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's this, special pleading for doctored photos? The only process in the article that involves nearby pixels is to combine R G and B (and other G) into one screen pixel. (In principle these could be mapped to subpixels.) Everything fancier than that can be reasonably called some fake cosmetic bullshit.

The article doesn't even go anywhere near what you need to do in order to get an acceptable output. It only shows the absolute basics. If you apply only those to a photo from a phone camera, it will be massively distorted (the effect is smaller, but still present on big cameras).

"Distorted" makes me think of a fisheye effect or something similar. Unsure if that's what you meant.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#90

Post by 0xWTF »

This reminds me of a couple things:

== Tim's Vermeer ==

Specifically Tim's quote "There's also this modern idea that art and technology must never meet - you know, you go to school for technology or you go to school for art, but never for both... And in the Golden Age, they were one and the same person."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim%27s_Vermeer

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3089388/quotes/?item=qt2312040

== John Lind's The Science of Photography ==

Best explanation I ever read on the science of photography https://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceframe.html

== Bob Atkins ==

Bob used to have some incredible articles on the science of photography that were linked from photo.net back when Philip Greenspun owned and operated it. A detailed explanation of digital sensor fundamentals (e.g. why bigger wells are inherently better) particularly sticks in my mind. They're still online (bookmarked now!)

https://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.h...

Post reply on HN