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

Nokia faked the still photos too

sefsar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#91

Post by bradddd »

VMG wrote: post #80
jonah wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. They should have small disclaimer text at the bottom. And that's what everyone should be up in arms about, not that they faked it in the first place. I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.

Also these images are nothing like the images the camera would take. That is like advertising a totally different car than the one you are selling.

Exactly. It's like getting cockpit footage from a nascar and using it in a ford focus commercial.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#92

Post by cooldeal »

ivanbernat wrote: post #5

Why so much hate on Nokia?

Because this is HN, which is heavily anti-MS and where people cling to their iPhones and Android devices and love to hate on the platforms they don't use.

Or else why would the actual announcement articles get only around 30-40 points(which were later flagged off the front page anyway!) but this one is already close to 200 points. Winsupersite.com is hell banned on HN from even being submitted because of the haters flagging articles to death. Go figure.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#93

Post by anovikov »

brk wrote: post #61
anovikov wrote: post #6

I can say precisely which lens was used to make that photo: Canon EF 17-40 L USM on a DSLR. Or some other very, very similar lens. No photographer can mistake this for anything. Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-721...

For most people shooting Canon gear the 24-105L is the much more common go-to lens for street shots like this. For true pros, the 16-35L would be more common than the 17-40L, since it is an f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 lens. It's almost a given that anyone shooting Canon owns the 24-105L, so when opting for a wider angle lens the 17-40 and 16-35 are your two most common choices. The 16-35 gives you the wide-angle, PLUS low…

Agree, i cannot. Probably not 24-105, but any other of these easily.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#94

Post by kmfrk »

jonah wrote: post #11

"Professional driver on closed course." "Screen image is simulated." "Product enlarged to show detail." etc. etc. Yes, yes, we like "truth" and all. Especially when they're selling a camera after all, but getting a great cameraphone image and getting an image that will work on tv are two different things. No real surprise. Maybe disappointment, but no suprise.

In a country with decent consumer laws, they'd probably get slapped with a suit or fine for false advertizing, if they used this to promote a product that could be bought or ordered.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#95

Post by allwein »

pycassa wrote: post #90
ajanuary wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.

actually, i read some where regarding tips in food photography.. where they dont actually use ice cream.. let me find you the link.. it is more of an advertising thing..

The gist is that the item being advertised has to be the actual item as offered to the consumer. So in a cereal ad, the cereal featured has to be the actual cereal (even though they may go through hundreds of boxes picking out the perfect corn flakes to use). However, since they're not actually selling the milk that goes with the cereal, they're free to use glue or some other liquid that will let the cereal maintain it's crunch or otherwise enhance photography.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#96

Post by RKearney »

jcr wrote: post #84

In case the HN submission of the following doesn't float to the front page, it seems Nokia has apologized for the fake advertisement: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19499879 EDIT: The HN submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4483817

They're not sorry for the lies and intentional deceit. They're just sorry they got caught.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#97

Post by wklauss »

brudgers wrote: post #86

Faking images for a product rollout appears to be common mobile-electronics industry practice. Apple faked a video still from Star Trek and made a fake video of the New York Times for their iPad introduction. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Exposed-As-Liars-in-Fak... http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/22/apples-ipad-nytimes-prom... I wonder if Nokia cross-licensed Apple's patent.

Id argue that there is a difference of intent in these two cases. Nokia is deceiving customers about a specific function or capability (camera) while Apple is just showing a promotional video of the device as a whole. Both cases are reprehensible, no doubt, but maybe I'm the only one who think that Nokia has gone a little too far.

Lets think of these in terms of food. Its not the same to show a "perfect Big Mac" in and ad than it is to show a Big Mac thats made with completely different ingredients of the ones you'll find when you order one.

Re: Nokia faked the still photos too

#100

Post by Evbn »

SquareWheel wrote: post #20
anovikov wrote: post #6

I can say precisely which lens was used to make that photo: Canon EF 17-40 L USM on a DSLR. Or some other very, very similar lens. No photographer can mistake this for anything. Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/meonoctis/5661946485/in/set-721...

Just as an aside, what is with the comments? Does every user have their own "award" to present?

It is the comment spam mechanism on Flickr.
Post reply on HN