5 ms·
There is a small disclaimer on Samsung's site: > The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only. I don't really have a
by spuz 8y ago
There is a small disclaimer on Samsung's site:
> The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only.
I don't really have a problem with Samsung using a higher res DSLR photo for the purposes of illustration of their background blur technology. I will always check review sites to get real sample images to evaluate a phone's camera technology.
Edit: I assume this was downvoted because it comes across as cynical but that isn't what I meant to express at all. I don't expect companies to lie to me and I don't trust companies so little that I assume they would lie to me. I view this as more of an example of a company's marketing showing their product in the best possible light. It's clear most companies will want to do that so I prefer to go to review sights to get a better overview of the both the good and the bad before making a purchase decision.
- virusduck 8y agoBut why would they simulate an image if the phone camera can produce the image they need??
- TrainedMonkey 8y agoIt could be because phone/camera software/etc are not ready yet when the marketing content is produced.
- dawnerd 8y agoI don’t buy that one bit. They could easily change the disclaimer to say “photos are from pre-production hardware and may differ...”
- spuz 8y agoSomeone else replied to another comment here the most plausible explanation which is that it's much cheaper and quicker to simply photoshop a couple of different stock photos. To go out in the field even with a phone camera requires finding a model, a setting, a photographer and paying them for a day's wages. It's a lot easier to believe this is an instance of cost saving rather than savvy marketing.
- runjake 8y agoI think you are being down-voted because, despite the tiny disclaimer, the main content of the page heavily suggests that the images are from the phone camera. This is scummy.
- spuz 8y agoI understand that the disclaimer would be missed be most people but I don't see the background blur photo as communicating "this is what our camera can do". To me it says "Our camera can do background blur and this is an example of a photo with and without background blur". Maybe it's too subtle a difference and in that case, it's fair enough that Samsung would get flack for poor communication.
- cududa 8y agoI’m tally certain no one else on this site would find that disengenuosness prrmicible. Chime in with a comment if you disagree
- reaperducer 8y agoI view this as more of an example of a company's marketing showing their product in the best possible light. But it doesn't show their product in the best possible light. It shows some DSLR company's product in the best possible light. It's like a magazine ad for a Kia, and inside the car photo the dashboard has been replaced with a Tesla's.
- conradev 8y agoOr a commercial for McDonald’s, except instead of using real food, they use fake stuff that looks better.
- matthewdgreen 8y agoMore like: instead of using fake stuff, they used food from Five Guys.
- reaperducer 8y agoIt's surprising how much of McDonald's advertising is regional, by the franchise holders, and not from corporate. In some markets, ads for the breakfast sandwiches are deliberately made to look "messy" with splattered egg and crumbs from the muffin all around so that they look more rustic and authentic.
- cududa 8y agoIt’s regional but absolutely under no circumstances are franchise holders allowed to advertise in this way. They’re restricted to issuing coupons in middle school fundraisers and buying billboards at little league baseball fields
- ghostly_s 8y agoSource? I would be highly surprised if franchisees are allowed to produce any marketing assets independently. The brand is the most valuable asset McD Corporate has. It's much more likely they have a catalog of assets/campaigns that franchisees can choose from depending on their market. (Similarly to how they allow franchisees a certain amount of leeway in what menu items they feature, but they can't just make up their own sandwiches.)
- craftinator 8y agoTo do the Portrait Mode post processing, I believe that they need a depth map to separate foreground and background elements. So, unless they use a phone with the hardware to capture this depth map, then it's impossible to use that post processing technique. Instead, they found a photo of trees, duplicated it, applied a gaussian blur to the duplicate, then cut the girl out of the original picture and pasted her into both tree photos. The final product has nothing to do with Samsung or it's products; it wasn't taken on a phone, nor processed on a phone, and there is no way you could use a Samsung product to capture of photo of that quality, since it was taken on a DSLR, and the post processing that they used is NOT Portrait Mode, it's Photoshop.