4 ms·

I don’t get how it’s not a photoshop though, it’s just a really specific photoshop. See the stuff how it would be on land... but it wouldn’t be like that on lan

I don’t get how it’s not a photoshop though, it’s just a really specific photoshop. See the stuff how it would be on land... but it wouldn’t be like that on land at all. This is no more real or fake than any other filter applied to pixels.

lilyball 7y ago
It's "not a photoshop" in that it's not someone manipulating the image until it looks good. It's an algorithm that (according to the video) uses precise physical modeling to achieve the correct color, regardless of aesthetic preferences.
- mieses 7y ago
  does the method construct some model of the physical environment or does it just modify the color of each pixel based on the color chart (color calibration/correction)?
  - DougBTX 7y ago
    > Sea-thru is a physics-based algorithm using the Akkaynak-Treibitz underwater image formation model (CVPR 2018). It does not use neural networks and was not trained on any dataset. It works without a color chart, or any information about the optical qualities or depth of the water body. https://www.deryaakkaynak.com/sea-thru https://www.deryaakkaynak.com/sea-thru
JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
Why would it matter if it is a "photoshop" or not? We already use filters all the time on normal camera photos (e.g. Low Light ML on pixels). As long as it's correcting the colour for us to be able to assess it better, and it's accuracy is reasonably high, than it is gravy.
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  That’s a question for the maker of the video who thought it was worth differentiating.
Jaxan 7y ago
The moment you take a picture, your camera or phone already does tons of editing. Like really a lot! I assume, you wouldn’t consider that “photoshopping”. Where do you draw the line? For me, haze removal, water removal are like white balance. To me it’s not manipulation.
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  This is a quote from the video, the host took time to explain how it was not the same as “photoshopping” when it really is, not much different from your phone processing the image as you’ve mentioned.
sysbin 7y ago
I agree with your view. An algorithm is manipulating the image and similar if a person used photoshop for manipulating an image. The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because both situations are altering the pixels for an altered outcome.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because It does matter because it's infinitely quicker to do it that way. It's like saying a modern calculator and an abacus are the same because they let you add/sub/&c numbers
  - pushpop 7y ago
    I’m not saying I agree with the GPs point but I do think you’re also missing their point. To use your example, it would matter if the question was asking people to do mental arithmetic. The issue isn’t whether a machine or human is making the edits though. It’s really a question of what is the actual accurate image. Unfortunately that’s probably more of a philosophical rather than technical one. For example differing camera lenses will add their own distortions of “truth”. We also have different perceptions of colour from person to person. So how do you define “accurate”? In my personal opinion what really matters is whether the subject is fair. By that I mean: are the filters changing the context or altering the perceived facts of the image? Or are the filters just an artistic choice. This filter definitely falls into the latter since the subject is still very obviously under water albeit presented with greater clarity. You’re not changing the context of the image but rather the presentation. So it’s hard to argue that as being “photoshopped” (in the context that term is typically used).
    - luxuryballs 7y ago
      Exactly. The reason behind the configuration of the pixel changing filter is the only thing that is different. But it doesn’t stop there, the concept that an aesthetic choice is more or less real than a “just like it would be in dry land” choice is also flawed because those creatures would most definitely not look that way on dry land.
antris 7y ago
Did you watch the video where she demonstrated how the technology works and how she says it differs from photoshopping? She pretty clearly explains the difference.
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  It’s a computer changing colored pixels, it’s marketing fluff to try and say it’s not the same. Especially the concept that these things will really look that way on dry land, I can assure you they would not.
  - antris 7y ago
    Again, did you watch the video? The technology is different. Yes, it involves a computer changing colored pixels but that's only one part of it. The calibration process is something you cannot do in Photoshop. Photoshop does not place physical color calibration charts in the sea and calculate the color profiles for you based on that chart.
rolltiide 7y ago
Its just semantics. Its a filter that finds color information closer to the reality and ignores aesthetics.
devit 7y ago
It would be like that without water, that's the whole point of the algorithm: based on physics, it computes the (best known approximation to) way the scene would look with no water being present. That is, it's supposed to make the photo be like the one you would take if you were to lift a part of the seafloor onto a boat and photograph it.
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  You think that stuff would really look that way without water though? I expect many things would lose color quite rapidly.
- pixel_fcker 7y ago
  Not really: it doesn’t account for specular reflections. It’s more like if you took the objects out of the water and then used a polarising filter to remove the highlights.

lilyball 7y ago

It's "not a photoshop" in that it's not someone manipulating the image until it looks good. It's an algorithm that (according to the video) uses precise physical modeling to achieve the correct color, regardless of aesthetic preferences.

mieses 7y ago
does the method construct some model of the physical environment or does it just modify the color of each pixel based on the color chart (color calibration/correction)?
- DougBTX 7y ago
  > Sea-thru is a physics-based algorithm using the Akkaynak-Treibitz underwater image formation model (CVPR 2018). It does not use neural networks and was not trained on any dataset. It works without a color chart, or any information about the optical qualities or depth of the water body. https://www.deryaakkaynak.com/sea-thru https://www.deryaakkaynak.com/sea-thru

JauntyHatAngle 7y ago

Why would it matter if it is a "photoshop" or not? We already use filters all the time on normal camera photos (e.g. Low Light ML on pixels). As long as it's correcting the colour for us to be able to assess it better, and it's accuracy is reasonably high, than it is gravy.

luxuryballs 7y ago
That’s a question for the maker of the video who thought it was worth differentiating.

Jaxan 7y ago

The moment you take a picture, your camera or phone already does tons of editing. Like really a lot! I assume, you wouldn’t consider that “photoshopping”. Where do you draw the line? For me, haze removal, water removal are like white balance. To me it’s not manipulation.

luxuryballs 7y ago
This is a quote from the video, the host took time to explain how it was not the same as “photoshopping” when it really is, not much different from your phone processing the image as you’ve mentioned.

sysbin 7y ago

I agree with your view. An algorithm is manipulating the image and similar if a person used photoshop for manipulating an image. The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because both situations are altering the pixels for an altered outcome.

lm28469 7y ago
> The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because It does matter because it's infinitely quicker to do it that way. It's like saying a modern calculator and an abacus are the same because they let you add/sub/&c numbers
- pushpop 7y ago
  I’m not saying I agree with the GPs point but I do think you’re also missing their point. To use your example, it would matter if the question was asking people to do mental arithmetic. The issue isn’t whether a machine or human is making the edits though. It’s really a question of what is the actual accurate image. Unfortunately that’s probably more of a philosophical rather than technical one. For example differing camera lenses will add their own distortions of “truth”. We also have different perceptions of colour from person to person. So how do you define “accurate”? In my personal opinion what really matters is whether the subject is fair. By that I mean: are the filters changing the context or altering the perceived facts of the image? Or are the filters just an artistic choice. This filter definitely falls into the latter since the subject is still very obviously under water albeit presented with greater clarity. You’re not changing the context of the image but rather the presentation. So it’s hard to argue that as being “photoshopped” (in the context that term is typically used).
  - luxuryballs 7y ago
    Exactly. The reason behind the configuration of the pixel changing filter is the only thing that is different. But it doesn’t stop there, the concept that an aesthetic choice is more or less real than a “just like it would be in dry land” choice is also flawed because those creatures would most definitely not look that way on dry land.

antris 7y ago

Did you watch the video where she demonstrated how the technology works and how she says it differs from photoshopping? She pretty clearly explains the difference.

luxuryballs 7y ago
It’s a computer changing colored pixels, it’s marketing fluff to try and say it’s not the same. Especially the concept that these things will really look that way on dry land, I can assure you they would not.
- antris 7y ago
  Again, did you watch the video? The technology is different. Yes, it involves a computer changing colored pixels but that's only one part of it. The calibration process is something you cannot do in Photoshop. Photoshop does not place physical color calibration charts in the sea and calculate the color profiles for you based on that chart.

rolltiide 7y ago

Its just semantics. Its a filter that finds color information closer to the reality and ignores aesthetics.

devit 7y ago

It would be like that without water, that's the whole point of the algorithm: based on physics, it computes the (best known approximation to) way the scene would look with no water being present. That is, it's supposed to make the photo be like the one you would take if you were to lift a part of the seafloor onto a boat and photograph it.

luxuryballs 7y ago
You think that stuff would really look that way without water though? I expect many things would lose color quite rapidly.
pixel_fcker 7y ago
Not really: it doesn’t account for specular reflections. It’s more like if you took the objects out of the water and then used a polarising filter to remove the highlights.