3 ms·

Regardless of the goal, there's no way to get a more readable result if the data just isn't there. Whitewashing might simply be a result of that absence.

• jdmichal 6y ago
  My point was that it whitewashed exactly those areas which had the most information. However, this is inline with their stated goal of mimicking a long exposure. It's not inline with "seeing in the dark", but that's not their goal.
  • edjrage 6y ago
    If you insist on the same point, you didn't understand my initial reply. Again, I'm assuming the input is (a), not (b). But maybe you mean the lighter areas have the most information. If so, why? Just because there's more light? More light != more information. It could just be a bunch of noise.
    • jdmichal 6y ago
      > More light != more information. It could just be a bunch of noise. You do realize that, in a camera sensor, light is the signal, right? So the more light, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio, which means that yes it does have more information available to extract. And yes, I quite realize that the input is (a). I'm guessing that in your display you are not seeing that there is a brighter spot in the middle of (a) corresponding to the whitewashed area in (c). Try maxing out your brightness if you're on a phone or laptop and you should see it. I can even make out letter shapes in (a) within this bright spot.