6 ms·

Simply adjusting light levels and sharpness wouldn't produce this good/clear of a photo in the conditions presented - AI/ML image post-processing is a hard requ

• creato 5y ago
  The "hard requirement" is just multi-frame noise reduction, which has been around for a lot longer than the AI/ML hype wave, and has always had a risk of producing similar artifacts to this one.
  • jjeaff 5y ago
    Ya, I don't think anyone has been using ml/ai in camera phones up until the last 5 years maybe. But it does seem like they have quite a few high tech algorithms at play. More than just multi-frame noise reduction.
  • Retric 5y ago
    Multi-frame noise reduction only gets you so far. Rotating objects for example present huge issues and result in their own artifacts. In the end there isn’t a free lunch, any system that improves resulting images is making trade offs.
• spoonjim 5y ago
  But it’s also just weird. That’s not my daughter’s skin in the photo, it’s 1000 other people’s skin blended together and textured in.
  • laurent92 5y ago
    It’s what you desire your skin to be.
    • spoonjim 5y ago
      That might be good for myself, or if I’m honest even my wife, but my daughter looks perfect to me and I only want to see her in reality.
      • kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        No imaging system reproduces reality. You're always getting a compromised result.
        • wholinator2 5y ago
          Yeah, even your eyes don't reproduce reality perfectly but at that point it's just semantics. He means he wants to see his daughter the same way through the camera that he sees her through his eyes, in real life, otherwise known to him as "reality". I don't think it's unreasonable to allow context of the statement to allow us to disregard "reality" as it pertains to quantum wave functions, in favor of something more human. There's a large difference in something that's goal is to capture what the eye sees and something that's goal isn't. It feels like Apple thinks they know what's better for us than we do, which I admit it's perfectly capable of doing in certain scenarios. But, when Apples thoughts do not align or go directly against our wishes it's uncomfortable, it feels like your "reality" is being ripped from your hands in favor of what some giant corporation thinks your reality should be, for any large number of opaque or intentionally obscured reasons.
          • shawnz 5y ago
            As far as I understand the goal of using ML augmentation in camera phones is to capture what the eye sees. It's to compensate for the limitations of the hardware which on its own is not able to produce a true-to-eye result. You seem to be implying that the goal is to improve the photo to be better than reality but I don't think that's the case.
            • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
              > You seem to be implying that the goal is to improve the photo to be better than reality but I don't think that's the case. I think it is, Afterall that's what all the Instagram filters are for, and that's where most photos end up
    • fao_ 5y ago
      Yeesh. I can't be the only person for whom this sentence makes my skin crawl.
      • be_nice 5y ago
        Good thing that won't show up in photos!
      • numpad0 5y ago
        And I can't be the only person who feels modern life is like perpetually flying through Miyazaki Hayao tentacles and making out the best of it.
        • fao_ 5y ago
          Do you mean Junji Ito?
          • numpad0 5y ago
            I was thinking in terms of creatures from Nausicaa and Mononoke but ... that works too I guess ... The difference is whether those accepted the beings live or nothing can be done to those who were touched by it, but that could be just a perspective difference.
  • foota 5y ago
    That's not necessarily true, I don't know the specifics of how it's implemented but it could just be used for select pixels from different frames in the shot?
  • vlunkr 5y ago
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Gigachad 5y ago
    It never has been accurate. Even on dumb traditional cameras, colors are more of an interpretation than a reality.
    • radlad 5y ago
      I don't know about this - RAW files are recordings of sensor values. Those sensor values are accurate of what light the sensor measured. Then the sensor values are converted to a JPEG. So it's still an accurate rendition of the light - even though yes, it is a rendition of the light. But to completely replace some sensor values with some computer-generated values is a different ballgame, IMO. It's more akin to Photoshop editing, as opposed to Lightroom.
      • georgyo 5y ago
        This is really splitting hairs, but even our eyes are interpretation of reality. The camera sensor does not record the wavelengths of lights it is capturing, only RGB values. We can only reproduce the picture in a way that is convincing to our eyes, not what light what original being captured.
        • radlad 5y ago
          Yes, but still, as another poster put it, it's the difference of changing the lighting versus changing the texture pack...
      • tsimionescu 5y ago
        The least that modern phone cameras do is to blend multiple RAW files into a single picture, to improve various metrics. That brings the risk of producing results like the one seen here.
      • JKCalhoun 5y ago
        There definitely though is some magic-sauce when de-Bayering [1] the RAW data and then playing games with color spaces and color profiles to end up with that final JPEG. I agree with your point though. I dislike "computational photography". [1] guess it is called demosaicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing