7 ms·

Indeed. I wish I had a list of everyone parroting the wisdom that "it's all about the size of the lens, a smartphone can never be as good as a DSLR" so as to ig

Indeed. I wish I had a list of everyone parroting the wisdom that "it's all about the size of the lens, a smartphone can never be as good as a DSLR" so as to ignore their future opinions. Camera phones now beat cameras worth thousands of dollars with better software and larger R&D budgets, at least in low light performance and color gamut. Closely related: "It's impossible to just 'enhance' an image to make a license plate readable. Lost information ist lost". This was big due to some US TV show at the time, I guess. Here, the error was in the assumption that the information was lost: as it turns out, there's a wide space of possibilities for image quality to be too low for us to easily read some letters, but good enough to contain the clues allowing a smart algorithm to reconstruct them.

IgorPartola 5y ago
In theory what prevents me from using a huge lens and sensor on a DSLR or a mirrorless camera and then using the same advanced software but now running on a desktop computer or a server that is many times more powerful than a smartphone to do advanced post processing?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Nothing at all. It’s honestly surprising that it’s not a bigger thing. Guessing what stops you is that the Apple team that makes camera software has a budget that makes the Nikon pc app team look quite small.
  - mynameisvlad 5y ago
    Cameras don't have DoF sensors which I believe the phone uses in its processing to know if there's a subject in frame.
    - emkoemko 5y ago
      they have that dof sensor so they can emulate dof, we get real dof.
      - mynameisvlad 5y ago
        Ok, cool. The processor still doesn't have access to said "real dof", which is the point of this comment thread.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  It's important to note that recent iPhones contain the same M1 chip as last year's MacBooks. They are not limited by processing power. DSLR and mirrorless cameras have better optical properties. But they are held back by starting too late and being much worse when it comes to software. These cameras also are limited by their CPUs, which are a decade behind, and by their batteries, which are much smaller but expected to last for thousands of exposures.
  - perardi 5y ago
    I had to check that, as these big chunky camera batteries “feel” like they should have a lot of mAH compared to a phone. And I am wrong. Depending on the phone. A Nikon battery: 2280 mAh. An iPhone 13: anywhere from 2406–4352 mAH. Yeah, that’s a way smaller power budget than a Pro iPhone, especially as you have autofocus and image stabilization systems that have to move around a lot more mass.
    - Zak 5y ago
      It is not accurate to compare the capacity in Amp-hours because the Nikon EN-EL15C battery has twice the voltage (two Li-ion cells in series) of a single-cell smartphone battery.
      - wholinator2 5y ago
        As well I'd like to add the thought that the smart phone could be running all kinds of battery draining things in the background. So actual battery life depends not only mAh but how efficiently the device uses its capacity.
        radlad 5y ago
        Alternatively: I'd point out that the camera app tends to be a highly battery-draining activity on a phone. Most phone users do not leave the camera app up 24/7. (And as a digital camera user - at least I can hot swap batteries. I miss my old cell phones that allowed for this.)
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  Isn't that what Lightroom is for?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  The iphone’s depth sensor is one factor. I don’t know of any lidar integrated cameras that aren’t phones, for example. Also, because phone cameras have gotten so good, the skill floor for what you’re talking about is higher. There’s more skill involved in using software like lightroom than you might think. I’m a hobbyist photographer, and sometimes my iphone just seems more skillful than I am using my nicer camera and Lightroom.
toss1 5y ago
Yes, this is getting better, but it reminds me of a story from a friend who was doing work on some classified satellite imaging systems (he was in hardware, iirc) and went to an internal seminar/briefing by some experts on how, from the front to the end of the system, to get the best images for the customers. He said they went through hours of details on how the various enhancement algorithms and systems worked, and at the end, the bottom line was basically 'take a better picture in the first place' - as in get the lens, lighting, and parameters right in the first place, and that'll be the biggest factor in how far the processing HW/SW/people can take the enhancements. Maybe the new software with huge R&D budgets is now better, but I'd suspect this advice is still not obsolete...
- sundvor 5y ago
  I saw your post got a down vote, however for eg any given webcam, the best way to improve your video for your mmeetings is likely not to upgrade the camera but to invest in better lighting (eg a couple of key lights) and optimise your visual setup (framing). It is good advice indeed. Still, it's amazing how processing has evolved. I took a picture of my 3yo daughter having finally fallen asleep after a bout of night terrors, in the dark light (using a Hue Ambiance in her room; best things ever) - in the S21 Ultra viewfinder I could see absolutely nothing, however after 3 seconds of a steady hand I was rewarded with a fantastic picture better lit than what my eyes had adjusted to. (If I had any complaints, it would be that I'd like it to be darker - however I can understand why on average most would like the processed result.)
  - toss1 5y ago
    I definitely agree with the lighting bit, and I think that was indeed included in the category of "first, take a better picture". So yes, focus, exposure, no motion blur, etc...
laurent92 5y ago
> It's impossible to just 'enhance' an image to make a license plate readable. Well, a phone can reconstruct this license plate, and in fact any license plate in lieu of this one! And invent a new one! Which is worrisome for justice. Presenting proof, that was uploaded to servers, horodated and geostamped, won’t be enough in a court of law. Anyone can answer: “What if the iPhone recreated and inferred the presence of a knife using the neural engine? This face, is it real? The distance, is it repositionned?”
- hughrr 5y ago
  That has always been the case for photographs from every device that has ever been capable of recording images.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Film camera?
    - hughrr 5y ago
      Yes especially film cameras.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > This face, is it real? The distance, is it repositionned? Deepfakes, robocalls and Caller ID and voice impersonation, automatic ML in photos, if this train keeps going, we won't know what's real at all. I am struggling to see how we will function.
  - nimbleal 5y ago
    > we won't know what's real at all. I am struggling to see how we will function That's where we started, in a way. Perhaps our short time of feeling we had a grip on reality will just have been a passing phase, before returning to normality.
    - 5y ago
TedShiller 5y ago
I use my iPhone when I want convenience. I use my DSLR when I want high quality photos.
jeffreygoesto 5y ago
Nope. The image data _is_ actually lost. What happens is that it gets pimped with what on average was lost when a training process artificially degraded a training set. For the results to look(sic) natural, you need both the training set and the degradation to be close to what you're shooting. If that is not the case, hallucination happens.

IgorPartola 5y ago

In theory what prevents me from using a huge lens and sensor on a DSLR or a mirrorless camera and then using the same advanced software but now running on a desktop computer or a server that is many times more powerful than a smartphone to do advanced post processing?

alkonaut 5y ago
Nothing at all. It’s honestly surprising that it’s not a bigger thing. Guessing what stops you is that the Apple team that makes camera software has a budget that makes the Nikon pc app team look quite small.
- mynameisvlad 5y ago
  Cameras don't have DoF sensors which I believe the phone uses in its processing to know if there's a subject in frame.
  - emkoemko 5y ago
    they have that dof sensor so they can emulate dof, we get real dof.
    - mynameisvlad 5y ago
      Ok, cool. The processor still doesn't have access to said "real dof", which is the point of this comment thread.
KarlKemp 5y ago
It's important to note that recent iPhones contain the same M1 chip as last year's MacBooks. They are not limited by processing power. DSLR and mirrorless cameras have better optical properties. But they are held back by starting too late and being much worse when it comes to software. These cameras also are limited by their CPUs, which are a decade behind, and by their batteries, which are much smaller but expected to last for thousands of exposures.
- perardi 5y ago
  I had to check that, as these big chunky camera batteries “feel” like they should have a lot of mAH compared to a phone. And I am wrong. Depending on the phone. A Nikon battery: 2280 mAh. An iPhone 13: anywhere from 2406–4352 mAH. Yeah, that’s a way smaller power budget than a Pro iPhone, especially as you have autofocus and image stabilization systems that have to move around a lot more mass.
  - Zak 5y ago
    It is not accurate to compare the capacity in Amp-hours because the Nikon EN-EL15C battery has twice the voltage (two Li-ion cells in series) of a single-cell smartphone battery.
    - wholinator2 5y ago
      As well I'd like to add the thought that the smart phone could be running all kinds of battery draining things in the background. So actual battery life depends not only mAh but how efficiently the device uses its capacity.
      - radlad 5y ago
        Alternatively: I'd point out that the camera app tends to be a highly battery-draining activity on a phone. Most phone users do not leave the camera app up 24/7. (And as a digital camera user - at least I can hot swap batteries. I miss my old cell phones that allowed for this.)
jimnotgym 5y ago
Isn't that what Lightroom is for?
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
The iphone’s depth sensor is one factor. I don’t know of any lidar integrated cameras that aren’t phones, for example. Also, because phone cameras have gotten so good, the skill floor for what you’re talking about is higher. There’s more skill involved in using software like lightroom than you might think. I’m a hobbyist photographer, and sometimes my iphone just seems more skillful than I am using my nicer camera and Lightroom.

toss1 5y ago

Yes, this is getting better, but it reminds me of a story from a friend who was doing work on some classified satellite imaging systems (he was in hardware, iirc) and went to an internal seminar/briefing by some experts on how, from the front to the end of the system, to get the best images for the customers. He said they went through hours of details on how the various enhancement algorithms and systems worked, and at the end, the bottom line was basically 'take a better picture in the first place' - as in get the lens, lighting, and parameters right in the first place, and that'll be the biggest factor in how far the processing HW/SW/people can take the enhancements. Maybe the new software with huge R&D budgets is now better, but I'd suspect this advice is still not obsolete...

sundvor 5y ago
I saw your post got a down vote, however for eg any given webcam, the best way to improve your video for your mmeetings is likely not to upgrade the camera but to invest in better lighting (eg a couple of key lights) and optimise your visual setup (framing). It is good advice indeed. Still, it's amazing how processing has evolved. I took a picture of my 3yo daughter having finally fallen asleep after a bout of night terrors, in the dark light (using a Hue Ambiance in her room; best things ever) - in the S21 Ultra viewfinder I could see absolutely nothing, however after 3 seconds of a steady hand I was rewarded with a fantastic picture better lit than what my eyes had adjusted to. (If I had any complaints, it would be that I'd like it to be darker - however I can understand why on average most would like the processed result.)
- toss1 5y ago
  I definitely agree with the lighting bit, and I think that was indeed included in the category of "first, take a better picture". So yes, focus, exposure, no motion blur, etc...

laurent92 5y ago

> It's impossible to just 'enhance' an image to make a license plate readable. Well, a phone can reconstruct this license plate, and in fact any license plate in lieu of this one! And invent a new one! Which is worrisome for justice. Presenting proof, that was uploaded to servers, horodated and geostamped, won’t be enough in a court of law. Anyone can answer: “What if the iPhone recreated and inferred the presence of a knife using the neural engine? This face, is it real? The distance, is it repositionned?”

hughrr 5y ago
That has always been the case for photographs from every device that has ever been capable of recording images.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Film camera?
  - hughrr 5y ago
    Yes especially film cameras.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> This face, is it real? The distance, is it repositionned? Deepfakes, robocalls and Caller ID and voice impersonation, automatic ML in photos, if this train keeps going, we won't know what's real at all. I am struggling to see how we will function.
- nimbleal 5y ago
  > we won't know what's real at all. I am struggling to see how we will function That's where we started, in a way. Perhaps our short time of feeling we had a grip on reality will just have been a passing phase, before returning to normality.
  - 5y ago

TedShiller 5y ago

I use my iPhone when I want convenience. I use my DSLR when I want high quality photos.

jeffreygoesto 5y ago

Nope. The image data _is_ actually lost. What happens is that it gets pimped with what on average was lost when a training process artificially degraded a training set. For the results to look(sic) natural, you need both the training set and the degradation to be close to what you're shooting. If that is not the case, hallucination happens.