4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt’s what you desire your skin to be.
- spoonjim 5y agoThat 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 agoNo imaging system reproduces reality. You're always getting a compromised result.
- wholinator2 5y agoYeah, 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 agoAs 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
- mynameisvlad 5y agoThat's not even remotely close to AI/ML processing, and also is something you have been able to accomplish-- manually or with presets-- in Lightroom for ages.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoI mean to illustrate the attitude of a typical user, not technology
- kelnos 5y agoRight, but it can only guess at what the eye sees when hardware limitations don't allow it to capture enough information. Maybe most of the time it guesses right, but it's still a guess, and it appears sometimes it guesses wrong. Really wrong.
- shawnz 5y agoIf it's combining information from multiple shots or multiple camera sensors, isn't that more like sensor fusion than "guessing"? I think calling it guessing is an uncharitable interpretation of what's happening.
- spoonjim 5y agoYes but the knowledge of how it was created affects how I see it. If it’s just denoising etc it feels different than if I know it’s painted in some other data.
- radlad 5y agoSure, but altering the hue/saturation/lightness of colors is a little different than replacing a bunch of pixels to achieve a "prettier" result.
- fao_ 5y agoYeesh. I can't be the only person for whom this sentence makes my skin crawl.
- be_nice 5y agoGood thing that won't show up in photos!
- numpad0 5y agoAnd 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 agoDo you mean Junji Ito?
- numpad0 5y agoI 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 agoThat'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 agoCeci n'est pas une pipe
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Gigachad 5y agoIt never has been accurate. Even on dumb traditional cameras, colors are more of an interpretation than a reality.
- radlad 5y agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoYes, but still, as another poster put it, it's the difference of changing the lighting versus changing the texture pack...
- tsimionescu 5y agoThe 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 agoThere 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