3 ms·
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, iir
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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...