4 ms·
> What's to "c'mon" about? Maybe the fact that there are many artificial stars in that photo due to software adding new light sources which didn't really exist
by eredengrin 5y ago
> What's to "c'mon" about?
Maybe the fact that there are many artificial stars in that photo due to software adding new light sources which didn't really exist in postprocessing? I have no idea if this happens but it is the claim they were making, and would certainly be worthy of a "c'mon" if true.
- OGWhales 5y ago> Maybe the fact that there are many artificial stars in that photo due to software adding new light sources which didn't really exist Huh?? How exactly did you come to the conclusion they just added a bunch of fake stars? Am I missing something? Post processing is a normal part of astrophotography, even with a DSLR.
- eredengrin 5y agoThat sounds like a question for them, not me, I made no such claims. In fact I'd be quite interested in any evidence as well, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were using some kind of ML model in postprocessing which ended up adding some extra stars here and there (more charitably, you could think of it as converting noise into stars, when it was really just noise all along). But I'm certainly no expert on how smartphones process their photos. > Post processing is a normal part of astrophotography, even with a DSLR. Yes as someone interested in low light photography I'm well aware of this and it's why I'd be quite curious to see any evidence (assuming it exists) of smartphones doing weird things to their low light photos.
- caconym_ 5y agoI see zero evidence of an effect like that in the linked photos. I assumed they were talking about artifacting they saw in their own attempt to take photos at night with an iPhone. Either way, given the content of those links, I don't think their comment makes much sense.