3 ms·

While I think this is a great test, I'm not really sure what that second picture is supposed to be showing. Kinda seems like they used the wrong picture entire

• Izkata 4y ago
  Second image is a video, shows them zooming in and how it switches from the blob to detail
  • Groxx 4y ago
    Ah! Thank you! I wasn't getting the controls for some reason. Given how small the pure-white areas are, tbh I'm not sure I'd consider that as having "added detail". It has texture that matches the rest of the moon, but that's about as far as I'd be comfortable claiming... and that seems fine, basically an un-blurring artifact like you see in tons of sharpening algorithms. I do think this "clip the data, look for impossible details" is a very good experiment and one that seems likely to bear fruit, since it's something cameras "expect" to encounter. I just don't think this instance is all that convincing. --- And to be clear, I absolutely believe Samsung is faking it, and hiding behind marketing jargon. The outputs are pretty ridiculous. They may not be "photoshopping on a texture", but training an AI on moon pictures and asking it to add those details to images is... well, the same thing Photoshop has features for. It makes no difference - it's not maximizing the data available, it's injecting external data, and they deserve to be slammed for that.