4 ms·
Yeah I can just about get a decent crop of the moon on my Nikon Z50 with the 250mm lens on it that looks reasonable, if it’s on a tripod. There’s no way this wa
by unxdfa 4y ago
Yeah I can just about get a decent crop of the moon on my Nikon Z50 with the 250mm lens on it that looks reasonable, if it’s on a tripod. There’s no way this wasn’t going to be some other trickery going on.
What is worrying is why would you buy something with a camera that lies at source. When you need it to tell the truth, how do you know it will be telling it?
- dotnet00 4y agoThe fact is that most people are not looking for a phone camera to tell the 'truth', they're simply looking for good images similar to what they're used to seeing from pros with their much more fancy equipment (and remember that most of those photographs are also heavily edited, just by a human instead of AI). The only objective truth that matters much to the average person is stuff like the text or qr code remaining correct.
- unxdfa 4y agoI think it's more difficult than that. People are intimately aware when things are not what they seem. The brain is really good at being suspicious about stuff. If you take a photo and it comes out better than you can see yourself, then questions will be asked. This discontinuity does not sit well. As for the professionals, a lot of stuff is edited yes. But there is an art to not needing to do any editing worth mentioning. I think there's some intellectual honesty in not painting over any cracks.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoMost people do not care about their phone camera telling "the truth" because they are operating under the base assumption that cameras do tell the truth, and that their phone camera is honestly Very Good™ at capturing the true image that they're seeing with such a level of detail. That customers are not aware of the level to which professional images are processed is no justification for these features being sneaked in. If these features were openly presented as some kind of augmented reality or editing it wouldn't be an issue, but as it stands it is no different from, for example, presenting an entertainment television network as if it were actual fact-based news, and justifying it by arguing that viewers are not looking for the truth but for something that makes them feel that they know the truth.
- hef19898 4y agoA full moon is what, 1/250 sec of a shutter speed? 250 mm on a DX sensor gets you to 370 mm, so yes, 1/250th is a tadvslow to handhold. One of the reasons I like heavier camera bodies, I get a lot less movement blur with those. Agree on the camer-faking-pictures bit, who wants that?
- unxdfa 4y agoI shot this at 1/500 iso 400 f6.3 at equiv 375mm: https://imgur.com/ppj8U2Z https://imgur.com/ppj8U2Z - no edit other than crop. I reckon I could have hand held it actually. The lens has pretty decent VR in it. Will wait until there's a full moon again and have another go. And yeah I want my pictures to look natural.
- to11mtm 4y ago> Yeah I can just about get a decent crop of the moon on my Nikon Z50 with the 250mm lens on it that looks reasonable, if it’s on a tripod. Yeah 300+ is more comfortable for moonshots on APSC sensors, unless you are in -really- good conditions (i.e. perfect sky, far away from artificial lighting.) With 400mm I was able to take a 'pretty dang good' moonshot just outside of my house, even with a little bit of haze that day. It took a good amount of tweaking in DXO to look -great-, but it was worth it. > What is worrying is why would you buy something with a camera that lies at source. When you need it to tell the truth, how do you know it will be telling it? This is one of the reasons I still don't care for getting rid of my DSLRs and shoot raw [0] (Besides, PureView was the last phone camera setup I actually enjoyed.) At the very -least-, these should be settings that have very obvious controls including turning it off by default, and Ideally should be 'opted in.' Otherwise it opens up the possibility that what is happening could count as cheating at certain photo benchmarks. [0] Okay I also shoot raw to laugh at how awkward some of Sony's E-mount lenses are without lens profile correction applied. Looking at you SEL16F28. Edit: Context of what you can do at ~550mm equiv. F8, ISO 250, 1/320: https://imgur.com/a/ryoqQB9 https://imgur.com/a/ryoqQB9
- ghshephard 4y agoI don't know if DSLRs have changed much - but don't they all require post-processing in order to get any type of sharp picture? Out of the camera they aways seemed to be fuzzy as crap until you ran a sharpening filter. That is - any time you are shooting digital, you don't every look at what the camera saw, but at what some computer interpreted it to be. I'd be interesting in knowing what that picture of the moon looked like right out of the raw capture.
- Etheryte 4y agoUnless I misunderstood you, this is a common misconception — with digital cameras there is no "real" or "raw" picture. What the camera captures is just the output of an analog-to-digital converter. How that resembles a picture at all is always a matter of subjective interpretation, there is no ground truth.
- Waterluvian 4y agoTo play Devil’s Abacus for a moment: Why do you “need it to tell the truth”? I would bet a large number of the non-expert consumers (99% of users) do not care. But to defeat this own argument: just make a “AI Enhance” option in the UI…
- unxdfa 4y agoYour last point is spot on.
- Robotbeat 4y agoDo you ever take pictures of your rental car before and after you return it? Because now your rental company (and/or small claims court) will be able to credibly claim it could’ve been subtly modified by on-board AI and thus no longer admissible as evidence. Besides stuff like this is like pouring gasoline onto conspiracy theory movements like Flat Earthers. Those may be just 1% of the US a population. But you know what isn’t just 1%? Young Earth Creationists, who believe in a similar conspiracy theory of scientists changing the geologic record and maybe astrophysical records as well. These types have large, maybe even disproportionate, political power as well.
- Waterluvian 4y agoYou’ve won me over.
- aendruk 4y agoLoving the connotations of “Devil’s Abacus”.