5 ms·
Reading further into that thread, someone provides the OP with a blurry image of the moon but with craters in the wrong places: the "AI enhanced" photo is indee
by lagadu 4y ago
Reading further into that thread, someone provides the OP with a blurry image of the moon but with craters in the wrong places: the "AI enhanced" photo is indeed much sharper and detailed than the original but it still retains the craters and land features in the wrong place. This suggests that the processing isn't simply replacing the moon with real, high-quality moon photos but rather that it knows how the moon, or a moon-like object, should look and creates detail on the original image.
This looks a lot like what DLSS does in GPUs.
I'm torn on this: it's fake but it's a good way of getting around optics limitations in certain scenarios. Is fake detail on a photo worse than no detail for non-scientific, consumer devices?
- dmix 4y agoSamsung's own spokesperon said this is an explicit feature of the phone. > But I also want to include one caveat: the S21 Ultra’s Scene Optimizer will not suddenly make all 100x zoom photos look as crispy as the Moon. Samsung flat-out says the Scene Optimizer can recognize “more than 30 scenes.” That includes the following according to a spokesperson: > Food, Portraits, Flowers, Indoor scenes, Animals, Landscapes, Greenery, Trees, Sky, Mountains, Beaches, Sunrises and sunsets, Watersides, Street scenes, Night scenes, Waterfalls, Snow, Birds, Backlit, Text, Clothing, Vehicle, Shoe, Dog, Face, Drink, Stage, Baby, People, Cat, Moon. If it was just the normal camera 'faking' photos it'd be bad, but they literally offer a list of stuff that their zoom tab will AI-optimize. You can still use the regular camera to turn this feature off. To me this sounds like a cool but simply misunderstood feature.
- RobotToaster 4y ago>Animals will be interesting to see how that works with less common animals. I can see it getting confused with, for example, a capybara, thinking it's a dog, and filling in the details making a picture of a weird hybrid dogybara.
- xattt 4y agoI offer you a capydoga.
- linuxftw 4y agoThis is one of those rare time google actually returns 0 results. 0. Well played.
- ChainOfFools 4y agonot for long a decade from now kids will all be getting named with not-yet-on-google spellings of their names, to help distinguish them from AI bot personas of the same name. idiocracy calls it once again (Upgrayedd)
- thenthenthen 4y agoReminds me of the "Camera Restricta" [1]. I encourage everyone interested in tech and photography to check out Villem Flusser's Towards A Philosophy of Photography [2] and of course Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction [3]. [1] https://hackaday.com/2017/01/28/camera-restricta-ensures-original-photography/ https://hackaday.com/2017/01/28/camera-restricta-ensures-ori... [2] (1984) PDF http://imagineallthepeople.info/Flusser_TowardsAPhilosophyofPhotography.pdf http://imagineallthepeople.info/Flusser_TowardsAPhilosophyof... [3] (1932) PDF https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
- asddubs 4y agodidn't seem like they tried it with a blurry picture of the fake moon though. it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both.
- NegativeLatency 4y agoYou could let the user pick
- MikusR 4y agoYou can by turning off scene optimizer.
- JohnFen 4y ago> Is fake detail on a photo worse than no detail for non-scientific, consumer devices? If the people seeing it don't know that it's fake detail, then yes, it's actively worse than no detail.