4 ms·

> It’s this viral appeal that’s gotten the company into trouble. Without properly explaining the feature, Samsung has allowed many people to confuse its AI-impr

by vmoore 4y ago

> It’s this viral appeal that’s gotten the company into trouble. Without properly explaining the feature, Samsung has allowed many people to confuse its AI-improved images for a physics-defying optical zoom that cannot fit in a smartphone I wouldn't say 'caught' or 'in trouble'. They're applying some AI blackbox to their photo tech, and the lack of transparency is annoying people so then people make viral posts like this claiming they 'caught' Samsung (when in reality it reads like an AD for Samsung).

p1esk 4y ago
physics-defying optical zoom that cannot fit in a smartphone Is it actually “physics defying” or just can’t be done with available technology?
- bowsamic 4y ago
  I don't understand. Is there a difference between those two statements? There is no known technology that would make it physically possible to fit such a camera in a mobile phone, just as there is no known technology that would make it physically possible to travel faster than light.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Yes there’s an obvious difference? One just implies our tech isn’t there yet, but could be. The other implies we don’t think it’s possible at all with any technology.
    - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
      The truth is slightly more murky: There's an element of engineering improvements that have brought us much closer to the physical limits between, say, my original Motorola Razr flip phone and the modern incarnation. But yes, the manufacturers are now squeezing the last few percent out of the diffraction limit rather than leaving most of it on the table, so the year-by-year leaps and bounds in camera quality are mostly coming from AI enhancement not optics or sensors.
- icapybara 4y ago
  It's physics defying. Optical resolution is directly correlated with the lens diameter, there's no way around this. Images are formed by interference of plane waves propagating at different angles. To resolve finer details, your optical system needs to collect waves that were propagating away from the source (the moon) at larger angles. This means you can either get closer to the moon or increase the lens diameter. It doesn't matter how the lens works, you could use any photonics magic trick you want, you're still limited by the (aperture) size of the optical system. Samsung's lens is purportedly too small to resolve the level of detail produced in the moon images.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  It's fair to say physics-defying. The physical properties of diffraction establish fundamental minimum limits on the requisite lens aperture diameter for a given resolution. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#The_Rayleigh_criterion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#The_Rayle... Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit (simplified, for the more common use case) >> Samsung’s process is more intrusive than this: it doesn’t just improve the sharpness of blurry details — it creates them.

by vmoore 4y ago

p1esk 4y ago

physics-defying optical zoom that cannot fit in a smartphone Is it actually “physics defying” or just can’t be done with available technology?

bowsamic 4y ago
I don't understand. Is there a difference between those two statements? There is no known technology that would make it physically possible to fit such a camera in a mobile phone, just as there is no known technology that would make it physically possible to travel faster than light.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Yes there’s an obvious difference? One just implies our tech isn’t there yet, but could be. The other implies we don’t think it’s possible at all with any technology.
  - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
    The truth is slightly more murky: There's an element of engineering improvements that have brought us much closer to the physical limits between, say, my original Motorola Razr flip phone and the modern incarnation. But yes, the manufacturers are now squeezing the last few percent out of the diffraction limit rather than leaving most of it on the table, so the year-by-year leaps and bounds in camera quality are mostly coming from AI enhancement not optics or sensors.
icapybara 4y ago
It's physics defying. Optical resolution is directly correlated with the lens diameter, there's no way around this. Images are formed by interference of plane waves propagating at different angles. To resolve finer details, your optical system needs to collect waves that were propagating away from the source (the moon) at larger angles. This means you can either get closer to the moon or increase the lens diameter. It doesn't matter how the lens works, you could use any photonics magic trick you want, you're still limited by the (aperture) size of the optical system. Samsung's lens is purportedly too small to resolve the level of detail produced in the moon images.
ethbr0 4y ago
It's fair to say physics-defying. The physical properties of diffraction establish fundamental minimum limits on the requisite lens aperture diameter for a given resolution. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#The_Rayleigh_criterion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#The_Rayle... Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit (simplified, for the more common use case) >> Samsung’s process is more intrusive than this: it doesn’t just improve the sharpness of blurry details — it creates them.