3 ms·
Have you seen the original Reddit post? You're right (I assume) it is an ML thing and not "replacing" the image, but it takes a 170x170px intentionally blurry
by itslennysfault 4y ago
Have you seen the original Reddit post?
You're right (I assume) it is an ML thing and not "replacing" the image, but it takes a 170x170px intentionally blurry blob and turns it into a detailed moon photo. Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor.
This is the original posters side-by-side:
https://imgur.com/ULVX933 https://imgur.com/ULVX933
- gambiting 4y agoAlso I just wanted to add to this - MKBHD has just posted his video about this, and he wasn't able to reproduce what the reddit user did. Samsung did improve the photo of the blurry moon, but nowhere near as much as that guy on Reddit shows. That's not saying that he's lying of course - it's just that maybe we need to take it with a grain of salt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0
- gambiting 4y agoYes I have seen it , and I disagree with this statement: " Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor." The photo is entirely the result of the light captured by the sensor - after image processing, yes detail is added which physically couldn't have been captured by the camera - but like I said above, that's literally all mobile photography nowadays. I literally don't see the problem, if anything I'm extremely impressed by the result.
- itslennysfault 4y agoI don't see a problem either, but the fact of the matter is that the moon in that picture is much closer to generated than captured.