3 ms·

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence. I’m not familiar with Google here, but Apple is quite loquacious in its descriptions of how it approaches computa

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence. I’m not familiar with Google here, but Apple is quite loquacious in its descriptions of how it approaches computational photography, with extensive use of bracketing and sensor fusion – and nothing at all about generative embellishments. Not even saying it’s impossible, but I would be absolutely shocked if Apple were actually using anything outside a lot of bracketed exposures and optically-modeled diffs between multiple sensors. More than anything, it would be distinctly off-brand.

zamnos 4y ago
This is the Apple that automatically corrects what you're looking at in FaceTime calls so it looks like you're looking at the camera instead of what you're actually looking at? It's that Apple that you think it would be off brand if they were to change your nighttime photos to look better, even if what they're depicting isn't actually real? That Apple? I don't they're doing a fake milky way, but I don't think that they'd be above it if they could come up with a reason to. https://www.fastcompany.com/90372724/welcome-to-post-reality-apple-will-now-fake-your-eye-contact-in-facetime https://www.fastcompany.com/90372724/welcome-to-post-reality...
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  This is the worst, most insidious poison of them all. The very foundation of all propaganda. "X did Y" And when it turns out they didn't: "It doesn't matter because they WOULD" (Disclaimer: I have no idea if Apple does or doesn't do the milky way thing)
  - zamnos 4y ago
    Mortenjorck went back and softened their wording but when I originally responded, they claimed that Apple could never do anything remotely approaching that. I haven't edited my response, but this isn't a case of me claiming X did Y! but it turns out they didn't, and then me saying but they would have! I'm saying X did Y, which they did, and it means that Z is at least on the table, where X = Apple, Y = FaceTime Eye Contact feature, Z = Milky Way enhancement.
lmm 4y ago
> I’m not familiar with Google here, but Apple is quite loquacious in its descriptions of how it approaches computational photography, with extensive use of bracketing and sensor fusion – and nothing at all about generative embellishments. They put very obvious fake bokeh in their photos, and their users seem happy about it. I don't know what you mean by "generative" and how you'd draw a line between "generative" and not, but they're absolutely not giving you the straight-up picture you took.

zamnos 4y ago

This is the Apple that automatically corrects what you're looking at in FaceTime calls so it looks like you're looking at the camera instead of what you're actually looking at? It's that Apple that you think it would be off brand if they were to change your nighttime photos to look better, even if what they're depicting isn't actually real? That Apple? I don't they're doing a fake milky way, but I don't think that they'd be above it if they could come up with a reason to. https://www.fastcompany.com/90372724/welcome-to-post-reality-apple-will-now-fake-your-eye-contact-in-facetime https://www.fastcompany.com/90372724/welcome-to-post-reality...

happytoexplain 4y ago
This is the worst, most insidious poison of them all. The very foundation of all propaganda. "X did Y" And when it turns out they didn't: "It doesn't matter because they WOULD" (Disclaimer: I have no idea if Apple does or doesn't do the milky way thing)
- zamnos 4y ago
  Mortenjorck went back and softened their wording but when I originally responded, they claimed that Apple could never do anything remotely approaching that. I haven't edited my response, but this isn't a case of me claiming X did Y! but it turns out they didn't, and then me saying but they would have! I'm saying X did Y, which they did, and it means that Z is at least on the table, where X = Apple, Y = FaceTime Eye Contact feature, Z = Milky Way enhancement.

lmm 4y ago

> I’m not familiar with Google here, but Apple is quite loquacious in its descriptions of how it approaches computational photography, with extensive use of bracketing and sensor fusion – and nothing at all about generative embellishments. They put very obvious fake bokeh in their photos, and their users seem happy about it. I don't know what you mean by "generative" and how you'd draw a line between "generative" and not, but they're absolutely not giving you the straight-up picture you took.