3 ms·
Yeah it's cool tech but I really don't appreciate how it is just straight up deceitful and spreading misinformation. A lot of hues are underdetermined and the r
by blululu 3y ago
Yeah it's cool tech but I really don't appreciate how it is just straight up deceitful and spreading misinformation. A lot of hues are underdetermined and the result is more or less arbitrary in a historical context. If one were to research and fine-tune the model such that ambiguous shades are historically accurate I would be less annoyed by the sense that these images are just spreading misinformation. Compare this with Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky's photos of the Russian Empire or autochromes of Paris in 1910 which are actual windows into a lost world.
*for works of fiction these issues vanish, but for any historical or documentary photographs/films, I really hate that I am being lied to.
- bavell 3y agoI suppose you must be driven mad by astrophotography.
- blululu 3y agoNope - fundamentally different. First, multispectral imaging is a mapping of information into a form that can be easily seen and interpreted. It is not the wholesale synthesis of new information. The goal is to reveal the true structure to the eye based on actual measurements of the object. Second scientific imaging and social imaging have fundamentally different functions in terms of what they reveal about the world. The color of cloth has different meanings than the color of a distant nebula.