4 ms·
I think that saying a black face has less signal than a white face is, while true, not quite relevant. Because it's more about the difference in luminosity acro
by falcolas 3y ago
I think that saying a black face has less signal than a white face is, while true, not quite relevant. Because it's more about the difference in luminosity across features and not the absolute luminosity.
The best solution is to get cameras which can see and record both visible and non-visible light spectrums, since they will provide more uniform contrasts for edge detection across skin tones.
But until then, we need to stop blindly trusting the software.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoI did imaging on skin (for medical appliances, not for surveillance that I heavily oppose). While the tech has evolved a lot in just a few years, a tiny bit of additional light exposure can make a huge difference. I doubt surveillance cameras do quality images with a high dynamic range of light levels.
- Manuel_D 3y agoThe luminosity is the signal: > difference in luminosity across features and not the absolute luminosity This is exactly what signal to noise ratio refers to in my previous comment. The best solution is what the iPhone does: it is a 3d sensor that produces a depth map (think each pixel represents a distance to the object). But that's not really viable when trying to use normal security cameras.
- bestouff 3y agoIn our visible spectrum. Maybe (I don't know) black faces have more contrast in some other "non-visible" wavelength, and it's just a matter of using the right camera.