3 ms·
> I need it to take clear pictures that accurately represent things that I see. We are now moving away from auto-focus and auto shutter speeds toward on-the-fly
by cptskippy 3y ago
> I need it to take clear pictures that accurately represent things that I see. We are now moving away from auto-focus and auto shutter speeds toward on-the-fly retouching, editing, of material by the camera. This is dangerous.
You could argue that up until now you were not able to take photos or video that accurately represented the world you see but instead only using the rose color lenses of the device manufacturer. The photos and videos that you take today with your phones or cameras have distortions applied automatically based on presets provided by the software used to capture the media. Sometimes you get options like Vibrant, Indoor, Portrait, and Landscape mode to choose how the images or video are manipulated. You don't get to see what the camera actually saw, only what the device manufacturer wants you to see.
Log video is like Raw photos. As this capability becomes more prevalent, I could see it becoming a requirement for criminal investigators and other to capture evidence using a Log or Raw mode.
What I would argue is that, if it's not there already, we need signatures and metadata stored in the EXIF of photos and video captured that tells how the image was capture. With that you could determine to what extent the media has been manipulated.
- sandworm101 3y agoRose colored filtering across an image is one thing, something we all understand. Nobody would say that a black-and-white photo is an accurate depiction but we all understand what a black-and-white photo is. Alterations to specific aspects of a scene, per-pixel changes that are not used across the image, are something else. A camera that detects and alters images where people close their eyes or fail to smile, that will not be recognized. A camera that corrects a scene to make it look as if it were in daylight rather than interior office lights, that too will not be recognized by the vast majority of viewers.
- cptskippy 3y ago> A camera that detects and alters images where people close their eyes or fail to smile, that will not be recognized. A camera that corrects a scene to make it look as if it were in daylight rather than interior office lights, that too will not be recognized by the vast majority of viewers. Those are two very different things and neither is new. Of the two, the later is closer to taking a sepia or black and white photo. It's simple grading that's been done for decades. Log video is mostly an extension of Raw photography which has been available to consumers for decades. The former is the more concerning technology and it's been available for at least 5 years on consumer grade devices.