3 ms·

Phones over-beautifying faces by default already happened with the iPhone XS, and it wasn't received well. See #beautygate: https://www.imore.com/beautygate htt

Phones over-beautifying faces by default already happened with the iPhone XS, and it wasn't received well. See #beautygate: https://www.imore.com/beautygate https://www.imore.com/beautygate

astrange 3y ago
"Over-beautifying" never happened. Noise reduction/smoothing happens in camera processing even if you don't try to do it, because it's trying to preserve signal and that's not signal. If you want that noise, you have to actually put in processing that adds it back.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  Sure it did, no wrinkles, no moles unless huge, skin tone like after 2 weeks vacation in Carribean. What previously had to be done in photoshop to make people look younger is now done automatically, for every photo, and you can't turn it off. They call it 'instagram look' for quite some time, Apple is the worst among all phone manufacturers (in form of furthest from actual ugly reality, but a lot of people got used to it and actually prefer it now), but all of them are making it.
  - astrange 3y ago
    I promise there is nothing in the camera trying to make you look even a little better than normal. Especially not removing moles; people use their phones to send pictures to their doctors, so that would kill your customers with melanoma. If you want pores you need a higher resolution sensor, but even most of those have physical low pass (blur) filters because most people don't like moiré artifacts. Could try an A7R or Fuji X-series.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    It’s called noise reduction, and has been done by the most primitive cell phones since forever.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Yes, it actually did. And as it says in the link: >".... if they can detect and preserve fabric, rope, cloud, and other textures, why not skin texture as well?" The phone changed the image on skin and not on random other things that wasn't a face. That is a filter, not normal image processing, when it happens only on X but not on Y. The only way to not get this filter on the phone is using RAW.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > And as it says in the link That is the opinion of an uninformed tech writer, and even besides that, he's not claiming it did happen but just that it could possibly happen. In this case you do have someone who knows how it works, that someone being me. > The phone changed the image on skin and not on random other things that wasn't a face. There are some reasons you'd want to process faces differently, namely that viewers look at them the most, and that if you get the color wrong people either look sickly or get annoyed that you've whitewashed them. Also, when tone mapping you likely want to treat the foreground and background differently, and people are usually foreground elements.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      >There are some reasons you'd want to process faces differently Yes and then you have applied a filter.
      - astrange 3y ago
        It's done to make it more realistic, not less.
        Dah00n 3y ago
        You are arguing semantics. A filter is a filter is a filter. Apple applied filters to phone images. Your definition of "more realistic" might be on your Filter Positive List, but it is no less a filter than one that make skin whiter or breasts smaller.

Phones over-beautifying faces by default already happened with the iPhone XS, and it wasn't received well. See #beautygate: https://www.imore.com/beautygate https://www.imore.com/beautygate

astrange 3y ago

"Over-beautifying" never happened. Noise reduction/smoothing happens in camera processing even if you don't try to do it, because it's trying to preserve signal and that's not signal. If you want that noise, you have to actually put in processing that adds it back.

saiya-jin 3y ago
Sure it did, no wrinkles, no moles unless huge, skin tone like after 2 weeks vacation in Carribean. What previously had to be done in photoshop to make people look younger is now done automatically, for every photo, and you can't turn it off. They call it 'instagram look' for quite some time, Apple is the worst among all phone manufacturers (in form of furthest from actual ugly reality, but a lot of people got used to it and actually prefer it now), but all of them are making it.
- astrange 3y ago
  I promise there is nothing in the camera trying to make you look even a little better than normal. Especially not removing moles; people use their phones to send pictures to their doctors, so that would kill your customers with melanoma. If you want pores you need a higher resolution sensor, but even most of those have physical low pass (blur) filters because most people don't like moiré artifacts. Could try an A7R or Fuji X-series.
- kaba0 3y ago
  It’s called noise reduction, and has been done by the most primitive cell phones since forever.
Dah00n 3y ago
Yes, it actually did. And as it says in the link: >".... if they can detect and preserve fabric, rope, cloud, and other textures, why not skin texture as well?" The phone changed the image on skin and not on random other things that wasn't a face. That is a filter, not normal image processing, when it happens only on X but not on Y. The only way to not get this filter on the phone is using RAW.
- astrange 3y ago
  > And as it says in the link That is the opinion of an uninformed tech writer, and even besides that, he's not claiming it did happen but just that it could possibly happen. In this case you do have someone who knows how it works, that someone being me. > The phone changed the image on skin and not on random other things that wasn't a face. There are some reasons you'd want to process faces differently, namely that viewers look at them the most, and that if you get the color wrong people either look sickly or get annoyed that you've whitewashed them. Also, when tone mapping you likely want to treat the foreground and background differently, and people are usually foreground elements.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    >There are some reasons you'd want to process faces differently Yes and then you have applied a filter.
    - astrange 3y ago
      It's done to make it more realistic, not less.
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        You are arguing semantics. A filter is a filter is a filter. Apple applied filters to phone images. Your definition of "more realistic" might be on your Filter Positive List, but it is no less a filter than one that make skin whiter or breasts smaller.