15 ms·
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant
by BobbyTables2 2y ago
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud.
A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.
Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.
- afn 2y agoGood gravy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4wh-Pbxgok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4wh-Pbxgok
- farseer 2y agoNow that you mention it. I recently picked up a bottle of Red Vinegar with large pictures of red grapes on it. Naturally I assumed this was grape vinegar. How shocking it was to discover that this Chinese company was selling acetic acid mixed with food colors.
- jajko 2y agoI wouldn't go that far to call it as a fraud, unless you call literally every phone-with-camera manufacturer these days a fraud. Then I agree as my trusty old nikon fullframe always catches only whats there, including noise and instability that modern phones handle easily. People were commenting on that thread how apple phone ie mirrored only bunny within bigger picture of a bunny in the grass (thats rather hilarious 'bug'), and we all know how apple consistently removes all moles and wrinkles, changes completely skin tone and overall tonality like every single picture looks like its taken in the golden sunset hour. Ie that nasty samsung is much more truthful when it comes to this, including latest flagships. That's outright lying too, IMHO much worse - moon is tidally locked so showing exactly same side with same features for millions of years, so they were adding details that are there, just impossible to see on non-stabilized tiny plastic lens&sensor combo in the night. Making somebody 20 years younger, much prettier and changing their overall look on most important feature we humans have, doing it by default without any real option to turn it off, does a lot of long term body-perception damage in young folks.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. You wouldn't like the picture of what it sees. The lens is just not big enough. Even the pro raw and other features that phone introduced apply processing.
- sieste 2y ago> Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water. Welcome to England!
- GaylordTuring 2y ago[flagged]
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoI still remember the zoom and enhance joke they played on red dwarf. Parody has become reality.
- tomohawk 2y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBkWtDAPBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBkWtDAPBY
- willis936 2y agoImmortalized in Super Troopers (2001). https://youtu.be/KiqkclCJsZs https://youtu.be/KiqkclCJsZs
- gattr 2y agoAlso "Space Force" has an "Enhance!" scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVOydVwOO4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVOydVwOO4M
- zarmin 2y agoIt's kinda like the classic Ebay scam where you buy a picture of the item instead of the item.
- falcor84 2y agoYes, or the increasingly common Amazon one, where you get an AI-generated summary of the book, instead of the actual book.
- imwillofficial 2y agoWait this is a thing?
- pavlov 2y ago> “A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.” Feels like that’s just a matter of expectations. A phone used to be a device for voice communications. It’s right there in the Greek etymology, “phonē” for sound. But 95% of what people do today on devices called phones is something else than voice. Similarly, if people start using cameras more to produce images of things they want rather than what exists in front of the lens, then that’s eventually what a camera will mean. Snapchat thinks of themselves as a camera company, but the images captured within their apps are increasingly synthesized. (The etymology of “camera” already points to a journey of transformation. A photographic camera isn’t a literal room, as the camera obscura once was.)
- paledot 2y agoFine, I expect an MRI to take pictures of what's actually going on in my body rather than inventing MRI-like images that can fool the radiologist into thinking I'm healthy when I'm not. Not sure why this is controversial.
- rzzzt 2y agoTaking this thought to its logical conclusion: https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/paragraphica https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/paragraphica
- kyriakos 2y agosmall correction “phonē” means voice not sound :)
- coldtea 2y agoIn ancient and koinē Greek it meant both voice and sound (including the sound of instruments, which carries in modern instrument names like "saxophone" and so on). They would say "ὀργάνων φωναί", "φωνὴ βροντῆς", "φωνὴ ὑδάτων" and so on for example.
- thsksbd 2y agoSome of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been. Courts, for example. Forensic science was revolutionized by widespread adoption of photography leading to a reduction of the importance given to witnesses. Who also hallucinate what might have happened.
- eig 2y agoAn MRI machine is a fancy 3D camera. Is this "3D Deep-DSP Model" so different from the processing Samsung did on their phones?
- peddling-brink 2y agoSamsung would replace a white circle with an image of the moon. Even calling it AI was a stretch.
- vhcr 2y agoWhere do you draw the line? RAW, HDR, photo stitching, blur removal?
- poulpy123 2y agoI draw the line at adding something that was not there
- ed312 2y agoThis is an excellent ponit, and I don't know where to exactly draw the line ("I know it when I see it"). I personally use "auto" (probably heuristic, maybe soon-ish AI-powered) features to adjust levels, color balance etc. Using AI to add things that are _not at all present_ in the original crossed the line into digital art vs photography for me.
- Toutouxc 2y agoI draw the line where the original pixel values are still part of the input. As long as you’re manipulating something that the camera captured, it’s still photography, even if the math isn’t the same for all pixels, or is AI powered. But IMO it’s a point worth bringing up, most people have no idea how digital photography works and how difficult it is to measure, quantify and interpret the analog signal that comes from a camera sensor to even resemble an image.
- sneak 2y agoThere was the small complication of the fact that the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSort of, kind of, but not shot at the same time, and not at the same location. I would object slightly less if they made a model (3D or AI) that captures the whole side of the Moon in high detail, and used that, combined with precise location and date/time, to guide resolving the blob in camera input into a high-resolution rendering *that matches, with high accuracy and precision, what the camera would actually see if it had better optics and sensor*. It still feels like faking things, but at least the goal would be to match reality as close as possible.
- bawolff 2y ago> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.
- icehawk 2y agoWhen a cell phone camera auto-focuses, it's still literally recording what light strikes the cmos chip. Do you think its recording some other light?
- bawolff 2y agoA) i think that is not true if focus stacking is in use. B) the light has been modified based on an algorithm, causing the camera to capture different things. Its not just the light as it would be by itself. In terms of the output of the camera the effect of this is much more significant than the AI stuff being complained about.
- UberFly 2y agoA camera takes a picture of what it sees. What comes next is a different thing all together.
- enriquto 2y ago> A camera takes a picture of what it sees. All images taken with digital cameras have been filtered by a pipeline of advanced algorithms. Nobody ever looks at "what the camera sees". What kind of savage would look at an image before demosaicing the Bayer pattern? (Except from the people who work in demosaicing, of course.)
- CamperBob2 2y agoWhat a goofy point to be raised as many times it as it has been in this thread. All of that stuff serves the purpose of more faithfully emulating actual human vision.
- bamboozled 2y agoYeah but that's too hard, and you can just use "AI" to make cool photos instead. Who wants an actual camera when you can have something "like" a camera at half the price?
- coldtea 2y ago>Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water Isn't that like 80% of the mass food industry and 99% of the fast food industry.