8 ms·

Practically -- I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and t

Practically -- I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time. (There are fingerprint sensors under mobile screens now ...and I think even some front facing cameras are being built in without sacrificing a punch hole / pixels. There is scope to make this better and seamless so we can have multiple cameras if we want behind a typical laptop screen or desktop monitor.) This would make for a genuine look-at-the-camera video whether we are looking at other attendees in a meeting or reading off our slide notes (teleprompter style). There would be no need to fake it. More philosophically -- I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. Cameras are supposed to capture reality by default. I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions. Videos are and will be used for recording humans as they are. The capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more. Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. Videos will be used as memories of people bygone. Videos will be used as forensic or crime scene evidence. Let us protect the current state of video capture. All AI enhancements should be marketed separately under a different name, not silently added into existing cameras.

aitchnyu 2y ago
Will we have video with sensor signature for evidence purposes? One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  > One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake. Well I would have expected any court would have stopped accepting audio and video as evidence by now.
  - agos 2y ago
    that would be a lot of baby throwing along the bathwater
    - ballenf 2y ago
      Similar to how hearsay evidence is thrown out, despite it potentially having substantial value. Court is exactly the place you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    All I know is that I personally have stopped giving audio and video any benefit of the doubt. I think it's risky to accept any recording as representative of truth unless you or someone you trust was there at the time of the recording to vouch for its correctness.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  There are emerging standards for this. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-captured-camera-label-content-credentials https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-ca...
  - sharpshadow 2y ago
    So one could upload the original footage directly to YouTube to get the authenticity label and put it on private then proceed with the usual edits and provide the link to the private video as prove that it’s real.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      Presumably that would break the chain of custody metadata, or would leave provenance breadcrumbs leading back to the original unedited video? https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en > Limitations > “Captured with a camera” only appears if a creator opts to use C2PA technology during filming. If it’s missing, it doesn’t mean the content has modified audio or visuals. > Note: This feature is separate from our existing altered and synthetic disclosures. > The metadata that leads to a “Captured with a camera” disclosure is made by a 3rd party (for example, a camera manufacturer). This means there is some risk that someone could take a photo of another screen showing synthetic content. Because the other screen shows an image that has been modified, it wouldn’t be eligible for the “Captured with a camera” disclosure. This issue is called “air-gapping.” Camera manufacturers will continue to develop detection measures to prevent “air-gapping,” but the sophistication of those detection measures may vary in the near term. https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-transparency-c2pa/ https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-tran...
yieldcrv 2y ago
Or buy a specialty device for replicating the real world Its been half a decade already from when I first noticed iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality, had to break out an ILC (DSLR without the SLR) to capture the world more congruently to how I see
- lloeki 2y ago
  > iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality s/iPhones/the iPhone Camera.app/ Apps like Halide and Pro Camera have no trouble handing you over control of white balance. I've captured both faint aurora borealis and red/brown hue when sand and dust is brought over to inland Europe by scirocco with great success.
jrussino 2y ago
I agree with your philosophical stance, in general, but this particular use case is one that I've been wanting for years and where I think altering the image can be in some ways more "honest" than showing the raw camera feed. With an unfiltered camera, it looks like I'm making eye contact with you when I'm actually looking directly at my camera, and likewise it looks like I'm staring off to the side when I'm looking directly at your image in my screen. A camera centered behind my screen might be marginally better in that regard, but it still wouldn't look quite right. What I'd really like to see is a filter for video conferencing that is aware of the position of your image on my screen, and modifies the angle of my face and eyes to more closely match what you would actually see from that perspective (e.g. it would look like I'm making direct eye contact when I'm looking at/near the position of your eyes on my screen). You could imagine this working even for multiple users, where I might be paying attention to one participant or another, and each of their views of me would be updated so that the one I'm paying attention to can tell I'm looking directly at them, and the others know I'm not looking directly at them in that moment.
- wruza 2y ago
  Would be funny if everyone on your screen gave a side eye to the bottom right corner where the currently speaking person is. Jokes aside, I think you're absolutely right. Online interactions have dynamic geometry, so mounting a camera behind a screen will just not cut it, unless the entire screen is a camera. Also, some people might prefer projecting/receiving no eye contact at all, at times, in situations. And vice versa. Philosophical stance here is purely traditionalist, it decides on behalf of people. What people would like to use, that should exist. "Videos are and will" is a strange claim, assuming its claimer has neither control over it nor any sort of affirmation that it is going to be true.
  - albert_e 2y ago
    Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen. Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too. Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable.
ChoHag 2y ago
[dead]
sadcherry 2y ago
[flagged]
- irjustin 2y ago
  The line is very long and blurry the whole way. The extremes are completely naked 100% of the time with zero grooming and the opposite is eugenics or genetic engineering body/facial features (is what i've come to believe?). Isn't it okay to feel good about looking good, sure (i love dressing up and doing my hair for occasions)! but obviously that can turn very problematic very fast. Honestly, I wish I knew where to draw the line in the sand. Is it makeup? piercings? nice clothes? surgery? Just a parent with two daughters who has more questions than answers.
  - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
    Surgery is permanent, life-long change- beauty, is relevant for 20years+
  - ddingus 2y ago
    What we did was draw the line at anything that might close a door in life they may prefer remain open. Messing with hair in our youth is fun and it grows back. No worries. Modest piercings society does not frown on. . No tattoos and especially none on the face, hands, etc... We had boys and girls and it went OK. Not too much complaining and when they became adults, we handed them the keys and wished them well and help where and how we can. Maybe our experiences help with understanding yours.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Please, please, tell me this is sarcasm.
  - master-lincoln 2y ago
    I don't think it was. And I agree: make up is like putting a mask on to hide who you really are because society taught you that you are more valuable this way. People might think they do this for themselves, but it has been put into their mind by media and adverts. This is not healthy and also wasted resources.
YeahThisIsMe 2y ago
I agree with this. I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.
- smeej 2y ago
  Somehow I've apparently made a different adjustment to this than most people. My therapist was commenting on it the other day, how I do look directly into the camera when I want her to see me as making "eye contact," rather than looking directly at where I see her eyes. She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying. I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.
  - Iku_Tri 2y ago
    I don't want to be mean to your therapist, but really? Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now? You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me. Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.
    - smeej 2y ago
      It might be one thing if I had done it on purpose, because I was thinking about camera eyelines. But it wasn't deliberate. I subconsciously choose based on how another person will see me, because I don't really expect to get a whole lot of information from seeing them. Something about this being a type of "masking" in autistic women, trying harder to get my social cues across to others, but not expecting myself to receive them. I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.
TowerTall 2y ago
> under-the-LED-display cameras If people laugh with their mouths open, wouldn’t a camera placed below the LED display capture the inside of their mouths, and the rest of the time just point straight up their noses?
- albert_e 2y ago
  I meant the camera will be invisible and BEHIND the screen .... just not visible as a punch hole/notch. I think some mobile phones have already done this...where they are able to put a camera behind the pixels.
vitorsr 2y ago
> I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions. Critically, the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation.
- jMyles 2y ago
  > the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation. This is a brilliant way to examine / explain the distinction.
xattt 2y ago
I always thought that under-screen cameras would come as a bug-eye lens, with the sensors between pixels. The pitch of modern mini-LED displays seems to have enough space between pixels to fit them in.
IanCal 2y ago
I get the general philosophical point but to take a fun counterargument - cameras don't record the moment. They record a very narrow snapshot in time. One you, or anyone around you, may not recognise. Have you ever looked at a group of friends and thought "ONE OF YOU IS BLINKING"? No. Yet it's quite common to have a photo where at least one person is mid-blink. The 30-year lifespan of that photo includes the milliseconds they were blinking. Is it untrue to have a picture where two people were not blinking and standing side by side? They did in real life, in those same poses, but fractions of a second apart. Is it a failure to capture reality by having a picture of them with their eyes open? Maybe - or maybe the blending of several moments is more true to the original situation than any specific snapshot could be. > I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time. That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group. > Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. I agree, but having people be able to actually look at each other is surely part of this.
- albert_e 2y ago
  > That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group. Repeating my comment on a sibling ... Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen. Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too. Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Honestly I’ll take the software correction approach. Seems cheaper. I’ll also challenge about whether people actually care about the philosophical position about live editing. Zoom filters to ade makeup and other realtime and non realtime filters are popular. Movies have special effects. I think this purism isn’t helpful given what it seems that people actually want, not to mention that the concept of “true image” is so tenuous (eg no picture of the aurora borealis or the Milky Way is actually what your eye would see).
mikae1 2y ago
> I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras Everything but your smartphone is big enough that you'd to sprinkle your entire screen area with sensors to get the sense of me looking at you. And, that won't be cheap. Say my laptop had a sensor dead center and I was in a group chat. Only the person dead center would see me looking to the camera. This is better done in software.
JohnFen 2y ago
> I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. I agree. This is one of the things that I actively worry about.
taeric 2y ago
Beam splitting is a thing. Elgato has a lowish cost one that works quite well.
renewiltord 2y ago
The really sad thing is that we take raw sensor data and process it at all. People are so out of touch with things these days we use lenses to focus the picture etc. Why not just transmit the raw sensor data instead of processing everything so much? People could just use their minds (I know, ridiculous to ask people to do that in this era where everything is spoon fed to you) and actually interpret things for once. What a society! Processed food, plastics in their blood, processed sensor data. Ugh, we have strayed so far from natural interactions. Philosophically we have abandoned being mindful of where we are, and just being our natural forms instead of being slaves to what some computer is telling you that you should be seeing.
jpicard 2y ago
Here's a webcam that has a small arm that drops down placing the sensor in front of the screen. It blocks a little bit of the screen, but allows more eye contact, without using AI to modify eyes. https://icontactcamera.com/ https://icontactcamera.com/

aitchnyu 2y ago

Will we have video with sensor signature for evidence purposes? One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake.

prmoustache 2y ago
> One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake. Well I would have expected any court would have stopped accepting audio and video as evidence by now.
- agos 2y ago
  that would be a lot of baby throwing along the bathwater
  - ballenf 2y ago
    Similar to how hearsay evidence is thrown out, despite it potentially having substantial value. Court is exactly the place you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  All I know is that I personally have stopped giving audio and video any benefit of the doubt. I think it's risky to accept any recording as representative of truth unless you or someone you trust was there at the time of the recording to vouch for its correctness.
aspenmayer 2y ago
There are emerging standards for this. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-captured-camera-label-content-credentials https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-ca...
- sharpshadow 2y ago
  So one could upload the original footage directly to YouTube to get the authenticity label and put it on private then proceed with the usual edits and provide the link to the private video as prove that it’s real.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Presumably that would break the chain of custody metadata, or would leave provenance breadcrumbs leading back to the original unedited video? https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en > Limitations > “Captured with a camera” only appears if a creator opts to use C2PA technology during filming. If it’s missing, it doesn’t mean the content has modified audio or visuals. > Note: This feature is separate from our existing altered and synthetic disclosures. > The metadata that leads to a “Captured with a camera” disclosure is made by a 3rd party (for example, a camera manufacturer). This means there is some risk that someone could take a photo of another screen showing synthetic content. Because the other screen shows an image that has been modified, it wouldn’t be eligible for the “Captured with a camera” disclosure. This issue is called “air-gapping.” Camera manufacturers will continue to develop detection measures to prevent “air-gapping,” but the sophistication of those detection measures may vary in the near term. https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-transparency-c2pa/ https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-tran...

yieldcrv 2y ago

Or buy a specialty device for replicating the real world Its been half a decade already from when I first noticed iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality, had to break out an ILC (DSLR without the SLR) to capture the world more congruently to how I see

lloeki 2y ago
> iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality s/iPhones/the iPhone Camera.app/ Apps like Halide and Pro Camera have no trouble handing you over control of white balance. I've captured both faint aurora borealis and red/brown hue when sand and dust is brought over to inland Europe by scirocco with great success.

jrussino 2y ago

I agree with your philosophical stance, in general, but this particular use case is one that I've been wanting for years and where I think altering the image can be in some ways more "honest" than showing the raw camera feed. With an unfiltered camera, it looks like I'm making eye contact with you when I'm actually looking directly at my camera, and likewise it looks like I'm staring off to the side when I'm looking directly at your image in my screen. A camera centered behind my screen might be marginally better in that regard, but it still wouldn't look quite right. What I'd really like to see is a filter for video conferencing that is aware of the position of your image on my screen, and modifies the angle of my face and eyes to more closely match what you would actually see from that perspective (e.g. it would look like I'm making direct eye contact when I'm looking at/near the position of your eyes on my screen). You could imagine this working even for multiple users, where I might be paying attention to one participant or another, and each of their views of me would be updated so that the one I'm paying attention to can tell I'm looking directly at them, and the others know I'm not looking directly at them in that moment.

wruza 2y ago
Would be funny if everyone on your screen gave a side eye to the bottom right corner where the currently speaking person is. Jokes aside, I think you're absolutely right. Online interactions have dynamic geometry, so mounting a camera behind a screen will just not cut it, unless the entire screen is a camera. Also, some people might prefer projecting/receiving no eye contact at all, at times, in situations. And vice versa. Philosophical stance here is purely traditionalist, it decides on behalf of people. What people would like to use, that should exist. "Videos are and will" is a strange claim, assuming its claimer has neither control over it nor any sort of affirmation that it is going to be true.
- albert_e 2y ago
  Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen. Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too. Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable.

ChoHag 2y ago

[dead]

sadcherry 2y ago

[flagged]

irjustin 2y ago
The line is very long and blurry the whole way. The extremes are completely naked 100% of the time with zero grooming and the opposite is eugenics or genetic engineering body/facial features (is what i've come to believe?). Isn't it okay to feel good about looking good, sure (i love dressing up and doing my hair for occasions)! but obviously that can turn very problematic very fast. Honestly, I wish I knew where to draw the line in the sand. Is it makeup? piercings? nice clothes? surgery? Just a parent with two daughters who has more questions than answers.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Surgery is permanent, life-long change- beauty, is relevant for 20years+
- ddingus 2y ago
  What we did was draw the line at anything that might close a door in life they may prefer remain open. Messing with hair in our youth is fun and it grows back. No worries. Modest piercings society does not frown on. . No tattoos and especially none on the face, hands, etc... We had boys and girls and it went OK. Not too much complaining and when they became adults, we handed them the keys and wished them well and help where and how we can. Maybe our experiences help with understanding yours.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Please, please, tell me this is sarcasm.
- master-lincoln 2y ago
  I don't think it was. And I agree: make up is like putting a mask on to hide who you really are because society taught you that you are more valuable this way. People might think they do this for themselves, but it has been put into their mind by media and adverts. This is not healthy and also wasted resources.

YeahThisIsMe 2y ago

I agree with this. I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.

smeej 2y ago
Somehow I've apparently made a different adjustment to this than most people. My therapist was commenting on it the other day, how I do look directly into the camera when I want her to see me as making "eye contact," rather than looking directly at where I see her eyes. She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying. I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.
- Iku_Tri 2y ago
  I don't want to be mean to your therapist, but really? Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now? You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me. Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.
  - smeej 2y ago
    It might be one thing if I had done it on purpose, because I was thinking about camera eyelines. But it wasn't deliberate. I subconsciously choose based on how another person will see me, because I don't really expect to get a whole lot of information from seeing them. Something about this being a type of "masking" in autistic women, trying harder to get my social cues across to others, but not expecting myself to receive them. I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.

TowerTall 2y ago

> under-the-LED-display cameras If people laugh with their mouths open, wouldn’t a camera placed below the LED display capture the inside of their mouths, and the rest of the time just point straight up their noses?

albert_e 2y ago
I meant the camera will be invisible and BEHIND the screen .... just not visible as a punch hole/notch. I think some mobile phones have already done this...where they are able to put a camera behind the pixels.

vitorsr 2y ago

> I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions. Critically, the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation.

jMyles 2y ago
> the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation. This is a brilliant way to examine / explain the distinction.

xattt 2y ago

I always thought that under-screen cameras would come as a bug-eye lens, with the sensors between pixels. The pitch of modern mini-LED displays seems to have enough space between pixels to fit them in.

IanCal 2y ago

I get the general philosophical point but to take a fun counterargument - cameras don't record the moment. They record a very narrow snapshot in time. One you, or anyone around you, may not recognise. Have you ever looked at a group of friends and thought "ONE OF YOU IS BLINKING"? No. Yet it's quite common to have a photo where at least one person is mid-blink. The 30-year lifespan of that photo includes the milliseconds they were blinking. Is it untrue to have a picture where two people were not blinking and standing side by side? They did in real life, in those same poses, but fractions of a second apart. Is it a failure to capture reality by having a picture of them with their eyes open? Maybe - or maybe the blending of several moments is more true to the original situation than any specific snapshot could be. > I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time. That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group. > Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. I agree, but having people be able to actually look at each other is surely part of this.

albert_e 2y ago
> That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group. Repeating my comment on a sibling ... Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen. Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too. Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Honestly I’ll take the software correction approach. Seems cheaper. I’ll also challenge about whether people actually care about the philosophical position about live editing. Zoom filters to ade makeup and other realtime and non realtime filters are popular. Movies have special effects. I think this purism isn’t helpful given what it seems that people actually want, not to mention that the concept of “true image” is so tenuous (eg no picture of the aurora borealis or the Milky Way is actually what your eye would see).

mikae1 2y ago

> I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras Everything but your smartphone is big enough that you'd to sprinkle your entire screen area with sensors to get the sense of me looking at you. And, that won't be cheap. Say my laptop had a sensor dead center and I was in a group chat. Only the person dead center would see me looking to the camera. This is better done in software.

JohnFen 2y ago

> I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. I agree. This is one of the things that I actively worry about.

taeric 2y ago

Beam splitting is a thing. Elgato has a lowish cost one that works quite well.

renewiltord 2y ago

The really sad thing is that we take raw sensor data and process it at all. People are so out of touch with things these days we use lenses to focus the picture etc. Why not just transmit the raw sensor data instead of processing everything so much? People could just use their minds (I know, ridiculous to ask people to do that in this era where everything is spoon fed to you) and actually interpret things for once. What a society! Processed food, plastics in their blood, processed sensor data. Ugh, we have strayed so far from natural interactions. Philosophically we have abandoned being mindful of where we are, and just being our natural forms instead of being slaves to what some computer is telling you that you should be seeing.

jpicard 2y ago

Here's a webcam that has a small arm that drops down placing the sensor in front of the screen. It blocks a little bit of the screen, but allows more eye contact, without using AI to modify eyes. https://icontactcamera.com/ https://icontactcamera.com/