3 ms·

Okay, these options are far enough down the slippery slope to present a compelling argument that the whole thing is a Bad Idea. Short hop from here to suppress_

• lloeki 2y ago
  Did you watch the transformed video with the settings above? I think you misunderstand the role of "Look Away": it's not like it looks completely sideways, inventing behaviour that does not exist; instead it looks "away" _from the fixed point that would be dead-on camera center_ (that results in this "I'm gonna pierce through your skull with laser eyes" look), substituting it with "when looking - not aiming/scrutinizing - at something, even continuously, human eyes have saccades" The whole premise of such software (which has already been implemented by Apple in FaceTime with great success) is to _restore_ the reality which is "I'm looking at you but the mechanical offset between camera and window-on-screen destroys the information that I'm in fact looking at you", not invent something that is not real. Ideally it would even: - notice actual saccades and reproduce them, only cancelling the offset (super tough, so the next best thing is to fake it, but since these are small, uncontrolled, random-ish movements the approximation is quite sufficient) - take into account video window position relative to the camera so that if I'm looking away from the window then it stops compensating. But hey, first implementations are often naive. I give them credit for implementing Look Away because that's one step beyond the naive implementation. I guess it's not the default + tuneables are there because it's still early.