3 ms·

What's this, special pleading for doctored photos? The only process in the article that involves nearby pixels is to combine R G and B (and other G) into one s

What's this, special pleading for doctored photos? The only process in the article that involves nearby pixels is to combine R G and B (and other G) into one screen pixel. (In principle these could be mapped to subpixels.) Everything fancier than that can be reasonably called some fake cosmetic bullshit.

nospice 10mo ago
I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.
- card_zero 10mo ago
  I can't see how to rephrase it. How about this: Removing dust and blemishes entails looking at more than one pixel at a time. Nothing in the basic processing described in the article does that.
seba_dos1 10mo ago
The article doesn't even go anywhere near what you need to do in order to get an acceptable output. It only shows the absolute basics. If you apply only those to a photo from a phone camera, it will be massively distorted (the effect is smaller, but still present on big cameras).
- card_zero 10mo ago
  "Distorted" makes me think of a fisheye effect or something similar. Unsure if that's what you meant.
  - seba_dos1 10mo ago
    That's just one kind of distortion you'll see. There will also be bad pixels, lens shading, excessive noise in low light, various electrical differences across rows and temperatures that need to be compensated... Some (most?) sensors will even correct some of these for you already before handing you "raw" data. Raw formats usually carry "Bayer-filtered linear (well, almost linear) light in device-specific color space", not necessarily "raw unprocessed readings from the sensor array", although some vendors move it slightly more towards the latter than others.
- cellular 10mo ago
  When i worked on image pipeline the images were circular and had to be warped to square. Also the edges of the circular image were darker than the middle, and needed to be brightened.
Toutouxc 10mo ago
In that case you can't reasonably do digital photography without "fake cosmetic bullshit" and no current digital camera will output anything even remotely close to no fake cosmetic bullshit.
- card_zero 10mo ago
  That sounds likely. I wonder what specific filters can't be turned off, though. I think you can usually turn off sharpening. Maybe noise removal is built-in somehow (I think somebody else said it's in the sensor).
  - Toutouxc 10mo ago
    I think you’ll find that there is no clear line between what you call fake bullshit and the rest of the process. The entire signal path is optimized at every step to reduce and suppress noise. There’s actual light noise, there’s readout noise, ADC noise, often dozens or hundreds of abnormal pixels. Certain autofocus technologies even sacrifice image-producing pixels, and simply interpolate over the “holes” in data. Regarding sharpening and optical stuff, many modern camera lenses are built with the expectation that some of their optical properties will be easy to correct for in software, allowing the manufacturer to optimize for other properties.

nospice 10mo ago

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.

card_zero 10mo ago
I can't see how to rephrase it. How about this: Removing dust and blemishes entails looking at more than one pixel at a time. Nothing in the basic processing described in the article does that.

seba_dos1 10mo ago

The article doesn't even go anywhere near what you need to do in order to get an acceptable output. It only shows the absolute basics. If you apply only those to a photo from a phone camera, it will be massively distorted (the effect is smaller, but still present on big cameras).

card_zero 10mo ago
"Distorted" makes me think of a fisheye effect or something similar. Unsure if that's what you meant.
- seba_dos1 10mo ago
  That's just one kind of distortion you'll see. There will also be bad pixels, lens shading, excessive noise in low light, various electrical differences across rows and temperatures that need to be compensated... Some (most?) sensors will even correct some of these for you already before handing you "raw" data. Raw formats usually carry "Bayer-filtered linear (well, almost linear) light in device-specific color space", not necessarily "raw unprocessed readings from the sensor array", although some vendors move it slightly more towards the latter than others.
cellular 10mo ago
When i worked on image pipeline the images were circular and had to be warped to square. Also the edges of the circular image were darker than the middle, and needed to be brightened.

Toutouxc 10mo ago

In that case you can't reasonably do digital photography without "fake cosmetic bullshit" and no current digital camera will output anything even remotely close to no fake cosmetic bullshit.

card_zero 10mo ago
That sounds likely. I wonder what specific filters can't be turned off, though. I think you can usually turn off sharpening. Maybe noise removal is built-in somehow (I think somebody else said it's in the sensor).
- Toutouxc 10mo ago
  I think you’ll find that there is no clear line between what you call fake bullshit and the rest of the process. The entire signal path is optimized at every step to reduce and suppress noise. There’s actual light noise, there’s readout noise, ADC noise, often dozens or hundreds of abnormal pixels. Certain autofocus technologies even sacrifice image-producing pixels, and simply interpolate over the “holes” in data. Regarding sharpening and optical stuff, many modern camera lenses are built with the expectation that some of their optical properties will be easy to correct for in software, allowing the manufacturer to optimize for other properties.