This argument bothers me. Of course digital cameras do a lot of processing on the captured sensor data. But to superimpose a canned picture of the moon on a photo of a lightbulb taken in a room is in a different league. That image was never on the sensor to start with.
I can’t quite put my finger on why this is so disturbing. What group of people sat around and decided that this moon trick would be a great feature to add to the phone? What was the thought process? Not bothered by the deceptive nature of this they shipped it. That’s just so far from my values - what other things will they add and only admit to when found out?
> Of course digital cameras do a lot of processing on the captured sensor data.
They don't, though. Oh, the awful camera in a smartphone does, because the sensor is so tiny and there's barely any lens. But classically speaking with a "real" digital camera? No, there is no further processing. The values for each pixel are a measurement of the intensity of the light falling on the sensor.
It is true that further processing might be necessary anyway. Some sensors do not correlate easily to RGB displays and their raw data may not be displayable on any device without deinterlacing, dithering, and transformations where one sensor pixel does not translate directly to one display pixel. But even doing that sort of conversion automatically is controversial, which is why most dedicated digital cameras provide access to the raw sensor data.
Samsung in particular, perhaps more than any other large consumer goods company, has a culture of "fakery" as a core part of their business.
It's not one guy, some aberration, or an isolated incident.
They have never hesitated to use smoke and mirrors to sell their products. If they were horse breeders, then they'd be the type to dye the horse's hair black and put a pepper up its bum to make it more "lively".
This is at the forefront of my mind because I was just over at a friend's place, trying to show him a 4K HDR video of a recent trip that I've uploaded to YouTube.
On my Sony TV, it looks spectacular, if I must say so myself. I can't take credit, really, it's the camera. It's an expensive DSLR, and it doesn't do any image fakery. I also mixed in some footage from an iPhone using ProRes mode. You can barely tell that that clip was shot with something that fits in my pocket!
On his Samsung flagship TV it looks... bad. Garish. Over-sharpened to the point that hair flickers as it moves because of the aliasing artefacts.[1] Colors are blown out to the point that they can't be distinguished, even if they were originally different. The brightness is boosted so high that normal scenes make you squint. Everything has Pop! Glare! Bang! Glitz! ... like a circus lit up at night. It's a clown show.
Other brands take pride in their televisions being calibrated to show the creative intent and the subtleties that modern visual artworks can achieve.
Samsung cranks everything to 11 so that their TV stands out amongst the competitors' models in the store.
The moon thing is the same. They know that the majority of the consumers aren't literate enough in photography to know the futility of photographing a tiny celestial object with a wide angle lens, so they fake it because it keeps phone sales high.
At the end of the day, they sell more products as a consequence of these decisions. Customers vote with their wallets, but most voters are dumb. It's as simple as that.
[1] It's a slightly older model, which I'm guessing had its sharpening tuned to 24fps movies in an era when most 4K movies were upscaled from 2K, so hair was generally blurry. Now that hobbyists are producing 4K 60fps home videos downscaled from 8K sensors, every hair is sharply defined out of the camera, so the TV overdoes things and the result is trash.
This reminds me of an alcoholic who told me “everything can poison you, even water!” I mean, yeah, drinking 15l of water will probably kill me but this doesn’t make me wanna LARP being a gerbil. It just diverts my attention from the real issue by removing all nuance.
To quote my other friend (an engineer): “technically correct is the best kind of correct!”
I'd love to see this in a court of law. "Your honor, we move to dismiss that picture as unacceptable evidence. It was taken by a Samsung device, and therefore cannot be construed to represent the actual scene as seen by the witness."
This is a feature that totally removes any sense of professional work, imagine trying to use pictures captured by a Samsung with a AI generated moon in it for a legal scenario.
I think about that Reddit thread where a user's Samsung's night vision feature 'helpfully' added a ghost man standing in their kitchen. I will never buy a Samsung phone.
It'd be fine if they had been upfront about it, and you had a way to turn it off.
People showed you can easily make it produce bad results. Presumably, we'll start to see AI hallucinations in camera photography more often if they continue down this route.
Maybe the best move forward for Samsung is to come out as followers of the surrealism art movement, they could use Magritte's famous 1929 painting to accommodate this press release - [The Treachery of Images - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images)
There is something with old photos from the early 1900's that capture light and detail in a way i would describe as a real picture, except for the missing color of course
You can always take real pictures by carrying a camera on your back pointing backwards at an angle taking pictures in intervals as long as you don’t look at them later.
[+] [-] JSR_FDED|2 years ago|reply
I can’t quite put my finger on why this is so disturbing. What group of people sat around and decided that this moon trick would be a great feature to add to the phone? What was the thought process? Not bothered by the deceptive nature of this they shipped it. That’s just so far from my values - what other things will they add and only admit to when found out?
[+] [-] retrac|2 years ago|reply
They don't, though. Oh, the awful camera in a smartphone does, because the sensor is so tiny and there's barely any lens. But classically speaking with a "real" digital camera? No, there is no further processing. The values for each pixel are a measurement of the intensity of the light falling on the sensor.
It is true that further processing might be necessary anyway. Some sensors do not correlate easily to RGB displays and their raw data may not be displayable on any device without deinterlacing, dithering, and transformations where one sensor pixel does not translate directly to one display pixel. But even doing that sort of conversion automatically is controversial, which is why most dedicated digital cameras provide access to the raw sensor data.
[+] [-] jiggawatts|2 years ago|reply
It's not one guy, some aberration, or an isolated incident.
They have never hesitated to use smoke and mirrors to sell their products. If they were horse breeders, then they'd be the type to dye the horse's hair black and put a pepper up its bum to make it more "lively".
This is at the forefront of my mind because I was just over at a friend's place, trying to show him a 4K HDR video of a recent trip that I've uploaded to YouTube.
On my Sony TV, it looks spectacular, if I must say so myself. I can't take credit, really, it's the camera. It's an expensive DSLR, and it doesn't do any image fakery. I also mixed in some footage from an iPhone using ProRes mode. You can barely tell that that clip was shot with something that fits in my pocket!
On his Samsung flagship TV it looks... bad. Garish. Over-sharpened to the point that hair flickers as it moves because of the aliasing artefacts.[1] Colors are blown out to the point that they can't be distinguished, even if they were originally different. The brightness is boosted so high that normal scenes make you squint. Everything has Pop! Glare! Bang! Glitz! ... like a circus lit up at night. It's a clown show.
Other brands take pride in their televisions being calibrated to show the creative intent and the subtleties that modern visual artworks can achieve.
Samsung cranks everything to 11 so that their TV stands out amongst the competitors' models in the store.
The moon thing is the same. They know that the majority of the consumers aren't literate enough in photography to know the futility of photographing a tiny celestial object with a wide angle lens, so they fake it because it keeps phone sales high.
At the end of the day, they sell more products as a consequence of these decisions. Customers vote with their wallets, but most voters are dumb. It's as simple as that.
[1] It's a slightly older model, which I'm guessing had its sharpening tuned to 24fps movies in an era when most 4K movies were upscaled from 2K, so hair was generally blurry. Now that hobbyists are producing 4K 60fps home videos downscaled from 8K sensors, every hair is sharply defined out of the camera, so the TV overdoes things and the result is trash.
[+] [-] rpastuszak|2 years ago|reply
To quote my other friend (an engineer): “technically correct is the best kind of correct!”
[+] [-] Rygian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grotorea|2 years ago|reply
> The lawyer argued Apple uses AI in its pinch-to-zoom feature to create "what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there.”
https://gizmodo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-s-lawyers-claim-zooming...
[+] [-] rubatuga|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildrhythms|2 years ago|reply
https://old.reddit.com/r/Ghosts/comments/11jvwy4/after_years...
[+] [-] nitwit005|2 years ago|reply
People showed you can easily make it produce bad results. Presumably, we'll start to see AI hallucinations in camera photography more often if they continue down this route.
[+] [-] eviks|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 97-109-107|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikekkdcjkfke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hulitu|2 years ago|reply
So all of his pictures are fakes ? /s
[+] [-] mediumsmart|2 years ago|reply