iPhone camera app replaces person’s head with a leaf in photo
twitter.com
twitter.com
If this is due to stabilization and not some background blur face detection then it’s probably not something you can (or would want to) disable. Taking a telephoto shot with a tiny sensor in something other than great light (even a heavy overcast is often not enough) will require a lot of software processing. I’m not sure exactly what happened here but I’m pretty sure everyone asking for “unmodified raw photos” to be produced don’t understand what they are asking for. Those “unmodified” photos would be unusable in most cases outside very bright conditions.
I think this particular big demonstrates a massive gap in what people think photoprocessing is, and what it has very recently become
I don't think it's unreasonable to allow context of the statement to allow us to disregard "reality" as it pertains to quantum wave functions, in favor of something more human. There's a large difference in something that's goal is to capture what the eye sees and something that's goal isn't. It feels like Apple thinks they know what's better for us than we do, which I admit it's perfectly capable of doing in certain scenarios. But, when Apples thoughts do not align or go directly against our wishes it's uncomfortable, it feels like your "reality" is being ripped from your hands in favor of what some giant corporation thinks your reality should be, for any large number of opaque or intentionally obscured reasons.
I think it is, Afterall that's what all the Instagram filters are for, and that's where most photos end up
Then the sensor values are converted to a JPEG. So it's still an accurate rendition of the light - even though yes, it is a rendition of the light.
But to completely replace some sensor values with some computer-generated values is a different ballgame, IMO. It's more akin to Photoshop editing, as opposed to Lightroom.
The camera sensor does not record the wavelengths of lights it is capturing, only RGB values. We can only reproduce the picture in a way that is convincing to our eyes, not what light what original being captured.
I agree with your point though. I dislike "computational photography".
[1] guess it is called demosaicing
When you bring that RAW photo into something like Lightroom or Capture One they’re automatically applying a base curve to the photo before you do anything.
In Capture One you can set that to “flat” which I believe is fairly unprocessed, and it takes a lot of work to get it to a usable state from there. They also have other options, and they recently changed their default setting and it’s pretty incredible how different it is from their old default.
But it does seem like they have quite a few high tech algorithms at play. More than just multi-frame noise reduction.
Closely related: "It's impossible to just 'enhance' an image to make a license plate readable. Lost information ist lost". This was big due to some US TV show at the time, I guess. Here, the error was in the assumption that the information was lost: as it turns out, there's a wide space of possibilities for image quality to be too low for us to easily read some letters, but good enough to contain the clues allowing a smart algorithm to reconstruct them.
Guessing what stops you is that the Apple team that makes camera software has a budget that makes the Nikon pc app team look quite small.
The processor still doesn't have access to said "real dof", which is the point of this comment thread.
DSLR and mirrorless cameras have better optical properties. But they are held back by starting too late and being much worse when it comes to software. These cameras also are limited by their CPUs, which are a decade behind, and by their batteries, which are much smaller but expected to last for thousands of exposures.
And I am wrong. Depending on the phone.
A Nikon battery: 2280 mAh.
An iPhone 13: anywhere from 2406–4352 mAH.
Yeah, that’s a way smaller power budget than a Pro iPhone, especially as you have autofocus and image stabilization systems that have to move around a lot more mass.
(And as a digital camera user - at least I can hot swap batteries. I miss my old cell phones that allowed for this.)
The screen is off except when I'm previewing a photo. The viewfinder is physical. The metering is only on for 10-20 seconds after I wake the camera by touching the shutter release and is only displaying on a low power monochromatic LCD. Autofocus only happens while I'm holding the shutter release until it finds focus then locks.
Meanwhile the iPhone battery is powering what is, effectively, an entire laptop with a 5+" screen and cellular, wifi and bluetooth radios.
Articles I can find are quoting an iPhone taking a few hundred shots on a charge. Nikon's testing puts my camera able to take a few _thousand_ per charge. There's literally an order of magnitude difference from my Nikon's 1400mAh battery to a iPhone's 2500-4500mAh battery. Two to three times the capacity for 1/10 the pictures.
They also take a second or so to wake from standby which is super annoying for my job, so I have it set to 5 minutes. That essentially means it never goes in to standby on a wedding day.
My Corsair H150i Pro AIO water cooler and decent airflow case (Define 7 W/Corsair ML140s) allows me to run my Ryzen 3900XT at 4.4ghz constantly, all cores, for any kind of real life workload.
Good luck trying that with a laptop.
Hell, one of the major selling points of the most recent iphones is prores recording! Dump half a second of that into a file. If that means a half-full phone can only fit a thousand photos before it's emptied, then sure I'll take it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there's still a huge issue with silicon processing capabilities/power when it comes to image sensors (which is why camera sensors buffer images between shots). I unfortunately don't remember the context but it said something that it was (very far) from possible to actually get all the sensor data into the processor and as a result you only take a small fraction of the actual incident light/photos practically.
Most of it ends up in a RAM-like write buffer, because SD cards, or even faster formats like CF-express, can’t keep up with the write speed of tens of 50 megapixel shots coming through every second.
There are sensor readout speed limits, which is why you don’t see cameras exceed 30 frames per second of 8k recording, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t read out the entire full-well capacity of the sensor each of those frames.
I mean, sure, but the A15 bionic is much more power constrained and effectively has less 'GPUs' and cores than the M1, likely because the SoC is also constrained by its size within the phone housing.
Also, because phone cameras have gotten so good, the skill floor for what you’re talking about is higher. There’s more skill involved in using software like lightroom than you might think. I’m a hobbyist photographer, and sometimes my iphone just seems more skillful than I am using my nicer camera and Lightroom.
He said they went through hours of details on how the various enhancement algorithms and systems worked, and at the end, the bottom line was basically 'take a better picture in the first place' - as in get the lens, lighting, and parameters right in the first place, and that'll be the biggest factor in how far the processing HW/SW/people can take the enhancements.
Maybe the new software with huge R&D budgets is now better, but I'd suspect this advice is still not obsolete...
It is good advice indeed.
Still, it's amazing how processing has evolved. I took a picture of my 3yo daughter having finally fallen asleep after a bout of night terrors, in the dark light (using a Hue Ambiance in her room; best things ever) - in the S21 Ultra viewfinder I could see absolutely nothing, however after 3 seconds of a steady hand I was rewarded with a fantastic picture better lit than what my eyes had adjusted to.
(If I had any complaints, it would be that I'd like it to be darker - however I can understand why on average most would like the processed result.)
Well, a phone can reconstruct this license plate, and in fact any license plate in lieu of this one! And invent a new one!
Which is worrisome for justice. Presenting proof, that was uploaded to servers, horodated and geostamped, won’t be enough in a court of law. Anyone can answer: “What if the iPhone recreated and inferred the presence of a knife using the neural engine? This face, is it real? The distance, is it repositionned?”
Deepfakes, robocalls and Caller ID and voice impersonation, automatic ML in photos, if this train keeps going, we won't know what's real at all. I am struggling to see how we will function.
That's where we started, in a way. Perhaps our short time of feeling we had a grip on reality will just have been a passing phase, before returning to normality.
but now we have all these artificial experiences that might clock real to the senses and have a reputation of fidelity, yet have always been editable and are increasingly made of black box constructive interpretations that value who-knows-what over fidelity. and no part of the process can be interrogated for motivations or detail.
As in, "Incredibly-cheap-but-sometimes-there's-rat-poop-in-it" lunch?
Assuming you don't have a sampling error here, of course.
Pictures shouldn't be edited by default, the user should be given the option if they want to. And lets not even get started on the fact that we have all these face recognition algos and such in a device constantly connected to the internet, with people taking pictures of themselves and everyone around them. What could go wrong...
This statement requires more precision. A camera sensor usually has more dynamic range than the display can represent. Lenses often introduce distortions. Sensors capture noise. The tint and color temperature of light sources vary greatly. Here's a set of seven images taken at steps along the path starting from as close as a JPEG can represent to the raw sensor data to a finished image that reasonably represents how my eyes saw the scene:
When using a dedicated camera and generating a JPEG in the camera, a similar set of steps is applied automatically. There's no such thing as "no filter" in digital photography; even the "unprocessed RAW" is one program's opinion of how 12 bits per channel should be rendered at 8 bits per channel to display on your screen (as well as downsampled and compressed, in this case). There are often user-selectable profiles that each have a bit of a different look, much as different film stocks produce different looks (Fuji cameras actually call their profiles "film simulations" and name them after the company's film stocks).
So I think what you really mean is that you want the camera to produce an image that appears on a screen as much like what you saw with your eyes as it can.
> Pictures shouldn't be edited by default
I don’t think you can have both of these things. In general, if you want to closely reproduce what your eye sees, you’re going to have to do some editing.
yea, whith our first child we still used a dedicated camera (compact, no dslr) and there is a very noticeable drop in imagequality after that because we got lazy and use our phones.
then again "the best camera is the one you have with you"
It's more than that, it's completely mind blowing when you compare it to a DSLR.
In "good" lightning condition, your iphone will give you a picture 75% as good as what you could get with a 4k$ fullframe DSLR kit that's 10" long and weight a few pounds.
the problem is when light is not perfect, that's when the bigger lens/sensor are worth it even for a beginner that doesn't know much about photography. And if you need to edit your pictures, you don't get those extra stops of exposure up or down because the iphone already needed all the dynamic range of the sensor to create the picture you got.
It would be very interesting to see a colab between apple and a DSLR company to get the best of both world. A large FF senor and lens ecosystem like Canon combined with whatever dark magic Apple is doing on their tiny sensor would have massive potential.
I think the opposite is true, from my (amateur) experience. It's much harder to get a good photo in poor light with a dedicated camera if you don't know what you're doing than it is to get a good photo with a smartphone.
In good light, the better sensors shine through, but in poor light (e.g. and overcast day, not talking about some limit of darkness condition) the superior processing and auto-adjustment of a top-end phone will make for much better photos. Again, talking exclusively about amateur photography, not what a master can do.
You have much much better starting point with a full frame.
Of course if you compare a clueless FF user with clueless phone user, phone can win but thats an unfair comparison. You don't invest often 5k into photo equipment and then be oblivious of what options it gives you. And even if you don't actively try to improve yourself, just using the camera will get you there (somewhere) eventually. Its not a rocket science, just keep doing it. That's not a "master" level, more like experienced beginner.
And even in the case of ignorant users, all cameras these days have auto setting which is actually pretty good and you can take final jpegs from it, ignoring the power of raw edit completely. Counter-intuitively, holding a bigger camera system steady for a good shot is easier commpared to lightweight, awkwardly-shaped phone.
That all being said, I will invest into some top-end phone next year mainly due to its camera power these days and convenience of always having it with you, and sharing kids photos with family instantly. No more always lugging around 2.5 kg of Nikon D750 with 24-120 lens and good bag. I will not make technically better pictures with it, but in my case other aspects outweight this.
This summer I purchased the 24mm GM F1.4 and WOW does it take fantastic night photos. No tripod needed, it lets in enough light that I can use 1/30+ shutter speed. https://i.imgur.com/CcNEUsM.jpg (photo I took recently. 1/40s, 1.4F, 1250 ISO. No photoshop magic, just basic lightroom adjustments)
Also, the iphone opens up to 1.4f, so you're probably not making a fair comparison to your camera (assuming your lens does open up as much)
EDIT: Sony has a 1.2F 50mm lens I really want to get my hands on, but now I am an entrepreneur so my spending days are over for awhile.
if it had put that leaf over some other leaves in the background that weren't captured well, would we have noticed? would it be a better photo?
What if it was meant to be a beautiful leaf photo? If you want an accurate representation of reality, the moment, etc, the majority of cellphone photos would be considered "messed up" imo
Basically, a one second really dark video can be summed up into one very blurry but bright enough photo. But if you carefully move each frame to compensate for camera movement when summing it up - you might also get a sharp picture. But then the subject moves, or a leaf moves, and the algorithm has to decide which parts of the photo should be a priority for not being blurry. And that would be faces, usually. So the camera now needs to decide what is a face and what isn’t. Just to take one single telephoto picture.
Only doing “in camera processing” like a 2015 digital camera with some sharpening, color curves etc doesn’t cut it anymore. If your phone does that, it’ll be laughed at. Phones these days need to do clever long exposure stacking with image recognition and all.
It's just that photographers would rather not have to rely on this, because it has a lot of issues.
Back to moving different parts differently: this seems very similar to the motion prediction parts of video encoding. I wonder if and how much the stacking algorithms make direct use of elements of the video encoding implementations those cameras also have?
I have an iPhone11 but not sure that has the raw option.
I just took a long exposure on my 12 Pro and purposely moved the camera around a bit and my phone produced a sharp RAW image.
These features are also available on many dedicated cameras and interchangeable camera lenses.
If you use the iOS camera on an iPhone 12 or newer and enable the "ProRAW" option (which is shown as just "RAW" in the camera), you get a processed image, but with the data used as a base for the processing intact for re-processing when you edit it.
This is not accurate.
Edit: ok here's some lossless and lossy compression of RAW. IMHO, "lossy compressed raw" is an oxymoron. https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lo...
B) the context is whether a raw photo can be "manipulated" in any way. The answer is a resounding yes. See: Darpa MediFor project. Search for work by Siwei Lyu (I'm on mobile and don't feel like digging through the links, there's tons of published work out there)
RAW photos are not “just” uncompressed versions of the JPEGs your camera usually gives you. That would be a TIFF. Rather, they contain raw sensor data.
The problem is vendors all seem to have their own definition of what RAW means nowadays. But the typical meaning is one with the raw pixels via color filter array (eg bayer8), and need debayering (to get the usual rgb8).
You can have raw/Bayer Tiffs, I've worked with them. So the file format is not enough, you gotta know the image encoding.
"RAW just means uncompressed" yes that is technically wrong, but the point I'm addressing is "You can still manipulate a RAW image" and "without the painting-like qualities of its default image processing." It does not matter what the color encoding is, you can still do painting-like processing. I've literally worked on detectors that detect manipulation of RAW, Bayer array images. This is not theoretical.
I guess what I am saying is, Apple giving the user a raw/.dng file is not a guarantee you are actually getting the ADC output straight from the sensor.
Really, the operant question is "what is the processing provenance of this image".
It could have been worse and people would probably have accused Apple of being bigoted or something else.
Here people are like “lol Apple” and understand it’s the fault of the software and there isn’t incipient malice intended. Whereas on the other hand people are apt to make it into something it isn’t.
Can't replace sensor area with anything other than more sensor area. Week ago I got the perfect demo of that when I filmed a happening at around 10pm with only some dim garden lights off the scene for light. Some other people had their iPhones, I had an f2 lens on my Z6 - while the videos from the iPhones looked like crap even on the phone screens, basically just blobs of dark noise, the Nikon produced a remarkably clean 4K video - at ISO 16000 or so - that made it look like the scene was lit by floodlights.
I bet an Iphone12 would have made better stills than my aging canon 60D which I try to keep at 1600 or lower. And that’s pretty remarkable to be honest.
Oh, but you can. A full second would make for a very choppy video of course so you don't have as long in which to do it as you might for a still, but there are benefits to be gained and the Pixel 6 series does exactly that.
https://9to5google.com/2021/08/02/google-pixel-6-video-hdr-t...
You have a 60D, which is very old, and it would still do much better than an iPhone 12 with a fast lens on top.
So there is the middle ground of disabling this. Or, alternatively, just not caring about such an error once in a million shots.
(as an aside, I'm pretty sure the structure of the leaves is responsible for this error, as it's an area with usually many strong edges in a somewhat repetitive pattern. That invites misalignments.
And the camera failed. The alternatives would have been an extremely dark picture of a person without a leaf-face, or an extremely blurry picture of a person without a leaf-face.
If that truly is the case, then.. woah. It definitely failed.
“It’s amazing how well these work if just one screwup makes headlines”
Also true for zero screwups I suppose
I’m asking for unmodified raw photos and modified ones. Or I would be if Megapixels didn’t already give me both on my GNU/Linux smartphone. The processed versions of the photo’s I’ve taken look great IMO, but I don’t see the harm in keeping the raws around, they’d probably be quite useable for producing even better edited versions if I were to import them into a full desktop image manipulaton program and let it process them with desktop power and more than a couple seconds of time to do it. And I’d think Apple would be be happy to sell bigger overpriced emmcs and iCloud subscriptions to SD-slotless iPhone users with raw image filled phones, and/or pop up a notification to delete them all with a tap when space was low.
A user posts that despite a new chain and setting up their rear derailleur according to instructions gear-changes are clunky or the chain skips when applying power on the pedals.
The usual reply from the forum members is then to send a photo of the cassette since excessive wear there leads to these problems.
This used to clearly show that the user needed to replace their worn cassette too.
Lately these photos of cassettes can look all mangled. Like ML tried to “enhance” mountains or the back of an alligator or some other structure from nature on to the cassette.
This has to be a problem in all sorts of technical trouble-shooting.
So it's better than JPEG but not as good as RAW.
Anyhow apparently Apple supports quasi raw at the system level but doesn't always get exposed to the user. but 3rd part apps can take advantage of this even for non "PRO" Apple telephones.
1. They're not raw, they're aligned and merged and denoised and sharpened just like this iPhone photo (they're just linear so you can adjust white balance and recover shadows, working with them the way you could a real raw file)
or
2. They look like total garbage, noisy as heck and horribly soft, because the sensors are tiny and the lenses are simultaneously limited by diffraction and refractive error.
I think the idea that raw is a 2d array of pixels is outdated by the way modern cameras, especially smartphone cameras work.
Is it possible you’re seeing compression artifacts from the forum software? Do you have an example?
I mean, maybe we should consider the camera's judgement about what the best picture is. I'm not a photographer, if my camera tells me that my friend's head is best represented as a combination of sticks, leaves, and other natural objects, who am I to argue with that? I haven't been to photography college.
This is a darn good picture of a leaf person.
> Big news! I sent @sdw the original image. He theorized a leaf from a foreground tree obscured the face. I didn’t think anything was in view, and the closest tree is a Japanese Maple (smaller leaves). But he’s right! Here’s a video I just shot, showing the parallax. Wow!
So many people will leave this thread incorrectly believing this was an iPhone problem. It could easily become the data point people use to cast doubt on all pictures they don't like.
Here's the link to the HN discussion on the update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660
But I don't like how my photos of people suddenly have a filter applied to the faces, how a picture of leaves during fall have vibrance exaggerated, how the sky looks clearer than it really did.
You sound like you have not dealt with humans at the scale of the number of smart phone users. I've never dealt with the numbers of something like an iPhone, but over the course of my career have had multiple SKUs totaling over 1 million units. No matter what, there are always "people on the internet" that are dissatisfied enough to go online to voice their opinions. That's the only 100% is that there will always be someone unhappy for whatever reason(s).
Large people are out of luck.
But your point still holds, it is just that if you include children, small sizes don't follow a normal distribution, large sizes do.
It's probably best to think about it in terms of food. Your average person has an "unrefined" palate. Be it for food, drink, art, etc.
I think everyone has one of these in some areas of life. You can't be a connoisseur in every field - it takes too much energy.
With room sized speakers it’s not a problem because you’ll have multiple cones dedicated to the low end and usually some subs too. Thus it’s easy to have a rich low end without sacrificing the fidelity of the higher end. But with headphones that’s much harder to pull off. So you either have a flatter sound or a muffled high end. Thus having headphones that can have a super crisp top end while still still producing a rich and deep low end is very much desirable.
It's perfectly reasonable to find bass a desirable quality. Depending on my mood I'll listen to music with lots of bass, or with little bass. However, I've zero desire to intentionally alter the frequency response so I'm hearing something different than the musicians and mixing engineer intended. Instead I'll just listen to appropriate music for my mood/taste.
Intentionally having a non-flat frequency response is equivalent to adjusting the colour space / colour grading of your monitor to not accurately represent colours. You can do it, and there are reasons why you might want to do it temporarily e.g. blue light filtering in the evening. However, doing so permanently without a specific (medical?) reason is a bit unusual.
I’ve done a lot of research on this as a recording artist myself and what you’re saying here is a misunderstood meme.
Eg Half the records released before 80s have been remastered to sound different to what the musicians originally recorded.
Plus any medium adds colour, vinyl adds warmth to the playback, digital formats (unless you’re using lossless, which most people don’t) add artifecting, etc. Songs are often written for their preferred medium.
So there isn’t really an exact “as intended” but rather a broader “Goldilocks zone” (for want a better term). This is especially true if you listen to a broad variety of genres.
You’ll also find that most songs record in the last 20 years will be compressed to hell and back so they sound good regardless of how shitty the sound systems are in peoples homes and cars. This isn’t an artistic decision, it’s what producers and sound engineers do to make records sound good for the lowest common denominator. It’s also part of the reason why live music sound better (if the gig or club has a half decent sound engineer anyway).
> Intentionally having a non-flat frequency response is equivalent to adjusting the colour space / colour grading of your monitor to not accurately represent colours.
Some content is actually deficient in some spectrums due to the limitations of the media or technologies of the era. Those limitations were intended to be compensated by speakers that added that colour. There’s a reason why studio monitors with zero frequency curve are less common to for rock fans than acoustic speakers (for example).
Lastly it’s also worth noting that not everyone’s ears hear spectrums equally. Our ears don’t have a zero frequency curve and that curve will differ from person to person. Which is why some of the best headphones out there are ones that profile your hearing and then perform post processing on the music based on your hearing profile.
If you’re a purist like the GP then you wouldn’t listen to the CD versions. Of course, in practice most people are not that much of a purist. Which is why the whole meme of “as the artists intended” is largely hypocritical posturing.
They were awful.
My point is having earphones and headphones that can offer a deep and rich low end without sacrificing sharpness a not novelty feature. And there are earphones and headphones out there that can do that. I know this because I’ve owned plenty over the years. :)
It takes time and experience to develop, and the masses on average don't have it. As in, they might have developed taste for a few products, but not most products. Hence, the mass-market products are aimed at people with no taste, because that captures the largest slice of the consumers.
Random examples:
- In A/B tests, the typical personal will rate louder music as better. Hence, all bars and pubs turn their music up to 11, to the point that it's horrendously distorted, causes physical pain, and forces everyone to scream at the top of their lungs to be heard.
- Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them. Hence, all fast-food restaurants load their foods up with those elements instead of more expensive flavourings such as herbs and spices.
- Just look at the typical gaming PC market. RGB LEDs are now almost "essential", despite adding nothing material to the performance or capability of the system other than a garish blinken-light-show. You can't see the gigahertz, but you sure can see the LEDs!
- Cars are perceived to be more sporty if they have a loud exhaust with a deep note to it. So of course, every "sports" car has literal fake exhaust that's "tuned" to make this particular noise.
Etc, etc...
It's all down to bad taste.
Taking the iPhone as the mass consumer computer, must mean that as a computing device the iPhone has very little taste…
Which in a sense I can definitely see…
iPhones have four levels of encryption designed to thwart the likes of the FBI trying to get data out of your confiscated phones. Androids have a checkbox tick that basically says "Encryption: Yes".
iPhones have 1000-nit OLED HDR screens that are colour-managed and calibrated out of the box, and have Dolby Vision HDR system-wide.
Etc, etc...
iPhones are for people that actually care about their privacy, aren't blind, and appreciate the "small touches". Androids are for people that don't mind factory-installed crapware, as long as it's cheap.
I rock an iphone because the SE is cheap and the camera is good, if I cared about privacy I wouldn’t have a phone with always on microphones and cameras…
NSO group’s Pegasus was cross-platform, so as far as I’m concerned the security point is moot, people buy iphones and androids for various reasons, and it’s easier to judge someone’s “upmarketness” by the stickerprice of their flagship, not the OS it runs…
Samsung worked around this by applying a post-processing filter that smooths out the banding... sometimes. It also almost always smooths away fine detail, ruining the 4K details. (Similarly, their 8K screens appear less detailed than some 4K screens for other but equally silly reasons.)
Dolby Vision uses a more optimal allocation of signal "bits" to the spectrum of colours and intensities visible to the human eye. The ideal is that each colour and each shade would be perfectly evenly distributed, so that "512" would be exactly half as perceptually bright as "1024", etc... The Dolby Vision encoding does this very nearly perfectly, eliminating visible banding without having to hide them by smudging the decoded picture. This optimal colour-volume encoding also means that transforms like scaling or brightness changes don't introduce colour-shifts or relative brightness shifts.
If you've never seen a DV video taken with an iPhone Pro 13 displayed on its OLED, you just don't know what you're missing. Go to an Apple store and play with one for a few minutes.
But seriously, companies like Samsung like to shave 50 cents off their flagship products by not paying DV their licensing fees. They figure that cutting corners like this doesn't matter, because most customers have no taste in image quality anyway, and just want BRIGHTER! COLORS! and nothing else.
They're right.
You don't care, and you're happy to save 50c on a $10K television or a $1K mobile phone.
The fact that you don't appreciate this just reinforces my point: you don't happen to have "taste" in phone screens. That's okay! I have bad taste in cars, wine, sport, and a bunch of other stuff.
Unless there is massive unit variance, which is even worse.
So much for taste :)
What's your point?
Which is what many of us do.
I love this one. Want to convince someone with an unsophisticated palette that you are the greatest chef in history? Just start loading everything you make with butter and sugar. Salty and sweet === good to most people.
It doesn't have much effect. I make fried rice with and without it and can't really tell the difference.
Sweet, salty and/or fatty tastes form a pretty solid basis for many delicious snacks/hors d'oeuvres/desserts - highbrow or lowbrow - though I personally like tangy as well as textures like crunchy, creamy, chewy, spongy; and sometimes other tastes like bitter, savory, or piquant as well. These are tastes that humans (and other creatures) have developed and retained over thousands of years.
Omitting sweet/salty/creamy greatly reduces the scope of cuisine.
Any pan in a movie is something where my mind absolutely is unable to process the motion and I become unable to see anything at all. With motion interpolation on, I can actually tell what's happening in an action scene.
IMHO it's not fundamentally evil, it's just that it's not the thing we are used to. Wouldn't have caused a confusion if they used some other word instead of photograph.
Historically cameras have merely altered the style of images. These days smartphone cameras are altering the content of images.
But actually, we have lots of excellent, well-researched and proven standards for accuracy in imaging. Cameras generally target those standards, certainly professional ones. Many cameras - quite clearly - can produce very accurate photographs.
The more worrying trend is that of pervasive post-processing, where we depart from reality and entertain aesthetics.
How?
I similarly have mixed feelings about what I've seen lately of the deep learning that 'restores' very old images to incredible quality. But that quality is fake. I'm sure there's a tug at the heartstrings to see a crisp image of your deceased father from his high school days, but to me that seems a bit revisionist. I don't know. I guess I'm just uneasy with the idea of us editing our lives so readily.
And historical representations also undergo changes, like the colour fading on old pictures, paintings and statues. And that’s in addition to all of the issues in capturing accurate colours and other details in the first place. Add a bit of optical illusion to at least some imagery and the entire question of historical accuracy becomes very messy very fast.
A prime example is astro-photography, where most of the well known imagery isn’t and may never be seen like that by even future evolved human eyes.
Photos are limited representations, just like they’ve always been.
But it’s understandable, that different individuals would prefer differently prioritized representations. And maybe that’s the next generation of tools. Give more choice, more facial wrinkles or fewer. More lighting and colour enhancements or less. etc.
It's also clearly optimized for Chinese faces, which makes for some comedic side effects sometimes when it tries to apply what seems to be the beauty standard in China to my very much non-Asian face structure.
Sadly, there's no differentiation between the stupid face filter and the landscape-fixing AI. I like the AI processing for a lot of static scenes where there are no people around, because the small camera sensor simply can't catch the necessary details, but I always forget to turn it on because of the stupid face filter that comes with it.
Even Apple had appeared to add one in the iPhone XS/iOS12 but was apparently an issue with Smart HDR and was rolled back. But many Android phones advertise it as a feature and it's something many filters etc do.
It's also possible some HDR type functionality causes this on other implementations.
The dng will still have things like stabilization and multi-frame merging, but without those the image will almost always look horrible as others have explained.
You need to change API to Camera2 and then you will be able to enable RAW.
If you were able to disable HDR+ and get a single captured frame, it would look horrible. You'd have to merge multiple frames yourself to get something decent. You can Google around for ways to do that but it will only work on a few phones.
Still, people complained on how "old and bad" their faces looked (in pretty normal pics, nothing fancy). I attribute this to the fact that everybody is now used to phones completely editing faces and smoothing skin and adding saturation, etc., which makes us more "instagramable" although less human.
https://www.google.com/search?q=snapchat+cartoon+eyes&tbm=is...
Plus I'd only get a few hundred bucks for it, and the tactile pleasure of a big, heavy ka-chink when the shutter button is pressed is worth more than that for me :)
People want perfect pictures to reflect their mind’s eye.
In a way this is the way in for a metaverse. Reality isn’t what they seek. They seek an alternate state that is a mix of reality and fantasy.
See also: https://www.axios.com/san-francisco-orange-sky-smartphone-40...
You should be allowed to photograph what reality looks like if you want to.
Of course getting good results with this approach requires the user to have more knowledge of and practice at photography.
How can you trust the picture taken if it might not reflect reality?
People want it, and they want their faces to look better than in reality, to post on Instagrams.
The phone that has better pictures got better sales.
To the iPhone, however, the sky was more blue than grey, and the leaves had an autumn-orange hue instead of brown. It wasn't a complete fake, and if I had only had the iPhone picture I wouldn't have noticed. But it was just a little bit better-than-real, and in direct comparison obviously incorrect.
This, more than anything, discounted the iPhone camera for my uses.
My assumption is that this is over enthusiastic ML processing trying to enhance photos in challenging conditions… makes me think of e.g. https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a...
Similarly, I’ve noticed that the iPhone 13 Pro tends to use the wide angle lens for 3x zoom photos in low light then upscale it. This makes some sense as it can capture more light and the photos look good zoomed out, but if you zoom in, you’ll see things like text and small faces have been replaced with random blurry “ML-looking” smudges.
If you want to avoid this, right now I think the only way to do so is to use a third party camera app. I use Halide and it’s excellent, it will only use the lens you have selected even if it is in challenging lighting conditions, and it applies much less processing (and you can further disable more processing if you like, I’ve not had the need).
The default camera is generally great for snapshots that you aren’t going to zoom into etc. though. Would be nice if they could tweak it to be a bit less aggressive in its processing, perhaps adding a “pro” mode or similar.
I also hope smartphones start storing unprocessed version of every photo that will be admissable in court.
I am more shocked that you are not concerned that image manipulation technology could (and likely already has) been used to send an innocent person who can not afford the use of an expert to challenge the image to jail
Evidence presented in court should reflect exactly what happen, a true and accurate representation. Not what some ML algorithm believes happened. This is especially true in a criminal cast where a persons freedom is at stake, and often the captured criminality is not the focus of the image but rather something in the background making the ML processing even less reliable, and would allow for more interpretation by the viewer.
I am a firm believer that is better for 100 guilty to go free than it is for 1 innocents to falsely convicted, sad that many do not share that world view any more
The sheer scale and reach of smartphone cameras is helping the common man across the world capture day to day injustice and garner support to push back about abuse of power and authority, discrimination, harrassment etc.
I wish smartphone cameras stay reliable and continue to provide the best possible reflection fo reality -- and push boundaries on technological improvements that can be made to IMPROVE their accuracy and defensibility even in court settings or on crowdsourced social-media settings -- so that they can become a reliable aid in enabling justice and stand the test of time.
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres...
The phone takes ~20 frames, over 0.2 seconds. In that time, lots of people and things in the frame move.
Optical flow is used to track all moving parts of the image, and then 'undo' any movement, aligning all parts of the image.
Then the frames are combined, usually by, for each pixel, taking something like the median or throwing out outliers and using the average.
When the optical flow fails to track an object in more than half the frames, the 'outliers' that are thrown out can in fact be the image content you wanted.
It happens with leaves a lot because they can flutter fast from one frame to the next, so tracking each individual leaf is hard. A few bad tracking results on more than half the frames, and all you end up seeing is leaves where there should be a face..
Sidebar not specific to that trial, slow motion, and slowed video shouldn't be shown to jurors because it creates the illusion of having more time to think. Everything in real life happens at one speed, you can't back it up, slow it down, or armchair qb it then decide if an action was appropriate.
I keep thinking about this, and was already when the case was going on. If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed, no iPhone photo after a certain time should be.
Think about analog/optical/chemical photography. In the old days did juries look at camera negatives with a loupe? Of course not, they looked at enlargements. What "algorithm" does an optical enlarger use?
No one has a problem with a mathematically perfect linear transformation, and film enlargers come very close to that ideal (yes they distort, but in a very obvious way and by degrading detail not adding detail that isn't there)
The analog picture is much harder doctor. More gracious artifacts in blow up (grains are random, versus sharp grid). Much more detail is recorded (by virtue of the size of the sensor and therefore the diffraction limit. Sensor resolution is not too useful).
Because of film grain, it's not continuous either, but actually discrete too.
The grain is random size and randomly distributed which cancels out a lot of the effects of discritzation (eg you wont get patterns due nyquist sampling error).
Any camera with a good antialiasing filter will also have little to no discretisation error.
The image of a digital or a film photo is a mosaic. This mosaic can be mathematically enlarged into a large mosaic. If you enlarge far enough you’ll see the individual tiles. This is a linear operation no matter the shape of the tile.
Digital photos do not, however, just make the tiles larger. They could but its not done.
Even before enlarging, they interpolate between tiles to recover color (each pixel in the sensor is monochromatic).
When a picture is displayed, the screen resolution is not that of the photo, so an algorithm has to fit one grid into another. And this is before going into superesoltion techniques.
But none of this would matter if we had a standard, open source, way to utilize digital photos in court. Until then Mr. lawyer can get himself an expert to testify to the validity of each and every still he wants to show the court.
The algorithm used when zooming in a video on any platform I know about is no different as far as distorting as enlarging optics. They are moreso interpolation algorithms than superresolution algorithms.
Perhaps it's harder to doctor, but it's also not necessarily truer either.
With regards to sensor size and detail recorded...well that depends. Are you assuming 35mm sensors? Because people shot 8mm and 16mm too back in the day. That's not far off from smaller sensors today. Are we also accounting for film sensitivity? Because digital sensors have far eclipsed the sensitivity range of most common film types now, so would be more likely to resolve image data.
It's not so cut and dry.
But, as for size, photo cameras sporting film smaller than 35 were rare. Yes Kodak had the advantax (?) system and some other weird cameras here and there, but the vast majority of consumer pictures were taken on 35mm.
As to the subjectivity of film, as I mentioned in the other post, most of the subjectivity came from what I called the “z” dimension, i.e exposure. There was little subjectivity about the enlargement itself.
That is to say, the subjectivity was largely limited to the contrast and brightness sliders of today. Anything else is far more difficult to do with film.
There is another advantage for digital, cost. Video was much more rare with film, and the video we’re talking about certainly would not exist.
But I think that’s the greatest advantage of film - it contains within it an inherent protection of the public’s privacy completely absent in our society today
Strong disagree here. 126 film is what brought color photography to the mass market, and others like the Kodak Disc were wildly popular among point-n-shoot users.
35mm was standard for pro photogs, but consumers went for convenience.
35mm was the top selling film since the 1960s until digital took over.
You went to any drugstore and you found 35mm. Maybe a box or two of APS. Maybe some medium format. But you could find 35mm in every drugstore, gas station, street vendor in a tourist trap without fail.
Professionals used 35mm because it was snaller than MF and for many things good enough. Otherwise it was considered consumer grade.
Even for stills, 110/126 was very common.
As for your last point, it only ensured privacy from the poor. Privacy was always invaded by those with means like paparazzi.
There's also the flip side that the prevalence of digital has let people capture pivotal moments they wouldn't have been able to otherwise, including generation defining moments like the murder of George Floyd.
Now we spy on poor people, use AI to analyze the photos at scale, while the rich got anti-paparazzi laws put in places like EU and CA.
In this context, the Rittenhouse video would not exist and it would be better if it didn't. The prosecution, arguably, should get disbarred for the shenanigans they pulled (no discovery and dumping it in the last moment, giving a modified version, lying about the provenance).
As to George Floyd, cameras have done much more to erode our civil liberties than they have put bad cops away.
Rich people and people in power have been able to invade our privacy whenever they wanted.
Making everyone capable of having digital cameras has enabled so much. With regards to cops, it's let the general public document and share examples of police brutality, in ways that would never have been possible before.
I think it's clear from your comment where your political biases lie and what your ethnicity bias likely is. You may subsequently argue that it's irrelevant, but you're also not walking in our shoes as minorities. Cameras have been a huge boon to being able to share our plight.
Emmett Till was a profound moment in Black history because his image could be shared in person with others. Similarly George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery etc were defining because the cameras were there...
Consider:
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-mo...
https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-s...
It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.
True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.
I’m fine with this. I use a mini tripod with my 13 pro on telephoto. Back in the old days this would just look like ass instead.
The error margin is tiny and the benefits to the output are huge. My brain has more trouble accurately portraying things. This is not much of a problem.
Reality is really transient and inconsistent anyway.
It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.
Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices.
Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.
Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it.
The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so.
Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.
The judge was arguing about enlarging an already recorded video, not about the merits of the original recording. This post is about image processing during the capture process.
Conflating them is disingenuous, unless we're taking very large leaps of logic
Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhous...
If the judge mistrusted the enlargement method, he should have ordered them to display it on another device or software.
Real-time video upscaling is very standard filtering that's not introducing extra hallucinated details. At most, some TVs use ML to tune their sharpening and color rendition, but it can always be disabled. The iPad has never been shown or proven to use those for video playback, and even if it did, the courts should have a standard video player to present details with standard filtering.
The judges non-technical stance on things, isn't borne out of reality and again, any capture time post processing should be completely independently viewed from playback time processing.
Apple could make iPhones work like DSLRs and save both the edited image and the RAW sensor capture.
One is the playback of data, the other is the capture of real world signals into data. They may use technologies in the same domains, but the implementation varies dramatically, as do the possibilities..
If you have the recorded data, you can send it to any trusted playback device/software to get back a trusted scaling. You can workaround/bypass any distrust in a given players algorithms, and it's very easily discoverable whether something is applying processing or not. There's still the risk of intentionally faked videos, but the discussion is around real time processing introducing artifacts.
With image capture though, there's no such thing as "truth". Even RAW data isn't truth. It's just less processing, but you can't escape it altogether. Even professional full frame cameras will do significant signal processing between the photosites and the recorded RAW image. The same goes for film.
The only thing a court can do is put a strong guidelines for proving the honesty of the content. you can't disallow processed imagery because all images are processed the second they're recorded.
So the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial" is just as bizarre as it was before.
Turns out, their software isn't that great at focusing in many of the photos I take, so I need a different camera app. My only requirements are: 1. Manual focus 2. Wide angle lens support
I thought a replacement would be trivial to find but I've tried a bunch of apps at this point and haven't found a single one that checks both boxes.
Can anyone recommend a basic android camera? Preferably one that doesn't distort the world too much or replace faces with leaves.
I've been using Open Camera which is pretty great, but doesn't support wide angle lens shots as far as I can tell.
Switch multi-camera icon - This icon only shows on devices with more than one front and/or back cameras, and allows you to switch between those cameras. For example, a device might have two back cameras, one standard and one ultra-wide, this icon will switch between the standard and ultra-wide camera. If Settings/On screen GUI/"Multiple cameras icon" is disabled, then this icon will not show; instead the "Switch camera" icon can by used to cycle through all the cameras. Note that some devices do not allow third party applications to access their multiple cameras, in which case Open Camera isn't able to use them.
To answer op's grievance though the wide angle is fixed focus, so they could use gcam for the wide angle and open camera for the regular lens.
Jesus this is annoying, and really scummy on Google's part. As long as I have this phone I'll have to swap between multiple camera apps just to access basic functionality.
I can't, unfortunately
Everyone's been complaining about the Fairphone not doing enough image processing and giving you basically the raw sensor output, making the pictures look bland compared to bigger-brand phones with worse sensors. So there's that option if you want a true-to-sensor picture and they also have a great open source community so you can also know what effects the camera app is applying.
Or install an open source camera on any android and at least that aspect of the picture-taking chain is covered.
If you want a terrible UX experience but reasonable amount of features, there's Open Camera: https://opencamera.org.uk/ | https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/
If you prefer better UX with just basic features (point and shoot, no knobs to turn), Simple Mobile Tools has an app for that: http://simplemobiletools.com/ | https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.simplemobiletools.camera...
I love these guys so much
The moment you need ML magic to magnify you are basically telling the ML "guess what is there based on what we can see and the training database you where trained on". Also due to the nature of such algorithm they do not have any form of common sense or "realistic general purpose" world view, and tend to be black box so it's hard to check if they learned something "stupid"/"ridiculous".
So it's totally possible that somehow it learned to place knifes into the hyper-magnified hands if they have a specific skin color and a turquoise sleeve on a picture with a color scheme as if it's a cloudy day. Or similar arbitrary things. Sure it's supper unlikely but not impossible and there is not good way to find such "bugs". Worse multiple ML systems trained on the same data might share some mistakes and there are just that many huge comprehensive datasets.
Sure, but that depends very strongly on the number of natural images you trained on and the specificity of the situation you present to the algorithm. Maybe one such structure in the training set just happens to be people holding knives given "a specific skin color and a turquoise sleeve on a picture with a color scheme as if it's a cloudy day".
But there is no good way to reliably know if it's done well for this specific image.
So it can't be trusted.
Which doesn't mean it's worthless.
It's kinda like someone saying "I think I maybe have seen <something> when passing by but I didn't pay attention."
It's not trustable as the human mind if fickle but it can be a good starting point.
This might be brought up to overturn any photo evidence from phones.
Regardless of the validity of the objection in this specific case, yes it's already happening.
It astounds me how people are so quickly conflating multiple different scenarios.
Playback and capture are very different things. Would you be accepting people complaining about log4j vulnerabilities with regards to a C++ code base for example? No, because you'd know the nuanced difference that's inherent in a code base. Image processing is the same. It's not just all one catch all Boogeyman
Criminal trials are generally biased towards the defense. If it's unclear if the evidence is doctored or not it shouldn't be introduced to potentially mislead the jury.
A) video scaling is a well documented and well understood field. The judge's mistrust was wrong to begin with, and if he distrusted the scaling algorithm, then there's no reason to trust any capture process either. It's reductionist if they're not going to try and understand what's going on.
B) if the judge mistrusted it, there should be a standard platform for playback that can be trusted by them otherwise it's an easy out for dismissing any evidence
C) again, people are conflating capture and playback. They're different, and issues in one don't translate directly to the other.
Really disappointed that this seems to be a forced setting.
LG Stylo 6 has "AI cam"
You can pretty much see it in almost all iPhone camera review sample images (and that of phones from other manufacturers).
Even in photos taken in direct bright sunlight!
I imagine it has an added side 'benefit' (due to the lack of noise/grain) of decreasing the images' sizes after compression.
It puts the censorship of Renaissance paintings & statues with figleafs over the naughty bits in a new perspective.
What started out with "simple" image stabilizations, noise filtering etc. has long become a pipeline of "apply AI magic onto the image which makes it how people think it should look" (instead of how it actually looks).
Like making the sky much more bluer then it is.
Or edges much sharper then anything such a camera could see (or sometimes especially in combination with digital zoom anything a human with sharp healthy eyes could see).
And in case of image stabilization one thing you tend to turn is to take multiple pictures in a row and interpolate. Like some pictures with leafs "besides" the head and some with them behind the head. And then "magic" the head becomes the leaf.
However, it appears they forgot to add a loss term to penalize if the source and the denoised result image turn out too different. NVIDIA's denoiser has user-configurable parameters for this trade-off.
Better hardware (sensors) could solve some of this I hope.
I enjoy the speed with which I can take pictures that are not blurry. But in most cases I wish I could reduce the “AI aggressiveness” since they all look so artificially sharp. But that’s only part of it.
I have pictures of my family this Christmas where we posed in the same location, same light and with just a few seconds apart and the pictures look completely different when it comes to the colors.
“Different AI interpretation” I tell those around me that haven’t come in contact with computational photography yet.
Then I apologize, saying that I can’t know how the picture will turn out before it’s taken. And that there is no way to reanalyze. No way to feed RAW back to “the AI”.
But such is the future…
There’s a picture of me and my partner against a perfectly blue sky. I am a few cm behind her. She looks normal while my face looks half transparent / whitened like a ghost in the sky.
There’s pictures of text and logos on billboard and such that are so smooth as if they are photoshopped on top.
I often tell those people that not only do we need to accept that photos now are not the same concept as photos in the past, we also have to accept that the next iOS update could change the algorithm and photos from this Christmas will be different to photos from next Christmas even when shot with the same camera. Frustrating
because they want to. thats how the internet works right now, it mirrors your greatest gripe or nightmare, which is exactly when you should have the most skepticism.
Useful skepticism actually takes evidence into account, rather than dismissing claims at a glance, or because "thats how the internet works right now."
Although to be fair(er), people didn't believe otherwise because, as you insisted, they were buying mindlessly into some internet hype/rage generator "mirroring their latest gripe or nightmare." The original photo did look odd and it generated a lot of interesting discussion. Honestly, it still does to me.
While that reasoning was (kind of) correct (the leaf didn't fall at just the right time, it was attached to a branch,) both you and root_axis above assumed people were being driven by stupidity rather than curiosity, which is still an attitude we could use a lot less of.
Now for my defensive response: stupidity of the respondents isn't my assumption, its their lack of considering other possibilities. user error of OP and the assumption OP went with does verge more closely towards something I would call stupid. but these are your words, I’m saying it was an obvious circumstance to ignore the crowd specifically because of internet crowd trends. And unsurprisingly to me, in hindsight, that turned out to be correct. The internet mirrors the desired predisposition because people troll, a lot.
> Which is still an attitude we could use a lot less of.
The attitude we could use less of is the one where you project your own false ideas about other people's thoughts onto their comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block-matching_and_3D_filterin...
Logically an event like that would be followed by the iphone not detecting a face, and therefore not applying its usual face-related black-box features?
Supposing this is the case and is 'bad', what exactly do we expect 'better behaviour' would mean in this situation?
Both of following scenarios is possible:
- Due to a combination of various post-processing steps including image stabilization the leaf replaced the head.
- The leaf is on a branch which is above the head and was pushed down by the wind hiding the face, due to the unusual angel of the branch that is non-obvious. And the artifacts around the "face" come form the image sharpening/stabilization magic not knowing what to do with that pixels.
- The leaf might also be falling and it's connection to the branch can be an optical illusion, that kind of leafs sometimes have a "mini branch part" attached to them when they fall.
I would say both is likely, and given that it was supposedly done under high zoom I wouldn't be sure if the human doing the photo can/does see it correctly, because our brain also does "magic" to make the things we see look "better" (like our brain actually fills in details from memory/eperience in some situations).
I'm not saying I'm convinced, but even something with 1/1,000,000,000 odds isn't really out of the question for an action that must happen at least millions of times a day.
If you suppose the bit flip happens in the CPU registers, the number of state changes on a modern CPU is so incredibly huge that a random bit flip doesn't just cause a memory load from a wrong address or a crash is, again, much less probable than 1/1e9 odds, by a lot.
And as explained in my other comment, you'd have to show that this behaviour can be expressed in one bit. Is there a bit anywhere in the iOS hardware and software that by changing from 0 to 1 can run a code path that replaces your face with a leaf? I doubt that.
I stand by Occam's razor. This happens because it's a bug introduced by its programmers rather than a random gamma ray that turned a bit to 1.
And you have to prove that there actually is one bit that, when changed, causes faces to be replaced by background objects, in this case leaves.
An aside, the judge's demonstrated understanding of pixels, despite being slimed by most media, was actually quite good. During the trial he demonstrated understanding of how an algorithm can take as input the original pixels and calculate estimated (or interpolated, whatever you want to call it generically) pixels from that input.
Taking landscape shots with new iPhones creates some very intense over-saturation of skies and some general HDR-like balancing (even with HDR setting turned off).
I understand that phone makers want to give people devices that “make the best photos” but it does sometimes feel like the image processing is going to far, and producing a representation of reality that is weirdly unrealistic.
I’m aware that Photoshop has been around for an age.
1. iPhone uses face tracking to adjust focus on subject's face
2. Same face detection can end up detecting faces in arbitrary objects. Very common occurring. Here the leaf.
3. iPhone uses multiple lens to compose a single photo. 1 lens focused on the persons face while another with better focus on the face estimated the face to be within the leaves.
4. The composite photo now has picture of leaf replacing the person's face.
Superimposing other's people face onto a photo from a crime scene?
Or, as part of my work, I photograph electric switchboards for documentation and diagnostic purposes. Hopefully I won't get any hallucinated connections, right?
If I worked at Apple today, I'd do the same thing with his 30 year old head.