It’s really hard to imagine a scenario where two exposures a fraction of a second apart could be stitched together to tell a completely false story, but maybe it exists. In that case, I suspect the lawyers would be all over this explanation to try to dismiss the evidence.
This is perfectly analogous to TFA--notice that the woman has enough time to move her arms into very different positions in the same composited moment.
That photo was critical for the defense getting him to say that.
There were also concerns over wether or not zooming in on an iPad should be allowed in that case--like if a red pixel next to a blue could create a purple one, etc.
[0] https://www.denverpost.com/2021/11/08/shooting-victim-says-h...
Before, forensic experts could decide if an image had been altered in photoshop, but I guess the only sane conclusion now is that anything taken with an iphone is fake and untrustworthy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
Journalists, security cameras, emergency service / military body cams and other safety systems provide a trust mechanism that enables provable authenticity from the point of capture (and some form of web of trust to weight or revoke that trust for different audiences). Anything else is assumed to be at least partial hallucination.
There's a reason professional photogs use the mulitiple snaps mode for non-sports. It used to be a lot of work in post, but a lot of apps have made that easier to now it's a built in feature of our phones.
And almost no one cares, btw.
And what do you even propose? A mandatory “picture might not represent reality” watermark? Because the way I see it, you either take the computational features away from people, and prevent them from taking an entire class of pictures, or you add a big fat warning somewhere that no one will read anyway, or you keep things the way they are. Which one of these is the ethical choice?
If cameras don't give you the option for "reality" you're just left with whatever they choose for you no matter how many pictures you take.
I expect that as more and more people come to learn that their iphone photos are all fakes we will see more people reaching for cameras instead of cell phones for the important things when they can.
Here it most definitely does not look like what they saw.
As far as computational imaging goes, I've seen way way way worse and much more offensive. Samsung's total replacement of the moon comes to mind as being much more offensive. This one just makes me laugh as a developer at the realization of what happened as being such a strange edge case. Other than that, I've seen similar results from intentional creative ideas, so it's not offensive at all to me.
It's just another example of we can not believe anything we hear, and only half (maybe less) of what we see.
Lemme try: I expect that as more and more people come to learn that their iphone's auto mode is better than their DSLR's auto mode, we will see more people reaching for cell phones instead of cameras for the important things when they can.
Does not capture the color of every pixel, and merely infers it from the surrounding ones. Is usually viewed on a sRGB screen with shitty contrast and a dynamic range significantly smaller than the one of the camera, which is significantly smaller than the one of human eyes, which is still significantly smaller than what we encounter in the real world. Does not capture a particular moment in time, but a variable length period that’s also shifted between the top part of the image and the bottom part (a couple of ms for mechanical shutter, tens or hundreds of ms for electronic). Has no idea about the white balance of the scene. Has no idea about the absolute brightness of the scene. Usually has significant perspective distortion. Usually has most of the scene out-of focus and thus misrepresents reality (buildings aren’t built and people aren’t born out of focus).
Nevertheless, what we are seeing with the post-process of the cameras described in the OP cross the threshold of what until this moment in the history is considered natural "photograph" that can be obtained analogically. Those are manipulated images, undetectable for the naked eye, that are incorporating elements, those are a "composition" that can not be obtained analogically. those images are fakes, lies.
and by the read in the comments it seems the user can not even disable such composed interpretation.