https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ jump to content my subreddits edit subscriptions * popular * -all * -random * -users | * AskReddit * -funny * -pics * -worldnews * -gaming * -mildlyinteresting * -movies * -todayilearned * -news * -explainlikeimfive * -LifeProTips * -videos * -tifu * -dataisbeautiful * -aww * -Jokes * -OldSchoolCool * -space * -books * -gifs * -nottheonion * -IAmA * -TwoXChromosomes * -Futurology * -askscience * -science * -Music * -gadgets * -Showerthoughts * -Art * -UpliftingNews * -sports * -DIY * -nosleep * -food * -EarthPorn * -InternetIsBeautiful * -photoshopbattles * -history * -GetMotivated * -Documentaries * -WritingPrompts * -philosophy * -creepy * -announcements * -listentothis * -blog more >> reddit.com Android * comments * other discussions (7) Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.| * English [ ][] [ ]limit my search to r/Android use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" site:example.com find submissions from "example.com" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search for "text" in self post contents self:yes (or self:no) include (or exclude) self posts nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no) include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog see the search faq for details. advanced search: by author, subreddit... this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2023 4,714 points (95% upvoted) shortlink: [https://redd.it/11nz] [ ][ ] [ ]remember mereset password login Submit a new post Submit a new text post Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. get reddit premium Android joinleave2,417,489 readers 4,559 users here now Chat on our IRC channel! Chat on our Telegram group! Download the official /r/Android App Store! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Content Philosophy: Content which benefits the community (news, rumors, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules: Hover for more info 1. Only submissions that are directly related to Android are allowed. * All posts to r/Android must be related to the Android OS or ecosystem in some way. If not obvious, you should submit the link as a self-post and include an explanation. Comments that devolve into purely political discussions may be locked and people in violation may get banned if they are also violating Rule 9. 2. We welcome discussion-promoting posts that benefit the community, and not the individual. * We welcome posts that benefit the community (device reviews, guides, discussions and rumors) and not the individual (seeking help, e.g. tech support, purchase advice, app recommendations). You might be interested in r/AndroidQuestions, r/ PickAnAndroidForMe or r/AndroidApps instead. * If you're asking a question, include your own analysis first in a few sentences. Discussion-promoting rants are okay at mods' discretion. 3. Images/videos must be in self posts. * Please provide an explanation in the self-post body. No memes. * YouTube videos are fine as links, provided they don't break other rules. 4. No self-promotional spamming * Developers may post their own apps if they follow these conditions: * 1- Their post must be a self post with a detailed description of their app. * 2- The developer's account must be at least three months old AND have a reasonable posting history on r/Android. * 3- The developer must interact with users in the thread. We do not allow developers to simply dump a link to their app and leave. * Website/blog/YouTube channel owners are generally not allowed to post their own content; please see this page. 5. No reposts or blog-spam/rehosted content * Submit the original source whenever possible, unless it's not in English or the article adds substantial information. * Reposts are not allowed. This includes an article whose information has already been covered by another article posted on r/Android. 6. No editorializing titles. * Please do not change the link's title when submitting it, unless necessary to accurately sum up the article. You may freely add " [Author]" or "by Author" if it clarifies the article's source (e.g. YouTube video). * If you want to discuss something specific, use the comments or submit it as a self-post (see rule 2). 7. No piracy. * Do not link or discuss pirated apps/piracy websites. 8. No unauthorized polls, surveys, bots, or giveaways. * To prevent scams, we require that all polls or giveaways be approved by the moderators. Modmail us with your request before you post any poll or do any giveaway. * Only pre-approved bots are allowed on /r/Android. Currently, the only bot we allow to be invoked is the LinkMe_Bot. This bot can be summoned by commenting "Linkme: APPNAMEHERE." without quotes. If you wish to use your bot on this sub, then message the mods and show us that it can serve a useful purpose here. 9. No offensive, hateful, or low-effort comments. * Do not be rude to any other user. Be respectful, adhere to redditquette, or you may be banned. * Do not use hate speech of any kind. * Do not be disrespectful towards another for their personal choices (excessive fanboyism). * Do not accuse others of being "paid shills." * Do not post low-effort/circlejerky comments. 10. No affiliate links. * If you are a Redditor, affiliate links are absolutely NOT allowed in either the comments section, within the self-text of your post, or as part of your link. * If you post an article, affiliate links will NOT be allowed if the article being linked is a simple "deal alert" type post. Instead, simply link directly to the deal (without the affiliate link included). View Detailed Rules --------------------------------------------------------------------- Weekly Threads Day Topic Every day Daily Superthreads Saturday Saturday APPreciation Sunday Sunday Rant/Rage Click here for the Weekly Thread Archives --------------------------------------------------------------------- AMAs Device review threads Apps Wiki FAQs Related Subreddits --------------------------------------------------------------------- Flair Icon Legend: * Readers, add/update your own flair above! * Developers, click here to request special flair. Individual Developer Company Developer Custom ROM Developer Unaffiliated Contributor Official Android OS Team Android Theme Developer Android-related Website Reddit add-on Developer Google Employee a community for 14 years MODERATORS * message the mods discussions in r/Android <> X 426 * 58 comments [EEG69rS7] Samsung's Algorithm for Moon shots officially explained in Samsung Members Korea 4712 * 685 comments Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake, and here is the proof 82 * 30 comments u/ibreakphotos sent a very interesting test regarding the AI used for Samsung moon photos. Did the same test on my Pixel 7 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max to prove they're onto something. 62 * 46 comments [QCy50hxl] Google Pixel 7a stars in live photos, more specs confirmed * 10 comments [IJYrRFS8] Pixel Watch units sold revealed, and it's doing well 13 * 4 comments Saturday APPreciation thread (Mar 11 2023) - Your weekly app recommendation/request thread! 318 * 49 comments [lzNm7kOY] Realme GT3 review 86 * 14 comments [SOLUTION] How to factory reset a Samsung device that has a completely smashed screen. Might work for non Samsung devices. 17 * 54 comments Daily Superthread (Mar 10 2023) - Your daily thread for questions, device recommendations and general discussions! 725 * 175 comments [R8whZMF3] Samsung's March 2023 security update is already available for the Galaxy S23, S22, S21, and S20 series Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. x 4713 4714 4715 Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake, and here is the proof ( self.Android) submitted 1 day ago * by ibreakphotos[SnooClappi][Starstruck] [x52x5be57f][silver_48][gold_48]4[Illuminati][p4yzxkaed5][j3azv69qjf] & 7 more Many of us have witnessed the breathtaking moon photos taken with the latest zoom lenses, starting with the S20 Ultra. Nevertheless, I've always had doubts about their authenticity, as they appear almost too perfect. While these images are not necessarily outright fabrications, neither are they entirely genuine. Let me explain. There have been many threads on this, and many people believe that the moon photos are real (inputmag) - even MKBHD has claimed in this popular youtube short that the moon is not an overlay, like Huawei has been accused of in the past. But he's not correct. So, while many have tried to prove that Samsung fakes the moon shots, I think nobody succeeded - until now. WHAT I DID 1) I downloaded this high-res image of the moon from the internet - https://imgur.com/PIAjVKp 2) I downsized it to 170x170 pixels and applied a gaussian blur, so that all the detail is GONE. This means it's not recoverable, the information is just not there, it's digitally blurred: https:// imgur.com/xEyLajW And a 4x upscaled version so that you can better appreciate the blur: https://imgur.com/3STX9mZ 3) I full-screened the image on my monitor (showing it at 170x170 pixels, blurred), moved to the other end of the room, and turned off all the lights. Zoomed into the monitor and voila - https://imgur.com /ifIHr3S 4) This is the image I got - https://imgur.com/bXJOZgI INTERPRETATION To put it into perspective, here is a side by side: https://imgur.com /ULVX933 In the side-by-side above, I hope you can appreciate that Samsung is leveraging an AI model to put craters and other details on places which were just a blurry mess. And I have to stress this: there's a difference between additional processing a la super-resolution, when multiple frames are combined to recover detail which would otherwise be lost, and this, where you have a specific AI model trained on a set of moon images, in order to recognize the moon and slap on the moon texture on it (when there is no detail to recover in the first place, as in this experiment). This is not the same kind of processing that is done when you're zooming into something else, when those multiple exposures and different data from each frame account to something. This is specific to the moon. CONCLUSION The moon pictures from Samsung are fake. Samsung's marketing is deceptive. It is adding detail where there is none (in this experiment, it was intentionally removed). In this article, they mention multi-frames, multi-exposures, but the reality is, it's AI doing most of the work, not the optics, the optics aren't capable of resolving the detail that you see. Since the moon is tidally locked to the Earth, it's very easy to train your model on other moon images and just slap that texture when a moon-like thing is detected. Now, Samsung does say "No image overlaying or texture effects are applied when taking a photo, because that would cause similar objects to share the same texture patterns if an object detection were to be confused by the Scene Optimizer.", which might be technically true - you're not applying any texture if you have an AI model that applies the texture as a part of the process, but in reality and without all the tech jargon, that's that's happening. It's a texture of the moon. If you turn off "scene optimizer", you get the actual picture of the moon, which is a blurry mess (as it should be, given the optics and sensor that are used). To further drive home my point, I blurred the moon even further and clipped the highlights, which means the area which is above 216 in brightness gets clipped to pure white - there's no detail there, just a white blob - https://imgur.com/9XMgt06 I zoomed in on the monitor showing that image and, guess what, again you see slapped on detail, even in the parts I explicitly clipped (made completely 100% white): https://imgur.com/9kichAp TL:DR Samsung is using AI/ML (neural network trained on 100s of images of the moon) to recover/add the texture of the moon on your moon pictures, and while some think that's your camera's capability, it's actually not. And it's not sharpening, it's not adding detail from multiple frames because in this experiment, all the frames contain the same amount of detail. None of the frames have the craters etc. because they're intentionally blurred, yet the camera somehow miraculously knows that they are there. And don't even get me started on the motion interpolation on their "super slow-mo", maybe that's another post in the future.. EDIT: Thanks for the upvotes (and awards), I really appreciate it! If you want to follow me elsewhere (since I'm not very active on reddit), here's my IG: @ibreakphotos * 685 comments * share * save * hide * report top 200 commentsshow 500 sorted by: best topnewcontroversialoldrandomq&alive (beta) [ ] Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account [-]McSnooSamsung S20+ (SM-G985F/DS) [score hidden] 16 hours ago (122 children) This is a very big accusation and you manage to reproduce the issue. I hope other people can reproduce this and make Samsung answer this misleading advertising. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]tearans [score hidden] 13 hours ago* (99 children) This makes me think, why did they go this way? Did they really think no one on Earth will look into it, especially when it is so easy to prove. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Nahcep [score hidden] 12 hours ago (70 children) How many potential customers will learn of this? How many of them will care? Hell, how many will genuinely think this is a good feature because the photos look sharper = are better? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Nonante_Dix [score hidden] 12 hours ago (63 children) Well it's not a "photo" if the image is created by the processor. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Sapass1 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (13 children) They don't care, the picture they get on the phone looks like what they saw with their eyes instead of a white dot. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Agoras_song [score hidden] 7 hours ago (5 children) I like this statement. It's quite philosophical. Should I give you what you see with your eyes, or what I can capture with my sensor? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Quillava [score hidden] 6 hours ago (2 children) Yeah that's interesting to think about. The moon is one of the very few things we can take a picture of that looks exactly the same every single time, so it makes a little bit of sense to just "enhance" it with a "fake" texture. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]hawkinsst7Pixel 4XL [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) Welcome to the world of presenting scientific images to the public. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Psyc3 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (5 children) Literally. I tried to take a picture of the moon, with a good smart phone from a couple of years ago...just a blob...or if you can get the dynamic range right so you can see the moon, everything else in the picture is completely off. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hellnukes [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) The moon is very bright when compared to the dark night sky * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hoplahopla [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) Yeah, but that's just an artifact of the crappy way we design sensors with current limitations (mostly due to price) Sensors could also be made with variable gain areas that adjust based on the light in that part of the image Some cameras/phones do something similar by taking and combinining a few pictures at the same time, but this means smaller exposure time or blue due to movement * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]bandman614 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) It's not like your eyes aren't doing the same thing. You get an HDR experience because your irises expand and contract and your brain just doesn't tell you about it. This is a shitty link, but https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/ 978-3-540-44433-6_1 * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]LAwLzaWU1AGalaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos) [score hidden] 10 hours ago (9 children) With how much post-processing is being used on photos these days (not saying this is good or bad), I think it is hard to argue that any photo isn't "being created by the processor". Pixel phones for example are often praised for their cameras on this subreddit and many other places, and those phones "fills in" a lot of detail and information to pictures taken. A few years ago developers at Google were talking about the massive amount of processing that they do on their phones to improve pictures. Even very advanced stuff like having an AI that "fill in" information based on what it *think* should be included in the picture if the sensor itself isn't able to gather enough info such as in low light pictures. The days of cameras outputting what the sensor saw are long gone. As long as it somewhat matches what people expect I don't have any issue with it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]mikeraven55 [score hidden] 7 hours ago (4 children) Sony is the only one that still treats it like an actual camera which is why people don't like their phone cameras. I wish they can improve their phones while bringing the price down, but they don't sell as much unfortunately. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Fr33PacoFold3|P30Pro|PH-1|IP8|LGG7 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (1 child) This is very true...they should at least attempt a bit more when using basic mode of the app and leave the advance camera mode RAW, also phone is super expensive and the cameras aren't anything special. At the time I got my Xperia 1 IV (i don't even think they were the newest sensors Sony had). * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [-]hoplahopla [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Well, nobody cares except for a handful of people who probably weren't buying a Samsung phone in the first place and who are too few to even be a statistical error on their sales * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]qtxLG G6, G3, Galaxy Nexus & Nexus 7 [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Unless you shoot in RAW literally every single photo you take with your phone is created by software, not you. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]circular_rectangle [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) There is no digital photo that is not created by a processor. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (36 replies) [-]Merry_Dankmas [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) The average customer won't. The only people who would care about this or look into it are actual photographers. Actual photographers who already have actual high performance cameras for photography needs. Someone who's genuinely into photography wouldn't rely on a phone camera for great shots. You can get good shots with a phone - don't get me wrong. But its probably not gonna be someone's main tool. The average consumer who buys a phone for its camera is going to be taking pictures of themselves, friends, their kids, animals they see in the wild, a view from the top of a mountain etc. Theyre gonna most likely have proper daylight, won't zoom too much and aren't going to actually play around with the camera settings to influence how the image comes out. Again, there are people out there who will do that. Of course there are. But if you compare that to people using the camera casually, the numbers are pretty small. Samsung portraying it as having some super zoom is a great subconscious influence for the buyer. The buyer knows they aren't actually going to use the full power zoom more than a handful of times but enjoy knowing that the camera can do it. Its like people who buy Corvettes or McLarens then only drive the speed limit. They didn't buy the car to use all its power. They like knowing the power is there in case they ever want it (which they usually never do). The only difference here is those cars do actually perform as advertised. The camera might not but as mentioned before, Samsung knows nobody in sizeable volume is actually gonna put it to the test nor will the average consumer care if this finding gets wide spread. The camera will "still be really good so I don't care" and thats how it'll probably stay. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]tearans [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) How many of them will care? sad truth of current state of entire business, heck whole world ignorance is a bliss * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [-]Soylent_Hero [score hidden] 7 hours ago* (0 children) Because the average cell phone user literally does. not. care. Whether or not I do as both a photography and tech nerd is a different story. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Psyc3 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (16 children) Because it is irrelevant. If you take a picture of the moon...it is the moon, it looks exactly the same to everyone for all intents and purposes all the time. You premise can be taken of literally any mode on any smart phone ever. Which doesn't accurately represent what the images have been taken of, from HDR, Night mode, even just a long shutter exposure. None are real, none are what the eye could ever see, most have significant levels of false colour applied, as well as sharpening, and even anti-blurring. When people take a picture on the moon, they want a cool looking picture of the moon, and every time I have take a picture of the moon, on what is a couple of year old phone which had the best camera set up at the time, it looks awful, because the dynamic range and zoom level required is just not at all what smart phones are good at. Hence they solved the problem and gave you your picture of the moon. Which is what you wanted, not a scientifically accurate representation of the light being hit by the camera sensor. We had that, it is called 2010. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SiffBA [score hidden] 9 hours ago (3 children) "If you take a picture of the moon...it is the moon, it looks exactly the same to everyone for all intents and purposes all the time." ... and you are better off downloading a hi-res image off the internet than buying a phone that will "super zoom" the Moon, and only the Moon... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Psyc3 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Yes, you are, as you are better off Googling all the famous sites people take pictures at then taking their own. Facts are they are looking for a "good picture", to put on social media, not facts or reality. As stated previously, that is what all these smart phone modes have been doing for years. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]hoplahopla [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) If you take a picture of the moon...it is the moon, it looks exactly the same to everyone for all intents and purposes all the time. You've probably never heard of clouds and partially covering the moon... Or of the concept of "overfitting". This camera has special tech to make moon images look better, to give the false impression that the camera is special in general. But this tech is not applicable to anything else * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (10 replies) [-]Okatis [score hidden] 7 hours ago* (4 children) This was reproduced two years ago by user who similarly took photos of their screen but instead tested with a smiley face drawing with a solid brush superimposed to see what would occur. Result was it output the moon texture atop the solid fill drawing. A top comment downplays this as being just an 'AI enhancement' since one analysis of the camera APK didn't see any reference to a texture being applied. However if it's a neural network model being used then no literal texture image is present but the learned data from being trained on the moon's image, which presumably is being applied to anything it recognizes in a scene as the moon when the right focal length triggers it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Zeno_of_Elea [score hidden] 2 hours ago (3 children) Wait a sec... OP's first paragraph Many of us have witnessed the breathtaking moon photos taken with the latest zoom lenses, starting with the S20 Ultra. Nevertheless, I've always had doubts about their authenticity, as they appear almost too perfect. While these images are not necessarily outright fabrications, neither are they entirely genuine. Let me explain. The OP from your comment's first paragraphs We've all seen the fantastic moon photographs captured by the new zoom lenses that first debued on the S20 Ultra. However, it has always seemed to me as though they may be too good to be true. Are these photographs blatantly fake? No. Are these photographs legitimate? Also no. Is there trickery going on here? Absolutely. Is OP faking their reddit post?? Just to plug their socials?? Or have I just been trained to suspect everyone of lying because of the new conversational AIs? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SyrusDrake [score hidden] 1 hour ago (0 children) Or have I just been trained to suspect everyone of lying because of the new conversational AIs? That kind of reminds me of what's happening with digital art. It's gotten to a point where some innocuous pieces are heavily scrutinized to figure out if they're AI, pointing out every little issue and all I can think of is "this has to be bad for the self-esteem of artists..." * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]LastTrainH0me [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) Oh my god this era is a whole new level of trust issues. But I have to say you're absolutely right -- it reads like what you get if you reword your friend's essay to get past plagiarism checkers. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Sifernos1 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) Their zoom was the only reason I bought the Note 10 5g and I couldn't believe they sold that zoom as being usable past 30x... This guy seems to have gotten Samsung figured and I'm not really surprised. I long suspected they were faking things as I couldn't reproduce many of the shots they took and I even used a tripod and waited for the best shots. Though, to Samsung's credit, up to the s8, I always thought their photography parts were exceptional. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]mannlou [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) I just got mine and I tried this the other night and found it odd how the white blur just got clear instantly. This confirms my suspicions given I've tried to take photos of street lights about a mile away and they were blurry in comparison. The phone is still great overall but this feels a bit misleading. I'll be curious to see if this catches on and requires Samsung to act in some way or will customers demand a refund. Great work in looking into this. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]qtxLG G6, G3, Galaxy Nexus & Nexus 7 [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) I just got mine and I tried this the other night and found it odd how the white blur just got clear instantly. Your camera automatically exposes the scene for what is on your screen. If say you load up your camera app the first thing you will see is a black/dark sky, and your camera exposes for that, it will try and make the darker bits brighter. If you zoom in on the big white blob that big white blob becomes bigger and bigger on your screen so your camera software automatically underexposes that big white blob to make it darker and you'll see more details. That is how cameras work. Not saying Samsung didn't add some trickery but that is generally how cameras work (on automode). * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (12 replies) [-]LyingPieceOfPoopGalaxy S2 > S3 > Note 2 > N3 > N5 > S9+ > N9 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (56 children) I just tried this with my S21 Ultra. Holy shit, you are right. I was always proud of the zoom lens of my camera and it was unbelievable how good it was taking pics of Moon. Now I am disappointed * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]fobbybobby323 [score hidden] 12 hours ago* (51 children) Yeah it was amazing how many people would argue with me about this. How could you think such a small sensor could capture that detail (not saying you specifically of course). People were straight up telling me it was still capturing the data through the sensor. There's no chance it resolves that much detail, at that magnification, with that amount of light and sensor size. The photography world would be all using that tech if true. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Implier [score hidden] 8 hours ago (4 children) How could you think such a small sensor could capture that detail Sensor size has nothing to do with the inability to capture details on the moon. It's 100% due to the lens that the sensor is attached to. The moon subtends a very small fraction of the sensor: something like 1/20th of the chip diagonal as it is, so logically making the sensor larger does nothing except put more black sky around the moon. If you instead took this sensor put it behind a 200 mm full frame lens you would get far better images of the moon than if you put an A7 behind it simply due to the image scale and resolution. Some of the best earth based amateur images of the planets (which are still an order of magnitude smaller than the moon) were done with webcams in the early 2000s The top image here: http://www.astrophoto.fr/saturn.html Was done with this thing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/393004660591 * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]kqvrp [score hidden] 5 hours ago (1 child) Wow that's super impressive. What was the rest of the optical setup? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Implier [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) This would be the closest modern equivalent. But in photography parlance, a mounted 3000mm f/10 catadioptric lens and then some custom fittings. I believe the original lens in front of the sensor was removed as well, although it's also possible to use what's called an afocal coupling where you would use an eyepiece in the telescope and the webcam sees what your eye would see. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]boon4376 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (1 child) Samsung is probably going to add tilt and gps sensors to ensure it's only doing this when actually pointing at the moon in order to be able to keep lying about their product capabilities. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Fairuse [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) They don't even need to. There are already apps that can map the sky using GPS, accelerometer, and gyros. Just implement the same feature and add more ML classification so you can take detailed photos of Jupiter, Mars, etc... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (46 replies) [-]formerteenager [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) You dummies didn't realize that the moon is literally the only object you can superzoom on and get that level of detail!? How was this not completely and utterly obvious to everyone!? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Rattus375 [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) They have some post processing that is artificially sharpening images based on the blurry images they receive. They aren't just overlaying an image of the moon on top of whatever you take a picture of. You get tons of detail from anything you are way zoomed in on, not just the moon * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]TheCosmicPanda [score hidden] 15 hours ago (23 children) Nice job! I do remember MKBHD saying that moon pics are faked in this way in one of his videos. I don't remember what video or which phone he was reviewing but it may have been a Chinese phone. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]threadnoodle [score hidden] 15 hours ago (15 children) Yep it was for the Huawei P20/30 Pro i think. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Scorpius_OB1 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) Yep, it was one of these. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Mona_Impact [score hidden] 11 hours ago (12 children) Guess they didn't pay him enough to lie for them like all his Samsung videos * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]gmmxlePixel 6 Pro [score hidden] 10 hours ago (2 children) I think there's just more inherent trust in "Western" brands - Sony, Apple, Pixel, Samsung, etc. - so people never even think of trying to determine whether or not there's something fishy going on. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]VegetaFan1337 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (1 child) Sony and Samsung are Asian, as in Eastern. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]gmmxlePixel 6 Pro [score hidden] 4 hours ago* (0 children) No kidding. They're just brands that have been present in wealthy, industrialized, Western countries for a significant amount of time, and therefore there's a perception of trust and quality that comes with those brand names. Which might just be different for the perception of brands and sub-brands like Xiaomi or Oppo or Huawei or Vivo or Honor or Meizu or Redmi or ZTE. Just look at people in the States whose knowledge of phone brands goes as far as "do you have an iPhone or a Samsung?" Was putting quotation marks around "Western" really too subtle? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]threadnoodle [score hidden] 11 hours ago (3 children) I don't think it's anything that nefarious, it's just a bias with all western media. Samsung/Apple is a lot more familiar and trusted than Chinese brands. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]throawayzzzzzzzzzz [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) it's just a bias with all western media This is nefarious though. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnackAllSmoke [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) No more nefarious than Apple lighting people's faces evenly with post-processing software on the iPhone * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]EsrailCazar [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) Ehhh, I've watched him for years and he openly states when he's biased or asked to be paid for an ad, he'll even make a follow-up video/comment if he creates some confusion. MKBHD is a cool guy, I've never come away from his videos feeling like I was just sold a product, iJustine on the other hand...how much more "blown away" can she get from every single apple product? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]aviparsDeveloper - unitMeasure: Offline Converter [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) One of the Chinese phones... was a while back * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]deadpadme [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) He said that they're real on the s23 series though * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hhhunter92300 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (4 children) He mentioned it on the s22u video as well, this isn't exactly news * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]turtleship_2006 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) And it's in the post (well the brand at least) * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]BBQ_suace [score hidden] 11 hours ago (2 children) ACTUALLY IN HIS S23 ULTRA VIDEOHE STATED THAT UNLIKE THE hUAWEI, THE MOON SHOTS CAPTURED BY THE S23 ULTRA ARE ACTUALLY REAL. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Cobra800089 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Yeah OP linked it in their post... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]TastyBananaPeppersRooted Galaxy Note 9 Exynos [score hidden] 16 hours ago (10 children) I mainly used the space zoom to spy on people. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]logantauranga [score hidden] 15 hours ago (3 children) Do their faces get AI-corrected by the phone to look like moon aliens? How deep does the Samsung moon rabbit hole go? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Korotai [score hidden] 10 hours ago (2 children) I zoomed in on a man across the street and this is what I got. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]thehazardsofchadNexus 6P, Nougat 7.1.1, 64GB ProjectFi | Nexus 7 2012 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (1 child) It's not the best choice, it's Spacer's Choice! * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]aaden08 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (4 children) Like Flossy Carter says, "scumbag mode/zoom". * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]fxsoapNote8 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (1 child) He's not wrong * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Sgt_StingerSamsung Galaxy S22 Ultra - Exynos [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) Nope. When someone asks about the camera on my phone, I tell them it has "perv mode", and then show them. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]KoladaGalaxy S21 Ultra [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) I use it to read thing far away like the beer list at a crowded bar. It's now I know I'm getting old * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]ajaxsiriusS23+ [score hidden] 16 hours ago (36 children) I would have been okay with this, if they had been more transparent about it. It's a defined, known object. Everyone is taking a picture of the exact same object, albeit from different angles. If they're adding details from a database it's from pictures of the actual object I want to photograph. I'm okay with the use of the tech, just not how it was marketed. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]ch1llaro0 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (18 children) the moon is far away enough to say we're all taking pictures from the same angle * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AussiePeteXZ Premium [score hidden] 14 hours ago (14 children) Hello from the Southern hemisphere. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dragonwightGalaxy S8, Android 9 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (4 children) You still see same side of the moon, just upside down. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]lokeshj [score hidden] 7 hours ago (2 children) Now I want someone from Australia to reproduce this scenario. Would be hilarious if they don't take the location into account and it produces the same image as the northern hemisphere. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]danielbln [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Aussies are deep asleep right now, maybe we'll get something in a few hours. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]ch1llaro0 [score hidden] 14 hours ago* (7 children) you see the same as the northern hemisphere, its just *rotated EDIT: changed "flipped" ro "rotated" still thats a neglectable difference to the nothern hemisphere * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AussiePeteXZ Premium [score hidden] 13 hours ago (1 child) Not flipped, but rotated 180deg. Which would be a different angle. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]turtleship_2006 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) But on a different axis * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (5 replies) [-]ajaxsiriusS23+ [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) I'm also from the southern hemisphere XD * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]rlowens [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) Not the plane they were talking about. We all see the same side, just a different rotational-angle. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]dkadavarathS21U & M51 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (5 children) Since they did mention that there's AI involved, I don't think they were wrong technically. Deep learning AIs can generate image of non existent things just with a few prompts these days. Imagine asking it to improve the image of something that this well defined and unchanging. Even though it's probably exponentially less capable than the most advanced AIs available now, it'd still manage to clean up things pretty well. I don't know about you guys, but I've always known this is happening. Moon shots were always way more defined than most other things at those zoom levels. I have seen this happen for other objects as well though. Mainly grass and some patterns and all. If the phone's AI thinks it's grass, it's probably going to try to see things that are not there. Just like our eyes trick us into seeing things and details that are not there at times. Samsung has been deceptive in that it didn't explain all these to the public - or maybe they did somewhere and we missed it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]puz23Moto G7 Power. [score hidden] 11 hours ago (3 children) The real test will be to see what it does if you give it a picture of another planet. If it makes it look like the moon then this is bad. If it enhances it the same way I'm very impressed, although the marketing is still deceptive (also they should add a toggle somewhere as it's going to misidentify things). If it does nothing I'm mildly disappointed but not surprised. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Antici-----pation [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) Scene optimizer is the toggle * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]obvithrowaway34434 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (5 children) Except this "enhancement" makes the whole endeavor of taking a picture of moon pointless as there are literally thousands of images one can download from the web at much much higher resolution for any moon phase. You can even send in a request to your local observatory (depends on location) to email you one. Why would one want an AI generated fakery instead of the real thing? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]f4ux [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) And at the same time, why would anyone want a non-enhanced and low-quality picture taken by themselves with their phone instead of downloading a high-resolution image as you said? Do we care more about the act of taking the photo or the resulting photo itself? Either way, I understand it's something many people simply enjoy doing (and I frequently take photos of the Moon myself), but it's an interesting discussion. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]rotates-potatoes [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) The really interesting thing to me is that the multiple photos don't put the same features in the same places. So it's not like you get a photo of the real moon; each photo is the AI making moon-like features, but they won't match a real photo, or even each other. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [-]Rattus375 [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) It's not adding details from a database. It's using AI/postprocessing to upscale the image. The blurry image the OP used still very clearly shows the craters. The post professing algorithm realizes that the image shouldn't be blurry like that, and uses the shape of the blur to guess at how the craters should look * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) [-]yougotmetoreply [score hidden] 14 hours ago (13 children) Wow. Really fascinating. I'm so sad actually because I used to be so proud of the photos I'd get of the moon with my phone and now I'm finding out they're actually not photos of the moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Racer_101Pixel 7 Pro Hazel [score hidden] 14 hours ago (10 children) They are photos of the moon, just not the moon you actually captured on your phone camera. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]egelof [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) I don't think that is true. The controversy around the P30 stems from the fact that it overlaid an image from a database over the actual captured picture. This is not what's happening here; the ai is hyper trained on the moon and therefore really good at guessing how the image is supposed to look like but, and this is important, it's still limited by the information the sensor was actually able to capture, e.g. the two pictures in the post are very different as the second picture has more artifacts and the "overexposed" regions are clearly missing detail where the ai had no data to guess its contents. This post seems more to be asking the question as to when an ai enhanced image becomes more fake than real, and if that is still desirable even if the results are good. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (9 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [-]ProgramTheWorldSamsung Note 4 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (15 children) Just a quick correction. Blurring, mathematically, is a reversible process. This is called deconvolution. Any blurred images can be "unblurred" if you know the original kernel (or just close enough). * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]thatswacyo [score hidden] 10 hours ago (6 children) So a good test would be to divide the original moon image into squares, then move some of the squares around so that it doesn't actually match the real moon, then blur the image and take a photo to see if the AI sharpens the image or replaces it with the actual moon layout. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]chiniwini [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Oe just remove some craters and see if the AI puts them back in. This should be very easy to test for anyone with the phone. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]limbs_ [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) OP sorta did that by further blurring and clipping highlights of the moon on his computer so it was just pure white vs having areas that it could sharpen. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]mkchampionGalaxy S22+ [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Yes and that further blurred image was actually missing a bunch of details compared to the first blurred image. I don't think it's applying a texture straight up, I think it's just a very specifically trained AI that is replacing smaller sets of details that it sees. It looks like the clipped areas in particular are indeed much worse off even after AI processing. I'd say the real question is: how much AI is too much AI? It's NOT a straight up texture replacement because it only adds in detail where it can detect where detail should be. When does the amount of detail added become too much? These processes are not user controllable. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]snorange [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) Article posted above includes some much deeper testing with similar attempts to try and trick the camera. In their tries the camera won't enhance at all: https://www.inverse.com/input/reviews/ is-samsung-galaxy-s21-ultra-using-ai-to-fake-detailed-moon-photos-investigation-super-resolution-analysis * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]Ono-Sendai [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) That is correct. Blurring and then clipping/clamping the result to white is not reversible however. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]the_dark_current [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) You are correct. Using a Convolutional Neural Network can help quickly find the correct kernel and reverse the process. This is a common method used in improving resolution of astronomy photos for example. That is the use of deconvolution to improve the point spread function caused by aberrations. An article explaining deconvolution's use for improving image resolution for microscopic images: https:// www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/ digitalimaging/deconvolution/deconintro/ * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]matjeh [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Mathematically yes, but in the real world images are quantized so a gaussian blur of [0,0,5,0,0] and [0,1,5,0,0] might both result in [0,1,2,1,0] for example. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]ibreakphotos[S] [score hidden] 5 hours ago (3 children) Hey, thanks for this comment. I've used deconvolution via FFT several years ago during my PhD, but while I am aware of the process, I'm not a mathematician and don't know all the details. I certainly didn't know that the image that was gaussian blurred could be sharpened perfectly - I will look into that. However, please have in mind that: 1) I also downsampled the image to 170x170, which, as far as I know, is an information-destructive process 2) The camera doesn't have the access to my original gaussian blurred image, but that image + whatever blur and distortion was introduced when I was taking the photo from far away, so a deconvolution cannot by definition add those details in (it doesn't have the original blurred image to run a deconvolution on) 3) Lastly, I also clipped the highlights in the last examples, which is also destructive, and the AI hallucinated details there as well So I am comfortable saying that it's not deconvolution which "unblurs" the image and sharpens the details, but what I said - an AI model trained on moon images that uses image matching and a neural network to fill in the data * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]the_dark_current [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) This certainly dives into the realm of seriously complicated systems. You are correct. Downsampling can be destructive but can oftentimes be compensated for via upscaling, just like you see a Blue-Ray player upscaling a 1080 video to 4k. This is a paper from Google about Cascaded Diffusion Models that can take a low-resolution image and infer the high-resolution version: https://cascaded-diffusion.github.io/assets/cascaded_diffusion.pdf I am not saying this is what is done. I am just giving an example that systems exist that can do this level of image improvement. On training on moon images, that could be the case but does not have to be. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) does not have to be trained on a specific image to improve. It is actually the point of it. From a high level, you train a CNN by blurring an image or distorting it in some way and let the training guess at all kinds of kernel combinations. The goal is to use a loss function for the CNN to find the kernals that gets the blurred image closest to the original. Once trained, it does not have to have been trained on an image to have an effect. It just has to have seen a combination of pixels that it has seen before and apply the appropriate kernel. If you would like to see an excellent presentation on this with its application to astrophotography check out Russel Croman's presentation on CNNs for image improvement. He does a very understandable deep dive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSUVJI93jg Again, not saying this is what has been done by Samsung, but I am saying that systems exist that are capable of doing this without being trained on Earth's Moon specifically. This is what makes AI systems spooky and amazing. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]DrVagax [score hidden] 13 hours ago (8 children) And here is a article claiming it is real, although it does use extra functionality to achieve this result. Following a bit of a similar investigation you did as well. They even tried to fool the camera to see if it applies a texture or not. https://www.inverse.com/input/reviews/ is-samsung-galaxy-s21-ultra-using-ai-to-fake-detailed-moon-photos-investigation-super-resolution-analysis * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]GazumboNokia 8 & Samsung Galaxy S5, LineageOS 14 [score hidden] 6 hours ago* (1 child) In the end their sole reason for concluding it was real was that when taking a photo with the phone and mirror-less camera from the same position, the textures matched and that this would be too much work for Samsung to achieve. That makes zero sense. The moon is so far away that even moving several meters to the left wouldn't make any diffence to the way it looks when overlayed. Their reasoning is very flawed. Also, look at the images from the S21 Ultra and the Sony Mirrorless camera. No way the phone out performs the professional camera and lens. No amount of 'unblurring' and AI can recover detail that isn't there to start with. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Under_Sycamore_Trees [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) This article is actually the first link mentioned in the post. I think the site's experiment didn't work because they used a plain ping pong ball. I think the AI can pick up some of the patterns on the moon's surface which are still barely visible in the low-res image from this posts' experiment * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]YourNightmar31 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) I remember reading this a while back, this is a good article and i don't think OP's experiment is foolproof. With enough image processing, unblurring and sharpening i can believe the phone gets to the result picture with only OP's 170x170 blurry moon image. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Tomtom6789 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) But the whole point of the experiment is that there isn't anything for the camera to process, unblur, or sharpen as the data has been destroyed by reducing the file size to 170x170 and blurred. If the final picture has the data in the photo, which it did in this experiment, it couldn't have come from the photo and needed to be inserted from elsewhere. You may call that "processing" but you can't say that the photo you took on that phone is still the same image that you end up with. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]violet_sakuraGalaxy S22+ [score hidden] 15 hours ago (17 children) yeah huawei was called out for doing this before, and yet nowadays many people still fall for it * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]threadnoodle [score hidden] 15 hours ago (3 children) Western tech enthusiasts have an inherent bias for Samsung/Apple when compared with any Chinese brand. Whatever the reason is, it's there. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+][deleted] 11 hours ago (1 child) [deleted] load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]zoglog [score hidden] 14 hours ago (11 children) Didn't huawei just photoshop a moon image over though? This is a bit diff no? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]cccaaatttsssss [score hidden] 13 hours ago (9 children) It doesn't seem that different? This seems to photoshop an image of a moon over a random white blurry orb. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]violet_sakuraGalaxy S22+ [score hidden] 13 hours ago (8 children) its basically the same thing. both slaps a moon texture over a object that looks like a moon, maybe newer samsung have better ML but thats it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Fairuse [score hidden] 9 hours ago (7 children) Samsung's method isn't really based on "texture". It is more like it "generates" details based on what the moon should look like. Most modern AI denoise/sharpening tools perform very similar detail generation. Just look at Topaz Gigapixel AI and how it can generate face details from very few pixels. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]floriv1999 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (1 child) AI researcher here. AI sharpening techniques work by filling in lost details based on patterns they extract from a dataset of images during training. E.g. a blurry mess that looks like a person gets high resolution features that shapes like this had in the dataset. The nice thing is that the dataset includes many different people and we are able to learn a model how the features behave instead of slapping the same high res version of a person on everything. This works as long as our dataset is large enough and includes a big variety of images, so we are forced to learn general rules instead of memorizing stuff. Otherwise an effect called overfitting occurs, where we memorize an specific example and are able to reproduce it near perfectly. This is generally a bad thing as it get in our way of learning the underlying rules. The datasets used to train these models include millions or billions of images to get a large enough variety. But commonly photographed things like the moon can be an issue as they are so many times in the dataset that the model still overfits on them. So they might have used just a large dataset with naturally many moon pictures in it and the general AI sharpening overfitted on the moon. This can happen easily, but it does not rule out the possibility that they deliberately knew about it and still used it for advertisement, which would be kind of shady. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]floriv1999 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Tl;dl: Even in large training datasets are not many moon shaped things that don't look exactly like the moon, so it is an easy shortcut for the AI enhancement to memorize the moon even if it is not deliberately done. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]RenderBender_Uranus [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) Have you tried shooting with the 10x camera in RAW? if yes could you share a crop of the moon taken with that camera and post process it using something like Adobe Camera Raw or something? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]RedPetrichor [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) Back in the days there was some controversy with Huawei phone doing the same. I wonder what would happen if you altered it slightly (not just adding a blur effect but adding a crater for example) * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]PeanutButterChickenXperia Z5 Premium CHROME!! / Nexus 7 / Tab S 8.4 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (11 children) so how does it work with a lunar eclipse? I've seen shots from the phone that looked alright. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Olao99OnePlus 6 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (7 children) It's a damn good Ai is what it is * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]infernalsatan [score hidden] 13 hours ago (6 children) So it can make ugly people look pretty? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Far_Ad_1353 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (1 child) So it can make ugly people look pretty? SOLD! I'm getting a s23 * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]shimszy [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) This has been default in phone cameras for a long time now. People on my note 8 looked notably better than they do in real life due to filters and minor modifications from the default camera app. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]rlowens [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) Probably, yes. Face filters are very popular, especially in Asia. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]TheNerdNamedChuck [score hidden] 10 hours ago (2 children) it works well. I'm not sure this guy actually zoomed into a monitor though since whenever I zoom into one I can see the pixels, even from far away I can still see them at high zoom levels. though it was already obvious this was ai lol, you couldn't just point and shoot that type of picture with really anything * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]extremesalmon [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) This is hilarious. Nice research * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]PhoneMetro [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) I love great research. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]ProjectGODroid Turbo [score hidden] 16 hours ago (0 children) Great work! I really appreciate the way you set up the experiment and laid out the results for us. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Drug-Lord [score hidden] 16 hours ago (2 children) OP, great and very creative work to reach your conclusion. Very, very convincing. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]sciencecrazy [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) Here is the original article (Chinese, Google translated) where they have seen something similar on the "original" superzoom phone P30 Pro - they actually moved in the source image some of the craters but "magically" the phone moved those where they are on the moon :) https://www-zhihu-com.translate.goog/question/319986727/answer/ 652664005?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]PhyrexianSpaghetti [score hidden] 12 hours ago (5 children) Honestly, to be 100% sure, you should edit away one or two craters and see if it adds them back, because the result is still proportionally blurry to the low-res moon pic, so it could still be a very good sharpening tool * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (5 replies) [-]Vertrix-V- [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) That's exactly what I thought it did all along. Calling it AI enhancement is a clever marketing term cause even if that AI is specifically trained for moon shots and therefore knows where detail is supposed to be even when it isn't even there in your picture and than adds that detail to your picture, it sounds better than just simply saying "overlaying an image of the moon" even though it's basically the same * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]notwearingatie [score hidden] 15 hours ago (1 child) Now try it again from the back of the moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]seriousnotshirley [score hidden] 9 hours ago (9 children) When you did a Gaussian blue and said that the detail is gone that isn't completely true. You can recover a lot of detail from a Gaussian blur from a deconvolution. A Gaussian blur in the Fourier domain is just a multiplication of the FT of the original image and the FT of the gaussian. You can recover the original by doing division of the FT of the blurred image by the FT of the gaussian. Fortunately the FT of a gaussian is a gaussian and is everywhere non-zero. There may be some numerical instability in places but a lot of information is recovered. It's a technique known as deconvolution and is commonly used in Astro photography where natural sources of lack of sharpness are well modeled as a Gaussian. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]muchcharles [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) You left out this part: I downsized it to 170x170 pixels * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]T-Rax [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Thanks for the simple laymans explanation of how to remove gaussian blur! * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+][deleted] 6 hours ago (3 children) [deleted] [-]zephepheoehephe [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) Not that expensive lol * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]RiemannZetaFunction [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) This is how they corrected the Hubble telescope's nearsightedness, FWIW. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]AFellowOtaku7 [score hidden] 16 hours ago (0 children) This is very interesting. I'd like to see Samsung's reply (if they give us one) about this matter. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]VincentVerba [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) It does the same with other objects. Birds are a good example. The original picture is a blurry mess, then it processes en suddenly you get a good picture of the bird. I even have the impression it recognizes the different bird types. Don't see the difference with these moon shots. It's really good AI. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]z28camaromanGalaxy S23 Ultra, Tab S7+, Galaxy Watch 3 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) I swore something like this happened with my S20+ when I tried photographing a waxing/waning (not full) harvest moon over the ocean. What appeared to be a superimposed image of the white moon (higher res and nearly full) would flash briefly over the reel orange one in the viewfinder. I couldn't confirm what was going on but I'm glad to know that this was likely the case. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]flossdog [score hidden] 15 hours ago (13 children) Good investigative work. I think you've shown clearly that space zoom uses AI and not purely optics and conventional sharpening. That said, I'm okay with it. I was expecting some super obvious photoshop cut/paste of a high res moon. But it looks very natural. Even though we always see the same half of the moon, its orientation changes (1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, etc). So it matched the orientation exactly. To me, faking is like "if the moon is detected, replace with this stock image of a moon". Samsung is using AI techniques, which do generate details that are not there in the source. All manufacturers will be using more and more AI in their cameras. This is the future. I'm perfectly fine with it, in fact I want it (as long as I also have a setting to disable it too). As a follow up, you should do the exact same experiment, but with a photo of something unique that the AI was not trained on, like a non-famous person or pet. Blur it out, take a photo, and see if it adds details with AI. If so, then that means their AI techniques are general and valid. Not a "one trick pony" just for the moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Beedalbe [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Then if the non-famous person ends up looking like the moon we're all in trouble lol. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]MasculinumGreen [score hidden] 14 hours ago (6 children) I don't really see how this is better than replacing moon with a stock photo. It's just replacing it with a stock photo that went through an AI engine and got applied to your moon. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]clocks212 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (1 child) Anyone saying anything else is grasping at straws and playing word games. It's slapping a slightly blurry image of the moon on top of blurry white circles on a dark sky. Whether that imagine is a "pixel by pixel" copy/paste or "we used a computer to produce a pixel by pixel copy/paste that might actually trick you into thinking it's real" is irrelevant. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [-]MicioBauSony Xperia 5 IV | Samsung Galaxy S23 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) Disabling "scene optimizer" is the first thing I do when using Samsung's camera app. That thing makes photos look like shit -- they get an even more overprocessed look, if that was even possible. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]LionTigerWingsGalaxy S20 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Next test. Can you mirror or rotate the image and then retest? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]tendorphinPixel 6 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (3 children) For what it's worth, here's a shot of the moon I took with my Pixel 6 pro: https://i.imgur.com/7016NMg.jpg This was freehand, no telescope. I haven't seen moon shots being used in Samsung advertising, and have no dog in this fight, just wanted to provide a pic I know for a fact is of the moon. That was with the P6pro (iirc, 3x optical, 20x digital/AI assisted) and I have the P7pro now, with additional zoom capabilities (5x optical, 30x digital /AI assisted), but haven't bothered to take a pic of the moon with that yet. Maybe Google is doing the same thing? It seems pretty comparable in the final product. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]chilled_alligator [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) I just tried the OPs blurred & clipped image in similar conditions they described, using my Pixel 7 Pro. Here is the result. It definitely raises the contrast and tries to sharpen the result, but it's not creating detail that wasn't there. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]vpsjOnePlus 5T | Lenovo P1 | Xperia SP | S duos | Samsung Wave [score hidden] 13 hours ago (10 children) I always thought this was the case because I have a DSLR with a 300mm telephoto lens and taking a really crisp, sharp and detailed image of the Moon is Hard. It takes quite a few tries in the very least because of the Atmospheric seeing. I usually resort to the technique called stacking where you take multiple shots of the same subject to improve details and I thought maybe that's what S2X Ultras were doing. Thank you for this proof. We need this to readh MKBHD/Arun/etc and verify the same * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]MissingThePixelS23 Ultra + Tab S6 Lite sold everything else [score hidden] 11 hours ago (5 children) Taking a picture of the moon is genuinely not that difficult. I've done with a Pixel 6 Pro, a A Fujifilm bridge camera and a Sony bridge camera too. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]vpsjOnePlus 5T | Lenovo P1 | Xperia SP | S duos | Samsung Wave [score hidden] 11 hours ago (2 children) Look, these are great pictures don't get me wrong.. but as an Astrophotographer, my expectations are a bit higher. You can see how 'water-colory' the Sony camera's image looks like. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]MissingThePixelS23 Ultra + Tab S6 Lite sold everything else [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Oh yeah, I agree. The Sony is 12 years old and has a 1/2.3-inch sensor so that certainly didn't help it. Basically, it's easy to take a picture of the moon. But a good photo is much harder * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]bukithdSamsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Well yeah, you're using appropriate equipment. Of course a phone camera would disappoint you. That's like comparing a bulldozer to a shovel. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]ErebosGRXiaomi Redmi Note 4X | Android 10 | CarbonROM [score hidden] 6 hours ago (2 children) I always thought this was the case because I have a DSLR with a 300mm telephoto lens and taking a really crisp, sharp and detailed image of the Moon is Hard. It takes quite a few tries in the very least because of the Atmospheric seeing. Try stacking thousands of frames from 4K video using Registax or Autostakkert. https://www.instagram.com/p/BVE_GWcA14_/ (Not mine) Single exposure astro shots are so last century. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]IAMSNORTFACEDS21 FE, Hot Exynos A13 OneUI5 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) Thank you so much for proving this. Even though some of us assumed this was going on in good to have definitive and repeatable evidence. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]dendron01 [score hidden] 9 hours ago* (0 children) Excellent analysis. An easy trick for any smartphone oem when it's always the same side of the moon that faces Earth. And I'm sure it's not just Samsung doing this. But what's even more amazing is people don't look at the shit quality of any image from the digital zoom and can still somehow manage to conclude it's capable of producing a serviceable picture of anything at all. Moon included. And especially on the highest zoom setting. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Wu-Tang_CamS23 Ultra [score hidden] 4 hours ago (1 child) It's AI enhanced, but it's not "fake", at least not any more fake than any other smartphone photo. I downloaded the high res version of the moon that you provided and edited it (clone stamp tool in Photoshop): * Original * Edited I resized the images to 500x500: * Original resized * Edited resized I then took a picture of both from the same spot at 50x zoom (S23 Ultra): * Original resized taken with phone * Edited resized taken with phone The photos of the resized images have a significant loss in quality and the edits are still visible in the edited photo. Again, it uses sharpening and AI, but they're not fake images. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]ibreakphotos[S] [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) It is my belief that, as another redditor claimed, "There is no embedded lunar imagery in the Samsung software because it it is already encoded as weights in a neural network." I believe it's something similar to stable diffusion or DALL-E, not a static .png being overlaid on top of the image - I've never claimed that. I have always said it's an AI/ML algorithm that detects a moon-like object and then uses a neural network to fill in the missing details by using other images of the moon, which are saved as weights in a neural network * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dzernumbrdS23 Ultra [score hidden] 9 hours ago (7 children) It's well known the camera uses AI to sharpen and enhance the image. Every phone on the market does this post-processing AI enhancement even with normal photos. Samsung already admitted it used AI enhancement on moon photos with the S21 investigation and outright denied using textures. https://www.inverse.com/input/reviews/ is-samsung-galaxy-s21-ultra-using-ai-to-fake-detailed-moon-photos-investigation-super-resolution-analysis I have an open mind but I don't think you've proven it's a texture and NOT just AI. Where is the evidence it is a texture being used? Have you found a texture in the APK? If they were overlaying it with textures we'd be getting plenty of false positives where light sources that phone mistakes for the moon end up having a moon texture overlaying them. The white blob is just sharpening and contrasting. Nothing you've shown contradicts the article I've linked. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (7 replies) [-]Everyday_Normal_Lad [score hidden] 15 hours ago (3 children) Wait. People believed these pics are real? We know precisely how moon looks. There is no way a micro camera can zoom this far and look good. It was obvious that are generated * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) [-]Spud788 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (2 children) Samsung don't use an overlay but they rely heavily on AI to 'Reproduce' the moon using the small details the camera can actually see. Imagine the photo you take is a template and then the AI traces around that template to draw an image. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]SmarmyPanther [score hidden] 11 hours ago (2 children) The viewfinder view in MKBHDs video was really impressive even without post-processing * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]Scorpius_OB1 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) The Moon is a very small object actually. Even using a long telephoto lens, it will appear small in the frame. And watching the specs of such phone, even if all the zoom was optical the Moon would appear tiny. Digital zooms are just that, enlarging the image interpolating details. You can see it comparing a shot of the Moon taken such way, preferably in quarter or crescent phase as relief (craters) are much more visible with the same view with binoculars. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]t1m3f0rt1m3r [score hidden] 7 hours ago* (2 children) Gaussian blur does not destroy as much information as you think. If the picture were infinitely large, the transformation would be perfectly invertible! Fourier transform of Gaussian is Gaussian, which is nonzero everywhere. Basically, in frequency space, Fourier (Image*Gaussian)=Fourier(Image)*Fourier(Gaussian)=Fourier(Image) *Gaussian, so Fourier(Image)=Fourier(Image*Gaussian)/Gaussian, which is defined because the denominator is nonzero. The reason you lose some information is roundoff error (the pixel values aren't exactly equal to the convolution values) and edge-effects (the convolution outside the image boundary have been discarded). However, this information loss can be partially accommodated by well-designed regularization, because, given the blurred image, not every possible pre-blurred image is equally likely among natural photographs -- many are filled with unrealistic garbage. What you've discovered is not that the images are "fake", per se, but that Samsung's ML algos are really good at deblurring. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]ibreakphotos[S] [score hidden] 4 hours ago (1 child) I replied to this point before: Hey, thanks for this comment. I've used deconvolution via FFT several years ago during my PhD, but while I am aware of the process, I'm not a mathematician and don't know all the details. I certainly didn't know that the image that was gaussian blurred could be sharpened perfectly - I will look into that. However, please have in mind that: 1) I also downsampled the image to 170x170, which, as far as I know, is an information-destructive process 2) The camera doesn't have the access to my original gaussian blurred image, but that image + whatever blur and distortion was introduced when I was taking the photo from far away, so a deconvolution cannot by definition add those details in (it doesn't have the original blurred image to run a deconvolution on) 3) Lastly, I also clipped the highlights in the last examples, which is also destructive, and the AI hallucinated details there as well So I am comfortable saying that it's not deconvolution which "unblurs" the image and sharpens the details, but what I said - an AI model trained on moon images that uses image matching and a neural network to fill in the data * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]t1m3f0rt1m3r [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) Yes, 1 & 3 are the source of some information loss. a deconvolution cannot by definition add those details in Here's the rub. A linear deconvolution? Sure, you're 100% correct. But if you allow it to be nonlinear... now you're in ML territory and it evidently can recover the details. What do you really mean by "those details"? The photons that entered your camera? The rock atoms that bounced those photons? The retinal response you got from looking at a captured image? The internal cognitive perception of that image? You're imputing physicality to something that is just a perception. Yes, the reconstructed image isn't bit-for-bit the same as the original, but, for your brain, it is essentially the same, as even the creaky ol' JPEG standard shows. They're telling you, "given what rocks and planets and moons look like, here's what image was probably received before blurring"... and they're right! All photography is a lie, so we're just arguing about degrees at this point. It's a whole new level of "degree" with modern ML, but that's all it is. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]stvntb [score hidden] 7 hours ago (3 children) I'm just... baffled that anyone thought it was legit in the first place. If my a7s with a 300mm lens the size of my arm can barely get a shot of the moon to fill half the frame and it's still just a vaguely greyish orb, this was always going to be bullshit. You will never get a good picture of the moon with a phone, that's just how optics work. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) [-]RealNoNamerS22U | RIP P2XL w/ PE+11 [score hidden] 4 hours ago* (1 child) While this is cool and probably fairly accurate, I don't like the process of blur and thresholding in your tests because both of those things are what the AI and processing is trained to remove. Can you use something like this instead https://imgur.com/a/5wADICZ? I removed (by painting over) the bottom part of the crater in the center and blurred it for the first image. That'll give a better idea of the extent of what's happening. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Wu-Tang_CamS23 Ultra [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Taken from an S23 Ultra with 100x zoom: Blur Original Quality is terrible on both, but you can definitely see your edit on the original one. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hatethatmalware [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Samsung's official explanation of the moon shot algorithm: https:// translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https:// r1.community.samsung.com/t5/camcyclopedia/ %EB%8B%AC-%EC%B4%AC%EC%98%81/ba-p/19202094 * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]LionST1IPhone 12 mini [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) Didn't this already happen with a different manufacturer a few years ago? Can't remember if it was Huawei or somebody else. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]zoglog [score hidden] 14 hours ago (1 child) Weird, I took an image of your moon image with my pixel phone and got THIS * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]HG1998Z Flip 4 [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) Also that 200 MP aren't actually 200 million RGB pixels. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]bitemyassnow [score hidden] 13 hours ago (1 child) same way most upscaling apps work, I suspect that if you take s23 ultra on Jupiter and take a shot of Titan, you would get similar details as our own moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]jbusZ Fold 4 , Galaxy Watch 5 [score hidden] 12 hours ago* (0 children) All photos taken with modern day phones are extremely processed unless you are exporting RAW images. The fact that Samsung uses AI to enhance moon photos does not bother me in the least. If anything, it's just good marketing for their non-moon zoom capability (which is very good for a phone). * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]lodermoder [score hidden] 9 hours ago (1 child) I took the exact same picture with my Google 7 pro and I was able to resolve the same detail with my 30x zoom on a very clear night that you can see with your naked eye. Either this isn't exclusive to Samsung, or these cameras are more capable than you think. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) The thing is if they are cheating with the zoomed in moon how is every other zoomed in image so clear? I bet they are using machine learning to identify the object and upscaling the output. They are not just cutting and pasting moon png on top of the moon image. The AI identifies the moon and then upscales it as it is trained for. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]User-no-relation [score hidden] 13 hours ago* (0 children) Every phone has been doing thus with every picture for years now. The post processing does all kind of ai tricks. https://shotkit.com/news/ does-the-iphone-14s-obligatory-post-processing-ruin-photos/ This makes a good point that you can capture the raw format that isn't processed Not to mention do you realize how much harder it would be to somehow use stock pictures to supplement it? The moon looks different depending on where you are in the world, the time of the year the time of the night. Like its an insane premise. Heavily processing an image is much much easier. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]bukithdSamsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) This is the last shot I took with my s21 ultra. This pretty much matches what is shown in the view finder. Samsung post processing does do some smoothing on the image but I don't see how it's doing all what you're saying. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Stufi [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Similar case for me with the S23 Ultra. The image is already sharp in the view finder and the changes done to the picture after processing are minimal. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]BigManChina01 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (1 child) This is a great comment from u/Leithy27 "I don't mean to ruin your moment, I see you're very excited to prove Samsung isn't a savior and is in fact evil ominous music playing However, what is happening when you're using the AI that enhances your pics, after you go out of the realm of pure optical zoom, aka after 10x, is that it is trained on a dataset of millions of images. For most of those the variety is insane, there are a limitless number of pics of birds on trees or roofs, so when you take such a picture the AI tries aggregating information it received from all of this pics to make yours better. That's why you get the semi sharp but oil painting look on 30x for example. Now, it's not ideal because as I said there are billions of different variations of any such pic, buildings, people, animals etc. So it will make it better but not by too much. However, when it comes to text even at 100x it's suddenly almost perfect and is magically made very readable and sharp, why. Obviously because of the way less variety in letters. We have a limited set of letters and standardized set of such signs you can find. Still it's very large, because you have different fonts etc, but the variety is way less than the case of any other thing. Mostly limited by the standardization of text, our alphabet and similar signs, the more common one thing is the sharper the filling in of the AI will be. Once again, that's why everyone pictures text on 100x to show it off, it looks pretty amazing and everything else doesn't. And now the final level is the moon, once again millions of pics on that as well however the variance is in the orders of magnitude less than that of text, just because there are only several, very countable, pics of that object, depending on where you are taking a picture of it. So seeing the difference between anything else and text, how much better text is, and on another level entirely, the moon, imagine how much better that will be in comparison to text filling. That's simple because this is how AI is trained, the less variance there is the more detail it will be able to fill in, and that's done for every single thing you picture. I split it into 3 categories so you understand why and how that happens depending on, once again, the mean difference of the existing pictures of that object. So yes, I'm sorry to be the one ruining the tinfoil party but that is just what AI does, it does it for every shot, and the more "common" the shot is in the data set it was trained on the better it will fill in the details. There's no faking here, just AI, which you might argue is faking but oh well, sure it is, we signed up for it and like it. The zoom on this is very real, I can see things I can't see with my own eyes and easily check how real and accurate they are when I go closer to them. Did the AI help me see more detail, sure it did, it's doing its job. But keep digging and making posts like this, it's good for everyone, it's interesting and knowledgeable for you and quite a few people will learn things from that. Everyone should, I will also push my kids to be curious like that but eventually they will need to comprehend how and why things work, lest they deduce the earth is flat." * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]BurnZ_AUSamsung Galaxy S9+ & 9 Other Devices [score hidden] 13 hours ago (1 child) What if you rotated your source photo? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]fallenwout [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) Image recognition does not care about orientation * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]tantouzNokia 6110 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) At this point the question should be what is a picture? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Liarize [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) can you try taking a pic during day time? I'm curious what it's look like * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]GroundbreakingFly141 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) The most easiest way of proving this is by taking a picture of a crescent moon (or smaller) * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]192dot168dot [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) You mean to tell me a corporation was not honest in advertising their product?! * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]CrazeRageV50 ThinQ + Note 20 Ultra + Flip 4 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Wait Samsung false advertising then? I knew it was AI because no one is taking composite shots with their hands, but Samsung really lied? Damn * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]zzcool [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) wasn't this obvious? i could take super clear photos of the moon but the rare comet next to it was a colored blob * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Berkoudieu [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Well, thank you. I got a p30 pro and a S22u, and I have a huge feeling of fake from both of them, just by the way it instantly goes from overlighted blurry mess to an almost perfect moon picture when you are zooming in. When I claim about it being probably a fake, I'm being said it's not true (for Samsung). Yet, your experiment is very clever. We will see if Samsung has something to say about it now. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]jpoole50Z Fold3 5G [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) It doesn't matter lol. The moon will always look the same no matter what. Who cares if they use fake shots. It's not like the moon changes every ten days lol. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]CyberBobert[] [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) It didn't work in your last example. The end photo is still super blurry and not clear. As if it just unblurs the photos. I don't know how to explain it well because I'm not educated on the subject enough but as an example it's like the phone can remove 60% blur. On your first example you blurred it 70% so the phone unblured 60% of that. The end result was pretty darn clear. On your final example you applied 120% blur so the end photo is still 60% blurry. It's barely recognizable as the moon. What if you move around some of the smaller craters? Not the big ones that make the phone recognize the moon, but some of the smaller ones that can be seen but easily overlooked. If you take a picture and the post process version puts the craters back where they should be, you know theirs fuckery at hand. If it sharpens the photo but leaves the craters in the wrong spot, you know it's not applying some sort of known texture. It won't know the slightly incorrect texture you created but it won't notice the changes either. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]devvortexGalaxy S8+ [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) Thanks for confirming. I was pretty sure this was the case because I took a picture a few months ago on a cloudy night. The moon wasn't more than a blurry spot in the sky. The resulting photo was crisp. That was the moment I stopped believing, lol. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]DiplomatikEmuneteyPixel 4a, Pixel, 5X, XZ1C, LG G4, Lumia 950/XL, 808, N8 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Well done, OP! Simple, clever test. Those justifying this. If I wanted fake images, I would photoshop them myself. This should be a setting that is more clear than "scene optimizer". * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]EpsteinsBro [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) This is absolutely fascinating and more scientifically/fact based than ANYTHING I've seen on this site. Incredible, friend. I will archive this. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]McFeely_Smackup [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) This kind of "scene optimizer AI" has some real possibilities. Think about it. Take a selfie of you and your wife... Boom! AI optimizes it and now you look like Brad Pitt and Jennifer Lawrence. Your '99 Subaru, turns into a Ferrari Enzo. Your kids "it's 4:20 somewhere" t shirt turns into a violin. Optimize my whole life Samsung,, I'm ready! * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]SwoleFlex_MuscleNeckGalaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) I notice that your photos are blurry as shit and then it processes everything and suddenly they aren't. When I zoom, the detail is there in the viewfinder. I'm not doubting they have something making it look better than it is but I'm wondering why that's the case * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]fermentedbolivian [score hidden] 4 hours ago* (2 children) EDIT: I followed the same method but with adding a huge ass crater to the moon. The device does not overlay the photo with quality moon images, it does however succeed in deblurring and sharpening the image with the help of AI (Scene Optimizer) which is no secret. Proof here. [DEL:Reproduced the same result with a S21 Ultra, I even took the image from a weird angle and now I have a moonshot that looks like an egg shaped moon.:DEL] But, on the other hand. Deblurring with AI is a thing, it's no secret that Samsung's Scene Optimizer is an AI that enhances photos. It's quite possible that your image was just deblurred by the Scene Optimizer.The question here is; does the AI place a picture of the moon over the image you've shot? You're post does not answer that question. One way to test is to add a random crater to the moon, blur and see if it stays or disappears. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]8bitsilver [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Color me shocked, the same company that made fun of Apple for taking out the headphone jack and then doing the same thing the following year, is faking pictures??? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]hisroyalnastiness [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) I guess the next level of AI will be to detect whether you are trying to sus out the bullshit it's doing and hide it haha * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]SLUnatic85S20U(SD) [score hidden] 3 hours ago (1 child) I am not sure I understand the surprise in this. We've always known the best true optical zoom is at 10x. That periscope camera has been smearing and adding "oil painting effects" to hide pixelation and filling in detail digitally since day one. Is that how it works? You don't need a moon photo to see it. Just take a photo of a tree at 50-100x For me, this post and comments have me wondering what people thought was actually going on instead. Like that for all things on earth when you zoom in over like 50x they get unrealistic looking... but the moon, much further away, at night, and at full 100x was somehow reproducing a direct accurate 100x photo down to the hills and craters? In the end though, what the phone can do with hybrid zooming and AI processing in near real-time is still just as incredible as ever. What is the win or scandal here? Though I do appreciate the methodology here! Very thorough. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]yesabhijithDevice, Software !! [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) Here's someone making a moon shot using a shot of Moon on TV: https:/ /twitter.com/TMNGTECH/status/1518571118872829952?t= Eg_x82Q6lkhpC0Pt7dfyYQ&s=08 * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (241 replies) * about * blog * about * advertising * careers * help * site rules * Reddit help center * reddiquette * mod guidelines * contact us * apps & tools * Reddit for iPhone * Reddit for Android * mobile website * <3 * reddit premium * reddit coins Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. (c) 2023 reddit inc. All rights reserved. REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc. Advertise - technology [pixel] p Rendered by PID 41 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-7dd586c5b5-fbwb7 at 2023-03-11 23:01:09.293131+00:00 running 1539bf2 country code: US.