https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11p7rqy/update_to_the_samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are/ 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 (3) 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 12 Mar 2023 1,836 points (90% upvoted) shortlink: [https://redd.it/11p7] [ ][ ] [ ]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 joinleave2,418,708 readers 4,733 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 1835 * 351 comments Update to the Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake 264 * 66 comments [IQE_Xp_D] Flashback: LG G5 tried to wow the crowd with its Magic Slot, but failed 214 * 37 comments Scrcpy 2.0, with audio 1366 * 240 comments [EEG69rS7] Samsung's Algorithm for Moon shots officially explained in Samsung Members Korea 225 * 67 comments [VYqAK_IS] Galaxy S23 Ultra: Hey, This Camera Has A Pretty Great Phone On The Back 4 * 9 comments [3C_ztcR8] This looks great on paper.... - POCO X5 PRO 270 * 111 comments [IJYrRFS8] Pixel Watch units sold revealed, and it's doing well 10 * 7 comments Sunday Rant/Rage (Mar 12 2023) - Your weekly complaint thread! 257 * 131 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. 9173 * 1091 comments Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake, and here is the proof Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. x 1835 1836 1837 ArticleUpdate to the Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake ( self.Android) submitted 16 hours ago * by ibreakphotos[Illuminati][35d17tf5e5] There were some great suggestions in the comments to my original post and I've tried some of them, but the one that, in my opinion, really puts the nail in the coffin, is this one: I photoshopped one moon next to another (to see if one moon would get the AI treatment, while another would not), and managed to coax the AI to do exactly that. This is the image that I used, which contains 2 blurred moons: https: //imgur.com/kMv1XAx I replicated my original setup, shot the monitor from across the room, and got this: https://imgur.com/RSHAz1l As you can see, one moon got the "AI enhancement", while the other one shows what was actually visible to the sensor - a blurry mess I think this settles it. EDIT: I've added this info to my original post, but am fully aware that people won't read the edits to a post they have already read, so I am posting it as a standalone post * 351 comments * share * save * hide * report top 200 commentsshow all 351 sorted by: best topnewcontroversialoldrandomq&alive (beta) [ ] Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account [-]Hot_As_MilkCamera bumps = mildly infuriating. [score hidden] 13 hours ago (9 children) Hmm. Do you think if you tried it on a moon with Photoshopped craters like this one, it would "enhance" it with the correct craters? I'd try myself, but I don't have the Samsung. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]TwoToedSloths [score hidden] 9 hours ago (5 children) Here you go: https://imgur.com/1ZTMhcq Very surprised with this one ngl, in the viewfinder it looked like garbage lol * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnipingNinja [score hidden] 4 hours ago (3 children) Seems it's not just replacing with the images of the moon but rather enhancing what it sees, still won't help you if a new crater appears on the moon as it'll not be based on actual data but a simulation or hallucination of it and depending on how much their algorithm relies on previous training it'll only be useful for showing it on social media where images are already compressed. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]TwoToedSloths [score hidden] 3 hours ago (1 child) Nah it never was and anyone that has used an ultra and pointed it at the moon would know as much, you can see the moon pretty decently in the viewfinder after the settings get automatically adjusted. I mean, you have braindead takes from people comparing samsung's enhancing to shit like this https://twitter.com/sondesix/status/ 1633872085209731072?s=19 * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]PayMe4MyData [score hidden] 41 minutes ago (0 children) Looks like the generated image is conditioned on the input picture. If that's the case then any new crater will be enhanced an appear on the generated one as long as it is "visible enough" for the AI. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]meno123S10+ [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) It does. I took a shot of the moon that was partially covered by cloud and it didn't overlay dark moon craters over the cloud but it did sharpen the image where the moon was shown. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]HairyChest69 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Def enhance * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]KennKennyKenKen [score hidden] 13 hours ago (46 children) Twitter is absolutely shitting the bed with this drama * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]ClassicPartPixel [score hidden] 12 hours ago (10 children) Twitter is absolutely shitting the bed with this drama Must be a day ending in y. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Stupid_TrianglesLG G7 > OP 7 Pro [score hidden] 9 hours ago (7 children) I can't stand Twitter now. Even some of the more legit professional groups. The corporate pandering is stomach-churning. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]cgb-001 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (2 children) now Twitter has been terrible for a long time. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]OldBertieDastard [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) Isn't Twitter a curated feed? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]kiekan [score hidden] 1 hour ago (0 children) Since it's inception. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]MardiFoufs [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) Reddit is much much worse though. I know it's hard to top off twitter, but reddit has somehow managed to beat it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Stupid_TrianglesLG G7 > OP 7 Pro [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Reddit is meant for discussion, where you can really see the depth of the stupidity. Twitter is more outrageous in its shallowness and scale. Like the inverse of each other. Ive had great convos, learned how to fix an issue I had, and got a lot of laughs out of Reddit. Twitter... I've vented my frustration in to the Void. I never really used twitter all that often. But it's a bit worse now with half of it being 50k people trying to get Elon's attention every hour. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Stanley_Cup_Champs [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) It really is. How many times are we going to do this moon thing? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]DanktatorBlack [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) Crazy how Twitter only got worse once the blue verified checks were allowed. Now anybody can seem like a professional lol * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]cojoGalaxy Z Flip 4 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Twitter is absolutely shit Fixed it for you. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]mgumusadaHuawei Nova 5T [score hidden] 11 hours ago (3 children) Twitter is always absolutely shitting the bed * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]CoraxTechnica [score hidden] 9 hours ago (2 children) Should be renamed amberherd.com * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]RaveDigger9000mAh LG G3 [score hidden] 5 hours ago[hehehe_b_4] (0 children) Musk fucked Twitter and Amber so I guess that makes sense. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]SnipingNinja [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) It's mainly the halide app account handler being an absolute iPhone stan (or maybe it's just business for them) * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]fobbybobby323 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (4 children) Its shocking how many people thought these were actual moonshots with details being captured by the camera system though but many people suspected this has been going on for years. So not sure why all the shock about it. The first time I took one with my S20 Ultra I thought wooow but then immediately suspected something like this going on. But I guess it has really reached an annoying level of Samsung fanboys posting with the S23 Ultra release that maybe this has got some attention again. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]el_smurfo [score hidden] 7 hours ago (3 children) Maybe I have a bad memory, but I thought this was pretty well known at least two phone generations ago * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Antici-----pation [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) You don't, it was * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) [-]notenglishwobbly [score hidden] 10 hours ago (6 children) The only meltdown I've seen so far is on reddit and this sub in particular because it seems a lot of folks around here aren't aware that the pics that come out of their phones aren't raw files. They probably think those models on magazines and photoshoot also look like that in real life too. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]PopDownBlocker [score hidden] 10 hours ago (4 children) The worst part about getting into photography is realizing that just because you now own a professional camera doesn't mean that your photos will be great. The amount of editing that photos in magazines and online content get is insane, but we're so used to it, we don't really think about it. We just assume that the camera does all the work and the editing is for minor "touch-ups". But every single "professional" photo, especially landscape photos, are heavily edited and color-graded. It's a whole other skill required beyond the taking-the-photo part. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]bagonmaster [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) On the other hand digital editing is a lot more accessible than dark rooms were for film to achieve a similar effect. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]ku8475 [score hidden] 3 hours ago (2 children) This isn't always true. I'm friends with a photographer for the Washington post and he said he only uses Lightroom to lightly tweak his photos. It was kind of laughable how little he knew about Photoshop. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Ma8e [score hidden] 2 hours ago* (0 children) You can do amazing thing in Lightroom, and what "lightly" means is up to discussion. Personally, I think that is fine. The raw photo directly from the camera will never convey the experience of seeing the thing without some tweaking, and I don't think making a picture better convey what you felt when you took it by some enhancements makes it less "true". * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]tepkel [score hidden] 45 minutes ago (0 children) If he's taking in raw, then he's gonna be significantly editing a number of color, brightness, contrast type setting. Otherwise raw looks like gray, washed out garbage for the most part. If he's not taking in raw, then a preset is doing that editing for him. He just thinks he's not doing it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]fprof [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) This isn't comparable to raw files. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]tim3k [score hidden] 11 hours ago (15 children) I personally see it more as an example of brilliant engineering rather than cheating. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]jotunck [score hidden] 10 hours ago (10 children) At which point might as well store high res images of the moon and overlay it instead of using fancy schmancy algorithms. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]tim3k [score hidden] 9 hours ago (8 children) Well you are ok with smartphones applying post processing to nearly every single photo you take, aren't you? It is not the image from the sensor for years already. The distortion is corrected, white balance changed, photos sharpened, skin tones corrected, backgrounds blurred etc etc. Often pictures look better and more vivid than what you see with your naked eyes. Because most want nice picture in the end. Now this story with the moon is just one more step in the direction. Want it the way smartphone sees it? Just shoot raw. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]jotunck [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) Well, my line is drawn between "using techniques to tease out details that are just hidden among noise" (what astrophotographers do with stacking, light frames, etc) and "AI adding stuff that weren't part of the original data captured by the sensor". It's not just the moon, for example what if the AI upscales a face and added dimples to a person that didn't actually have dimples, and so on? But yeah it's where draw my line, I'm sure many others are perfectly happy as long as the photo comes out nice. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]sumapls [score hidden] 8 hours ago* (4 children) In my opinion, the problem is with the unhonesty: the claim of 100x zoom. When in reality, it's 10x zoom and AI paintings of moon. Honor Magic 5 Pro took it even further and claimed 100x zoom, when in reality it's 3.5x lens. I mean iPhones have also 100x zoom - or hell let's make it 500x. I can take a picture of the moon with iPhone's 1x lens that's ten times more detailed than the Samsung. I just take a picture, crop it in 500x, feed the picture through GAN model trained with pictures of moon and I can get highly detailed 500x zoom image of moon. I mean it's just AI processing right? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hnryirawan [score hidden] 6 hours ago (3 children) 100x zoom on any other normal occassion, is a 10x zoom and 10x digital zoom. Do you seriously assume that 10x Digital Zoom are not "AI paintings" of what might supposed to be there? On any other occassions, the camera does not knows enough about scenes so it does not try, but in case of moonshot, it knows about moon, so it tries to "fix it" so it become a nice shot. I mean, if you're so inclined that "I can do that myself using Photoshop!!", by all means go ahead. Make it so it looks like you're taking a Moonshot using a real 100x Zoom lenses or something like that...... or just use Samsung's AI things and let it do that job for you. Or are you arguing that Samsung should not even include the feature? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]KorayA [score hidden] 3 hours ago (1 child) This is what's so funny to me. What are these people arguing for, what do they want? Less feature rich phones? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Ma8e [score hidden] 1 hour ago (0 children) The idea is that photos are some kind of "true" representation of what was in front of the lens when they were taken. Of course things like white balance should be tweaked, because our eyes doesn't handle different light colours in the same objective way as a digital sensor, so without it the pictures will look wrong. But when the phone use AI to add details from "generic white person" to make the face in the picture look sharper, it is adding things that weren't there in the first place. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]numeric-rectal-mutt [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Well you are ok with smartphones applying post processing to nearly every single photo you take, aren't you? Not just nearly every photo. It's every single digital photo ever taken has had post processing done to it. This isn't an exaggeration. Raw (and I don't mean RAW file format, I mean the unadulterated values from the photovoltaic sensors) digital image sensor values make a nearly incomprehensible picture. Every single digital image sensor in the world is having post processing effects applied to the images it captures. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]IohetV10 is the original notch [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) What exactly do you think the algorithms are that enhance Pixel photos are based on? This is modern digital image processing at its core * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [-]Tsuki4735Galaxy Fold 3 [score hidden] 14 hours ago* (64 children) If you want to see the moon without the AI upscaler, just turn off Scene Optimizer. There's no need to go through the trouble of photoshop, etc. Without Scene Optimizer turned on, the S21 Ultra can't identify the object as the Moon and run its AI algorithms to tweak camera settings for a proper exposure. You can think of the AI as a custom moon preset mode that adjusts the camera's exposure compensation, shutter speed, ISO -- all of these settings, only instead of through hardware it's done with machine learning -- for you to get a clean Moon photo. source Scene Optimizer is basically a smart AI upscaler that, when it detects known objects, can upscale and fill in known details in the image accordingly. That's why, regardless of which angle you take the photo of the Moon from (northern vs southern hemisphere, etc), the resulting image will look as-expected for that location. For example, if you look at the photos in the article, it shows the photos of the moon taken via a DSLR vs a photo taken with Samsung's Zoom. If you look at the resulting images when placed on top of each other, the DSLR vs Samsung Zoom pictures look pretty much identical. Now, is this a "fake" image produced by a smart AI upscaler that is aware of the moon's appearance? Some would argue yes, others would argue no. It's an accurate picture of the moon for the given location, but it's not what the camera itself would capture by itself. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Deodex [score hidden] 7 hours ago (3 children) If you want to see the moon without the [Samsung] AI upscaler, just turn off Scene Optimizer. Or try it with a completely different camera app (processing pipeline) that has access to the 10x module, such as GCAM. For what it's worth, here's a semi-handheld, straight out of camera, GCAM pic I took years ago on S21U. This was done with the initial Anova S21U release on some cobbled together settings. I'm sure it's possible to get significantly better GCAM SOOC results with a proper noise model along with tuning the available luma noise and sharpening parameters. Hopefully the above pic illustrates that it's possible for these 230mm-240mm equivalent optical systems to capture some of the disputed details (e.g. craters) in this thread without Samsung's moon algorithm. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]GiovanniRodriguez [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Thanks for this, as a long time Samsung Gcam user, you can get a moon shot without their AI processing. The lens is long enough to capture detail. Tempted to do a write up of this with Gcam samples too lol * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hnryirawan [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) I thought the argument is that "Samsung lies that it let me see moon without any AI upscaler trick!!".... and the solution is to use another AI upscaler just with different pipeline? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]TheNerdNamedChuck [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) gcam doesn't have anything tailored for the moon though. I've shot pics in raw of the moon on my s21u like I would with my dslr and the results aren't super far off * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]FaudelCastro [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) Yeah but no amount of ISO adjustment is going to create those pictures. It's basically drawing a new picture. So your quote is bit true * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]iNfzx [score hidden] 12 hours ago[9avdcwgupt] (37 children) basically, it's not the picture taken by phone's camera. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Doctor_McKaySamsung Galaxy Z Fold4 5G [score hidden] 12 hours ago (16 children) We left that realm a long time ago. Computational photography is all about "enhancing" the image to give you what they think you want to see, not necessarily what the sensor actually saw. Phones have been photoshopping pictures in real time for years. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Natanael_LXperia 1 III (main), Samsung S9, TabPro 8.4 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) Standard non-AI computational photography shows something directly derived from what is in front of the sensor. It may not match any single frame / exposure, but it doesn't introduce something that wasn't there. What it does is essentially to simulate a different specific camera setup (a multi lens setup could extract a depth map to simulate a camera located at a different angle, etc). It's when you throw in AI models with training on other data sets which performs upscaling / deblurring that you get actual introduction of detail not present in the capture. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]bigflamingtaco [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) Color correction, sharpness enhancement take the existing data and manipulate it. This is not equivalent to replacing it with data collected by a different, higher resolution camera. Everyone is focusing on the work performed by digital cameras as if this something inherent only in digital photography, and that the end game of DSLR photography isn't to continually improve the sensors to reduce the need for enhancements. We've been enhancing photos from day one. The resolution of the film, its color bias, the color bias of the print paper, the chemicals used to develop, all effected the final outcome, as well as the person developing the film. ALL photography is false information, always has been. The same is true of our eyes. What we see is an interpretation of the photons that traveled from where we are looking into our eyes. Hell, we don't even see all the photos due to the level of energy they have. The goal in photography is to accurately reproduce as close as possible this interpretation. While an argument can be made that supplanting data from a different image is an acceptable means to accurately reproduce what we are seeing as it's just an interpretation, a purist will point out that the replacement data is not at all like what we are currently seeing. Due to its path around the earth, the angle of source light hitting the moon changes. The amount of moisture in the air changes the amount of each wavelength of light that makes it to the camera lens. Many things happen that make each photo unique, until now. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]CatsAreGodsSamsung S9+ [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) ALL photography is false information, always has been. The same is true of our eyes. What we see is an interpretation of the photons that traveled from where we are looking into our eyes. Hell, we don't even see all the photos due to the level of energy they have. Even more interesting, what we actually "see" is upside down and our brain has to invert it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]morphinapgOnePlus 5 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) There are some apps that allow you to turn at least some of that stuff off. I use ProShot which allows me to turn off noise reduction entirely and also has manual controls for everything. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]kyrsjo [score hidden] 11 hours ago (10 children) Yeah, but downloading a different picture from the web and painting into your picture is leap beyond smart filtering algorithms making your skin look healthier. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]elconquistador1985[] [score hidden] 8 hours ago (9 children) It's not downloading a different picture. It has a been trained with a data set of thousands of mom pictures and it decides "this is the moon, apply the moon texture to it". * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]steepleton [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) It has a been trained with a data set of thousands of mom pictures The idea that it just pastes in someone else's mom instead of yours is just depressing * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]elconquistador1985[] [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) That auto incorrect substitution was too funny not to keep. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]kyrsjo [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Poteito potaito... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (6 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]kookoopuffs [score hidden] 10 hours ago (7 children) Even your default camera with default settings is not the original image itself. That is also adjusted. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]revercry [score hidden] 9 hours ago (4 children) It's important to consider the level of adjustment. One is tuning the brightness and contrast, the other is dreaming up how your photo should have looked like based on someone else's pictures. What if you wanted to take a photo of some strange anomaly on the moon that you just witnessed and the AI would edit it away because "no no no, this should not be here..." * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]The_Reset_Button [score hidden] 8 hours ago (3 children) okay, but if you want a real clear 'unedited' picture of the moon you shouldn't be using a smartphone. 99% of people taking photos with a smartphone just want the best looking image after pressing the shutter button. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]revercry [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) Again, consider the level. I wouldn't call it "edited" if it's just something like color correction. What people want is better sensors, better accurate representation of what they saw. Not added or removed objects. Ask them. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]The_Reset_Button [score hidden] 7 hours ago (1 child) I don't think most people really care about a 1:1 replication of what they saw. Night mode produces images that are often noticeably brighter in some areas than the human eye can see (HDR in general, too), there are modes that detect blinking and use frames where everyone's eyes are open, that explicitly modifies reality beyond just values, but people like it because it makes taking photos easier. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]iclimbnaked [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) Sure. All those things are still different than creating something that wasn't there based on ai. There is a difference. However yes, the avg person doesn't care about that difference. It's silly how much ppl argue about it. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]WinterCharmiPhone 13 Pro | iOS 16.3.1 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) There's adjustment and there's replacing the entire image with a static higher res shot of the same object. One is using data derived from the sensor (and therefore is able to enhance any object true to life, no matter the shape and angle) and the other is a gimmick that replaces the image entirely based on detecting a blurred glowing circle. These two are not the same... and it's not even good enough to replicate the angle / position you take the moon photo from. I wouldn't defend this type of bullshit from a company. Those who are defending it should take a hard look at themselves. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]GiveMeOneGoodReasonGalaxy S21 Ultra [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) But it's not replacing the image of the moon with a static image. People have given examples with edited craters and it's preserved in the upscale. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]MidKnight007 [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) not the picture taken What is hdr, dynamic res, photo blur, red eyes correction, magic eraser, and all that intelligent ai shit. Don't see an issue with this * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (11 replies) [-]vpsjOnePlus 5T | Lenovo P1 | Xperia SP | S duos | Samsung Wave [score hidden] 9 hours ago (1 child) I have a problem with this entire article. The user seems to be a complete novice while taking the picture of the moon using a DSLR. His photo is HORRIBLY focused. He even writes that but makes no attempt to correct his focus. As an Astrophotographer, getting the lens to focus at infinity exactly is actually a hard thing to do.. That is why we use accessories like a bahtinov mask. Plus, his conclusions aren't correct either. The picture you linked can be CLEARLY seen that so many of the craters don't actually line up. Even in the overlay you can see the same crater twice. For example, these two are the same craters. I'm not disputing the author on the realism of the S2X Ultra's moon shots. They may or may not be real.. The only thing I'm saying is the author seems to have already made up his mind and is just writing it even if you can see his own evidence being contradictory in nature. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SarahC [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) His photo is HORRIBLY focused. You've not read the previous articles. -grins- * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]junktrunk909 [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) The thing you quoted is saying the smart feature is making adjustments to the camera hardware itself and then producing the image from the resulting data. That is a far cry from saying what they are actually doing, allegedly, which is recognizing it as the moon and then adding in externally known data for the moon, basically just photoshopping in detail that the camera didn't capture. That's about as fake as fake gets. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]bubliksmaz [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) You're missing the point. Astrophotographers CAN get extremely sharp images of the moon with smartphones by taking many, many frames and superimposing them in certain ways to get over the limitations of atmospheric noise. If the photo is actually taken of the moon in real life, there is plausible deniability that the camera app is actually doing something like this to recover real detail that is physically present. Samsung makes no mention of this AI bullshit in it's marketing materials - they claim Scene Optimizer achieves its results by adjusting conventional camera settings. This is an outright lie. I don't know why you're trying to defend Samsung based on what SO 'is' when what it 'is' was only exposed by the very post under discussion a couple days ago. Taking a photo of an intentionally blurred image on a monitor proves beyond doubt that the information in the photo did not come from the phone camera. It's one step away from automatically googling 'photo of the moon' and chucking the first result into the camera roll. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]johnwayne2413 [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) This is why people prefer smartphone cameras over point and shoot cameras, for their computational photography. Otherwise, beauty filters wouldn't be so freaking popular! Not sure why people getting triggered over a beauty filter for the moon? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+][deleted] 10 hours ago (11 children) [deleted] load more comments (11 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [-]HG1998Z Flip 4 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (4 children) I'm gonna be real, I never used that aside from the first night when I got the S21 Ultra. 10x zoom on its own is pretty good but I do appreciate people not gobbling down what they say (at least outright.) I personally don't really care enough to actually spend time editing my photos so if the software magic makes the photos look well enough, that's totally fine. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]vectorrevv [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) yeah, but they don't sell what they say, they sell a good cam with PR stunts like these, which ain't all that good if you ask me, cuz its more like lying, but who cares. Average consumer won't even care if it AI or real * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [-]Light_Theme_User [score hidden] 13 hours ago (3 children) It's the fact that the moon is tidally locked to earth which enables the benefit of such faking enhancement, so what if we showed a different face of moon? Could we show the camera a different face of moon and still get the default moon image? We could have also tried to create an unnatural moon with different textures and blur them. After the same experimental setup, if the photos took by a samsung phone turns out be the the real moon the fact could be proved * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]PopDownBlocker [score hidden] 10 hours ago (2 children) Could we show the camera a different face of moon and still get the default moon image? My mind was blown the day I learned that people in the Southern Hemisphere see the moon upside down. Like...it's the same moon, but from a different angle. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]recluseMeteorGalaxy Note20 Ultra (Exynos) [c2s] [score hidden] 3 hours ago (1 child) I am from the Southern Hemisphere. I went to England as an exchange student, and I was suprised to see other people there not knowing that the seasons of the year are different in Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere. Like, their mind was blown when I told them we had Christmas during summer. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]f41c10 [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) wow, i knew the seasons were different but i never thought that Christmas is in summer there. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]stacecomiPad mini (6th), IPhone 12 mini, Galaxy Tab S5e [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) Link to what this is an update for: https://reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/ samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]SilvedogePixel 6 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (40 children) When Huawei did this it was bad, but now it's just ok cause it's computational photography or whatever. Computational photography doesn't mean adding things the camera never saw. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]whatnowwproductionsPixel 6 - OnePlus 5 - Signal [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) Huawei was rumored to literally replace your image with an image of a moon lol. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]recumbent_mike [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) That'd really improve my selfies, TBH. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]LaM3aGalaxy S21 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) You're looking really Ryan Gosling-y today mate. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]PmMeForPCBuilds [score hidden] 12 hours ago (1 child) Computational photography doesn't mean adding things the camera never saw. In many cases that's exactly what it means. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]NotTooDistantFuture [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Like text can actually read differently than reality. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AndiCuiiPhone 13 mini [score hidden] 13 hours ago (9 children) This. I understand the argument that phone photos are for esthetic and for social media, and this is ostensibly what some photographers will do in photoshop, just automated. But I just don't see why Huawei is cheating and Samsung isn't. Either it's both, or it's neither. Both are painting a single unchanging texture. Just because Samsung trained an AI with exactly that texture to have it spit back out on command, it isn't better than Huawei shipping the texture with the camera app. The latter even makes more sense from an implementation standpoint: why bother with AI models when it's easily achieved without one. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]ThomasedvOnePlus 7 Pro [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) I just want to point out the distinction of Samsungs algorithm. I don't know how Huawei did it, but it seemed to do something similar. The thing about cameras is that they already do a shit ton of processing for noise and blur, google uses outside knowledge to enhance edges and other details in some context, it's part of how you can get the most out of phone cameras. In this case the source is blurry but in a sense if the moon was a clear image but got blurry on the way to the sensor due to conditions, which is what the massive zoom does, it's not completely stupid to enhance out details you know are there. This is just fancy targeted upscaling to "moon" texture. Adding details where none are. I'm not trying to argue that it's not wrong to do, but if there was a pure algorithm to deblur based on a known texture of the moon, then it certainly would be a feature on phones. They key here is that this one seems to actually take the input and use it as base. So when you draw a smiley face, that too get's the upscale treatment with the same roughness as the moon (probably partly because of noise too), so it isn't just replacing your image with one that seems to be the same side of the moon: https://www.reddit.com/r/samsung/comments/l7ay2m/ analysis_samsung_moon_shots_are_fake/ Sort of off-point, but even taken snowy or fog pictures? Had the camera denoiser remove so much of the snow/fog? It's a bit the same, the camera cleans up and removes detail here though. Adding "fake" detail is a completely different thing of course. I'm a lot against uplifting photos without knowledge or consent, but the worst offense is usually face uplifting/filtering and such, and that one is usually done intentionally by the one taking the photo. I am interested in upscaling though, and even adding details for some uses, because why not have more details if it makes something that is normally low quality look good? I'm thinking old movies and such which have very low resolution though. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AndiCuiiPhone 13 mini [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) I think it's totally okay to train AIs to enhance photos with a diverse set of images in different setting. Fog, as you mentioned, is an excellent example. I don't want to say what Samsung did is per se wrong, but it's no better than just using the texture like Huawei did, because the AI model is only trained against images with that said texture. I get the appeal of having insta social media share-able shots of the moon, what gets murky is however that it's used in marketing that can be understood to imply good zoom and low-light capabilities that are not generalizable. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]sidneylopsidesXperia 1 [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Fog is quite a different situation. That's more to do with how you adjust contrast to bring out details that are there, just obscured by low contrast. This is a known object with specific details, and this test proves it doesn't just take information from the sensor and process it, it takes existing imagery and replaces when it spots a match. It's the same as what Huawei did, they used AI processing too. This isn't using AI to make an innate from sensor data, it's just matching it up to existing imagery and slapping that on top. A good example is when AI zoom recognises text, but there isn't enough detail to work out what it says. It then fills in something that looks like text, but is nonsense. If it was truly AI figuring this out, the half moon photo would have some attempt at adding details, and if you did the same with other planets/moons it would create something that looked more detailed, but wouldn't be exactly correct. It wouldn't be a perfect recreation every time, the same way zoomed text is illegible. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (6 replies) [-]Berkoudieu [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Well you know, Huawei is evil spying, and got banned for that. Absolutely not because they were crushing every other brands, especially Apple, with insane value. Noooo. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnowchuggerGalaxy Fold 4 + Galaxy Watch 5 Pro [score hidden] 13 hours ago (16 children) People shit on Huawei because they don't like China. Simple as that really. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]itaXander [score hidden] 12 hours ago* (12 children) I feel more comfortable with South Korea (or the U.S., or Finland, or Japan) having my data than China. But that's just me -\_(tsu)_/- * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]empire314Elephone S8 [score hidden] 7 hours ago (0 children) Unless you live in China, that is a stupid take. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (11 replies) [-]JamesR624 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (1 child) Yep. This entire debacle and the Samsung apologism has really showed that this sub is just as r/hailcorporate as r/apple and just as racist as r/politics. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnowchuggerGalaxy Fold 4 + Galaxy Watch 5 Pro [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) /r/subredditsashashtags * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]blusky75 [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) People shit on Huawei because they stole trade secrets from cisco and Nortel. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]JamesR624 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Well you see. This sub won't admit it but most of this sub is just r/ samsungisperfect * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+]CataclysmZA comment score below threshold[score hidden] 13 hours ago (5 children) OP literally ends up with an image of a different colour. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Jimmeh_Jazz [score hidden] 12 hours ago (3 children) Don't think the colour is the issue, that's more just the camera picking up the monitor hue * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]CataclysmZA [score hidden] 12 hours ago (1 child) I deleted my earlier comment, I went back to check his earlier thread and the captured image has the same hue. I still don't know how his monitor produces a relatively white image as closer to reddish-brown. Unless he's using some sort of night light feature, it makes no sense to me. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnipingNinja [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Night light might be it. They probably wouldn't realise it before posting * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Pzychotix [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) That's more of an issue of lighting and monitor settings. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]mozardthebest [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Defending your thesis, respectable. Yeah it does seem pretty clear that the Samsung phone adds details that the camera can't see in order to create a more appealing image of the moon. This often happens with photos taken on phones in order to make them more presentable in general, but saying that Samsung can take detailed pictures of the moon is quite misleading. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]AFellowOtaku7 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (8 children) So I'm in need of clarification: Based on reading a previous document shared on Samsung's Community Korean Website and the information presented on Reddit, I've come to the conclusion (from my understanding) that the moon photos are "fake" because they're heavily processed by an AI engine which tweaks the image and fills in major gaps to achieve the moon image? Is that what the conclusion is? To be honest, I expected the moon photos to mostly be AI based, as pure optics and photography, especially on a phone, are super limiting. I just need clarification on whether these photos are made from super heavy/dependent on high AI processing or if Samsung is faking the whole thing (like no AI magic, just pulling up a similar looking image and saying "Yup! That's the photo you caught!) Thanks for clarification! * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]YourNightmar31 [score hidden] 12 hours ago* (7 children) EVERY photo you take is processed like this. EVERY photo out of your phone ie EXTREMELY processed, tiny tiny sensors cannot take good pictures like this. It's called computational photography. The moon is i guess just a subject where you can see this the most. I don't understand what OP's point is here. Edit: Huawei got shit on because they literally used a professionally taken picture of the moon to overlay on your own picture. There is NO proof that Samsung is doing this, and OP's experiments actually even disprove it. Samsung is doing nothing wrong. What is happening is totally normal. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]EdogmadNexus 5 | KitKat 4.4 | Stock [score hidden] 8 hours ago (2 children) Not every picture I take is run against a neural network that enhances one specific object * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]YourNightmar31 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) If you have scene optimizer on, then yes, yes that's exactly what's happening with every picture. Arguably also without scene optimizer on, who knows what they still do for processing. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]EdogmadNexus 5 | KitKat 4.4 | Stock [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) If you have scene optimizer on This is the technology we're currently discussing Not at all the same thing as every smartphone photo * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AFellowOtaku7 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (3 children) Yeah, that's what I figured. That's what I needed clearing up on. Huawei was just straight up faking the photos, but Samsung just seems to really heavily process the photos to get the result you get. The photos are by no means original, but they're not fake, just incredibly overprocessed. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Point-Connect [score hidden] 7 hours ago (2 children) My beef would be that when someone removed actual data from a photo of the moon, then took a picture of it, the phone filled that missing data back in. I know phones do that for most things to an extent, but where is the crossover between "enhancing" an image and just adding information that simply isn't there, and further, where is the line between your enhanced/ai enhanced image and a rendering of the obiect. In other words, the photo you take of the moon is not what you nor the camera saw. It's an artificial rendering of what the moon looks like. So rather than the phone recognizing highlights in the image like "oh, thats the moon, that highlight there should be the edge of a crater, I'm bumping up the contrast for it", it appears the phone is like "this whole image is supposed to be a moon, I know craters go here, here and here, I'm adding those craters to the photo even though I don't see them or see an indication that they in fact exist at that location based on the data in the image " I honestly couldn't say if their approach is "right or wrong", as long as it's sufficiently explained to a layman that the image is basically a recreation of what the lens thinks is there...but even then, I'm still conflicted because does the average person care how the image came to be? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]thaway314156 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) It's like asking someone to take a pic of the moon, and they get a hi-res picture of the moon from NASA and rotate it, etc, to make it look identical to the moon in the sky. What's next? Stand in front of a foggy Eiffel Tower, or Mount Fuji, and Samsung will just "photoshop" you in front of hi-res pics of those landmarks? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnipingNinja [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Looks like it's not doing that thankfully, and just enhancing what it sees, it's still not just using optical data it captured to enhance those details and using data from other moon pics, so it's not ideal. I still think it's better than what was first assumed. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (62 children) In the era of stable diffusions and midjourneys we are debating on the authenticity of some zoomed in AI enhanced moon images from a smartphone. Smartphone photography, which is known as "Computational Photography". We don't have the same discussion when AI artificially blurs the background to make the photos look like they are shot using a DSLR or when the brightness of the dark images is enhanced using AI. Photography, especially mobile photography, is not raw anymore. We shoot the photo to post it online as soon as possible and AI makes it possible. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]UniuM [score hidden] 14 hours ago (16 children) Yesterday i bought my first proper camera, a 10 yo Sony A7, with a 24mm lens. Even though I can take better pictures than my s21 ultra, the effort and ways to mess the outcome it's multiple times greater than just point and shoot with my smartphone. It's a weird feeling knowing that if I want to be quick about it, I can just point, shoot and be done with it in the phone. But if I want to get detail, I have to take a bunch of photos, and even after that I'm not 100% sure the job was well done. On the other hand, an actual camera is a great way to learn about the subject. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnowchuggerGalaxy Fold 4 + Galaxy Watch 5 Pro [score hidden] 13 hours ago (4 children) It's one of those 'floor vs ceiling' things. A modern smartphone has a much lower floor, you can pick it up and click the shutter and get a decent to good shot of literally any subject. It's also got a much lower skill floor, anyone can use it and you never have to think about settings. If you've never HEARD the phrase "exposure triangle" or never edited a photo beyond cropping it for instagram then you will still get a usable shot. The only way to get a phone photo "wrong" is to point the camera in the wrong direction. Modern phones even get you a usable focal length range that's equivalent to having a 16-300mm zoom lens, which on the face of it is absurd. HOWEVER, phones also have a much lower ceiling of what they're capable of and a much lower skill ceiling in terms of how much your knowledge and experience will affect the outcome, and that's where getting a real camera comes in. Good luck shooting a wedding on an iPhone or a low light music performance on a Pixel and getting results that anyone will be happy with (especially if you're going to print them!) Good luck trying to make a phone cooperate with a 3rd party flash ecosystem, or a wireless transmitter so that clients can see what you're shooting and give direction if needed, there's a lot of limitations that you'll run into if your only camera is attached to the back of your twittermachine. What I will definitely say is that phones are an excellent "gateway drug" into proper photography for people that were always going to care about it but never had the impetus to go and buy a camera. Case in point: I never cared about photography until I bought the first generation Pixel, but the limitations of that phone led me to buying a real camera, and now photography is my 2nd source of income that's likely to become my primary one within the next few years. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]UniuM [score hidden] 12 hours ago (3 children) Your point is spot on. It's going to be hard to me personally not getting those instant results I'm so used to. But a couple more lens and some willing to learn and be patient, will give me much better results that I was getting with my smartphone. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]SnowchuggerGalaxy Fold 4 + Galaxy Watch 5 Pro [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) Something else I didn't mention is that the real camera almost requires editing to achieve the desired results1, but the phone camera pretty much can not be edited to that same level. [1Fujifilm film simulations being the exception to the rule] * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]UniuM [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Yes. I'm in luck I use my sister's Adobe creative suite account with lightroom. And it's a must have in my opinion if you do DSLR photography. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]HaroldSax [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) You'll get one shot that will make you want to mainline that experience. I spent some money on a camera and a couple of lenses but I wasn't entirely sold on it until I went to an airshow. I got a picture of a Mustang that, quite frankly, isn't all that great but compared to anything I thought I could do it, it was mesmerizing and I have been chasing that high since. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Cobra800089 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) That's always been true of higher end consumer cameras/DSLRs. Even back in the old days it was much easier to get a decent shot with a disposable camera than an enthusiast camera if you didn't have experience with enthusiast cameras. It's always been about convenience vs enthusiasts trying to get the best shots they can. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (3 children) Yes this is exactly what I mean. Most people do not care about learning about photography. I have no interest and never look at camera specifications while buying a phone because the rare photos that I would take will come out good enough on any phone. If I wanted to learn about photography I would buy a dedicated camera for it. AI is like make-up. It either enhances the beauty of the subject or completely misguides the viewers by completely changing how the subject looks. It depends on what one wants. Some people will prefer better images without any hassle and some use AI for stuff like weird filters. Neither is bad it's just what one wants. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]aquila_Jenaer [score hidden] 13 hours ago (2 children) This is it. Since ready-to-post images from smartphones became integral to social media, computational photography took over things. Heck, one can argue that many millions of people cannot properly compose and shoot a standard photo in the absence of a smartphone camera. A very popular guy on YouTube compared a pro grade DSLR camera photo to iPhone 14 Pro (Max maybe) and the iPhone's computation enhancement made everything flat, sharpened and punchy. The DSLR image was rich, natural and had depth and a 3-dimensional look to it. The majority of comments said they preferred the iPhone's take. What does that tell? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]qtxLG G6, G3, Galaxy Nexus & Nexus 7 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (1 child) People need to understand that DSLR cameras aren't a thing anymore and haven't been for quite a long time. It's all mirrorless systems now. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]aquila_Jenaer [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) You're right and I also believe that to be true. Honestly I couldn't remember if Peter McKinnon used a DSLR in that video or a mirrorless one, but it was a very professional grade camera set-up. Probably shouda written pro-grade camera :) * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]L3EDNexus 7 (2013) [RIP], iPhone XS [score hidden] 6 hours ago (3 children) Enjoy the A7! Bought mine used 8 or so years ago and it's still going strong. Fantastic piece of kit. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) [-]qtxLG G6, G3, Galaxy Nexus & Nexus 7 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (1 child) Since you only bought the camera yesterday I don't think you can talk about the process just yet. You're still learning how to use the camera. You can easily take a quick picture on a real camera just as fast as on a phone, with equal (and generally way better) results. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]AndiCuiiPhone 13 mini [score hidden] 13 hours ago (5 children) No one is arguing that phone photos should be raw and no one argued against computational photography on phones. The whole point is what the AI is doing. It's one thing to have AIs to detect faces (and blur the background) or to denoise. It's another thing philosophically to have an AI model * that's trained on one single texture for the exclusive purpose of painting that single texture into the moon photos. The thing is, anyone can train a neural network against one single thing and have it reproduce that thing good enough. However in this case, I just fail to see the difference to shipping that texture and doing it with computer vision like Huawei did and got flak for. We are not talking about a denoise AI that's trained on a diverse set of photos, but just the moon, which invariably have one texture because it's tidal locked to the earth and only show one of its side. * Maschine translated from a diagram of linked page from the top Reddit post: https://r1.community.samsung.com/t5/camcyclopedia/ %EB%8B%AC-%EC%B4%AC%EC%98%81/ba-p/19202094 * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]OgawaaGalaxy S10e -> iPhone 11 Pro -> iPhone 12 mini [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) However in this case, I just fail to see the difference to shipping that texture and doing it with computer vision like Huawei did and got flak for. The difference is that with AI it's easier to keep stuff like clouds, branches and other obstructions while also properly generating the moon behind that, and it could also be trained well enough to handle daytime pictures of varying times of day, which would be likely harder to do with a simple texture swap. It's still a fake picture of the moon, but it looks better and gives the illusion of it being real. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (3 children) Yes this is a better take on the issue. I agree this may be a case of false advertisement rather than AI vs non-AI that I thought of. However they published this article that you linked in the post which exactly explains how they are filling in details using AI model trained on moon images to do exactly one thing. So I think they are not hiding anything from the end user. This looks more like manipulation than false claims. But I agree that Samsung should clear things up here. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]AndiCuiiPhone 13 mini [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) I think this is the crux. Having promo images like this implying zoom and low-light quality really doesn't sound honest when this kind of "enhancing" is going on. But also to be fair, I doubt that the marketing department has any idea of how their camera technically works. If all that AI does is spit out an unchanging texture, AI vs non-AI is just an implementation detail. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]qtxLG G6, G3, Galaxy Nexus & Nexus 7 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) Having promo images like this implying zoom and low-light quality really doesn't sound honest when this kind of "enhancing" is going on. I mean the promo video shows the moon spinning.. if people see that and still think 'yea that looks legit' then I dunno what to tell you. Some dumb people out there. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) Wow. I don't remember seeing these promotions. These are extremely misleading. Yes it is true that in these companies R&D and marketing are completely different teams so I also think that the marketing team just made what they were told about. It's the management which needed to verify but I wholeheartedly believe that they do such misleading advertisements on purpose like every other company. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]BananaUniverse [score hidden] 13 hours ago* (4 children) Photos with backgrounds are almost definitely taken for the aesthetic qualities, touching up is perfectly fine. Astrophotography happens to hit upon an intersection of science and photography, people who are particular about their photos of the moon are likely to be scientific minded and value the truthiness of their photos, and adding arbitrary details to images is a huge no-no. There's always going to be these two types of photographers and their requirements from their cameras will inevitably come into conflict. In reality, most people probably switch between the two depending on what they're trying to do with their cameras that day. IMO as long as it can be turned off it's fine for me. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]hgoel0974 [score hidden] 3 hours ago (1 child) If they're scientific minded, they probably aren't making the dumb assumption that a smartphone camera can take a sharp image of the Moon. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 13 hours ago (1 child) I don't own any premium phones especially ones made by samsung so i don't know if it is possible to turn this off but there should be. If there is no turn off feature then samsung should add one. But I think if someone is interested in Astrophotography they should not buy a phone for scientific studies. One should buy a CCD Telescope which might be cheaper and will produce non-enhanced images. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]McSnooSamsung S20+ (SM-G985F/DS) [score hidden] 13 hours ago (0 children) All a.i. processing is under "Scene Optimizer" settings, disabling it will disable all the a.i. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]-SirGarmaples-Galaxy S21 (Exynos) [score hidden] 13 hours ago (15 children) The problem here isn't just that the moon pictures are fakes and AI bad, nah, it's the false advertising Samsung has had showing that their phone can take such high quality pictures of the moon while it was all being filled in with their AI, which they did not mention. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Yes this is not acceptable. They should include the disclaimer in advertisements about AI enhancements. This is a case of misleading marketing. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]McSnooSamsung S20+ (SM-G985F/DS) [score hidden] 13 hours ago (13 children) But then the same method is used for 100x zoom and it make the image much more clearer. Is that adding up information or it just enhance what the neural network see in the blur image? What about pixel a.i. zoom? Is that misleading as well? What about potrait image processing, literally all smartphone used a.i. bokeh, is that misleading as well since nobody is mentioning using a.i. for bokeh potrait? iPhone cinematic mode literally a.i. galore. What is the limit for a.i. usage? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]MyButtholeIsTight [score hidden] 12 hours ago (4 children) That's not even close to the same thing. Digital zoom is just cropping + interpolation, which is using real data to estimate pixel values. Every single time you digitally resize an image it's using interpolation, like when you pinch-to-zoom on your phone. We've been interpolating for decades. Samsung is not using data to estimate values, they're pulling values out of thin air. It's exactly like if you took a picture of a Coke bottle, and Samsung decided it looked shitty, so they copied a picture of a hi-res Coke bottle off the internet and pasted it on top of the Coke bottle in your picture. This would be zero problem if Samsung advertised this as a stylistic choice, like how bokeh or blurred backgrounds can be simulated - no one thinks that their phone camera is so good that it does these things naturally, they understand this is artificially making their photos look better. But Samsung is using this moon thing as an example of how good their camera is, not how good their software is, which is the problem. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Kefrus [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Lmao, do you seriously think that 100x zoom in Samsung smartphones is achieved with classical CV algorithms, rather than AI superresolution? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (8 replies) [-]One_Lingonberry_7712 [score hidden] 14 hours ago* (13 children) making data up and lying that its measured data /= makin data up as a showoff i get it, you like your samsung phone (because you dont know better) but there is no reason for you to white knight for a billion dollar company LOL * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]pufanu101 [score hidden] 12 hours ago (4 children) because you dont know better lmao, the neckbeard energy is off the charts * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+]thefran comment score below threshold[score hidden] 12 hours ago (3 children) yeah, it's from you, tone it down * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) [-]desijatt13 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (7 children) Never owned any Samsung phone and have no interest in photography. I am not a samsung fan. I just feel like this discussion will not go anywhere. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Andraltoid [score hidden] 7 hours ago (6 children) have no interest in photography Then what are you actually adding to this discussion? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (6 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [-]daedric [score hidden] 9 hours ago (7 children) Didn't Huawei pull this one before? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]boringalex [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) Yes, they sure did. Huawei was replacing the moon algorithmically with a better resolution one, while Samsung uses AI to do the same thing. It's just a different implementation to achive the same result. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]chiraggovind [score hidden] 7 hours ago (5 children) That's different because they straight up replaced the moon with a professionally captured photo of a moon. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]daedric [score hidden] 6 hours ago (4 children) Is it that different though? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]JoshxDarnxItPixel 2 XL [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) It's different because the output here will still vary depending on the input you give it. You'll notice that OP's clearest photo results in the best looking image after processing, while his blurriest photo results in a photo with less detail. They don't look the same. The AI is filling in detail where it can, but it's still working off of your photo. Conversely, Huawei just straight up put a different photo over top of the moon. It's not your photo, and it'll look the same every time. So while Samsung is adding a lot of detail that isn't there, their photo is a closer representation of what actually is there than Huawei's. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]chiraggovind [score hidden] 6 hours ago (2 children) Yes. One is used to help enhance through AI the already available detail and the other is a lazy copy paste Photoshop work. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]daedric [score hidden] 6 hours ago (1 child) But... AI will use previous taken photos of the moon as a source of informatio. IMO, both do exactly the same, although the method itself might be different. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Anon_8675309 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Jokes on you Mr Babbage. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]crawl_dht [score hidden] 11 hours ago* (3 children) Can you add some clouds to your image? Some people here are saying it is just filling in information by recognizing the known patterns. If it is actually only filling in the information and not replacing the pixels, the clouds will stay there with better clarity as the light coming from cloud will be also enhanced. If it is replacing the pixels, that means it is just giving you its own images (out of 28 possible shapes) which at that point it is no longer your taken picture but a replaced AI generated image which can be easily created without even using camera. Also, it is not preserving the source light intensity, brightness and colour saturation so it's giving you the output from one of its learned images. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]VoriVoxS22 Ultra SD, Watch5 Pro [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) This one had a cloud just passing by on the bottom side This one was taken with daylight This one was taken on an iPhone 13, manually edited by me I have an album full of moon pictures I've taken in different phases with a S20+, S22, S22 Ultra and iPhone 13 Pro Max * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]inventordS21 Ultra, Android 13 [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) It does preserve details like clouds, and the only reason it doesn't preserve light intensity is because the moon is bright and exposure needs to be lowered. All phones do this to their images, Samsung just dials it up with highly zoomed in shots, especially the moon. I wouldn't call it fake unless you consider most computational photography fake. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]Fidodo [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) AI upscaling normally works by being trained on a huge corpus of images to be able to extrapolate details that aren't in the original image by guessing what should be in an image that has that general shape. If they're special casing the moon and adding a pre built overlay then that's faking ai upscaling, but if it's adding details that aren't in the original image then that's just how ai upscaling works. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]KillerMiya [score hidden] 12 hours ago (2 children) It's been three years since samsung phones with the 100x zoom feature were introduced, and there are tons of articles explaining how it works. And yet, so many people don't even bother to read up about it. It's really sad to see people spending their money without doing any actual research. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]xd366 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) I'm pretty sure Samsung even said the moon was AI rendered in those type of shots like 5 years ago or whenever the zoom was added * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) [-]xomikronDevice, Software !! [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) Omg that's so outrageous, I don't know how I can exist with this information * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Gens-dude [score hidden] 7 hours ago (2 children) So when you think you're taking a picture of the moon in the sky, you're really taking a picture of the moon as it's stored in the phone's memory. Curated by a committee. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]frequenttimetraveler [score hidden] 5 hours ago (1 child) The moon never changes * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Gens-dude [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Fair, but it's not your picture. People who take pictures of the moon know it doesn't change and still want one that they took. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]agilob [score hidden] 2 hours ago (0 children) I don't get the point of this experiment, shrinking image, zooming in, moving away from screen? Couldn't this be proven by simply changing your camera app and pointing it to the real moon? * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]cbelliott [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) Who cares, really? I like that on my S23 (S22 before that) when I see the moon and it looks neat I can take a quick "picture" and share what I saw with others.... I really DGAF that it's post processing, layering, AI scrubbing, or whatever the hell else. It's still pretty cool for the average user. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]isobane [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) I keep seeing this and I've gotta ask, who cares? Like, it's a static object in the sky that basically doesn't change...ever. At least not in any drastic or noticable way. It's the moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Stupid_TrianglesLG G7 > OP 7 Pro [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) People are getting mad about getting catfished by the moon. Smh. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]KyraMich [score hidden] 11 hours ago (0 children) As long as they tell you the image is modified by AI (which they do) and you can turn the feature off (which you can), this is a complete non-issue. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]iPiglet [score hidden] 14 hours ago (2 children) I forget which other phone it was, but it's then-released-flagship's stand-out feature was a new camera sensor for farther and better zoom capability. Reviews came out saying that it enhanced a blurry image of the moon using software to recreate the image with more detail during processing. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Tillaz123 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) That may have been the Huawei P30 Pro * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Tillaz123 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (0 children) That may have been the Huawei P30 Pro * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]max1001 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (2 children) TIL, ppl know very little about photography if they originally thought their phone could take those photos with the trickery. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]armando_rodPixel 7 Pro [score hidden] 5 hours ago (1 child) Apple and Google don't use this trickery * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]max1001 [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Not this specific one but they all have AI/ML to make up pixel. There's no way a sense/range of a phone can take moon photography. This is such stupidity. It's like ppl being shocked magazine covers use photoshops...... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]McSnooSamsung S20+ (SM-G985F/DS) [score hidden] 15 hours ago* (18 children) Some people might think that using super resolution is deceptive because it creates details that are not in the original image. However, I disagree with this view. Super resolution is not meant to falsify or manipulate reality, but to enhance and restore it. Super resolution uses deep learning to learn from a large dataset of high-resolution images, and then applies that knowledge to reconstruct the missing or blurry details in low-resolution inputs. It does not invent new details out of thin air, but rather fills in the gaps based on what it has learned from real data. Therefore, I think using super resolution is not deceptive, but rather a smart and creative way to improve the quality and clarity of the pictures. What is the limit for super resolution usage? Even Samsung 100x zoom is using AI to enhance the picture. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]crawl_dht [score hidden] 14 hours ago (14 children) Super resolution is not meant to falsify or manipulate reality, but to enhance and restore it. OP has proved that it is manipulating reality because the information it is adding to the picture does not exist in reality. There's nothing to enhance and restore. OP is already giving the best resolution photo to the camera. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]owiseone23 [score hidden] 14 hours ago (6 children) This one is definitely way more blatant and egregious, but is it philosophically that different? Pixel also fills in some details from information the sensor doesn't have, it's just on a way more subtle level. For example, with cleaning up edges, if you took a picture of an edge with a very small imperfection that looks like an artifact, the Pixel algorithm may fill in that edge to match the rest. That's technically filling in information that's not there. It's just much more miroscopic. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]moops__OnePlus 7P [score hidden] 8 hours ago (3 children) Super resolution isn't always about making up details that you think should be there. The Pixel will take multiple images at slightly different offets to construct a full resolution image without demosaicing. That's not making up pixels and is super resolution for example. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (3 replies) [-]crawl_dht [score hidden] 10 hours ago (1 child) but is it philosophically that different? It is different because Pixel preserves the source light and colour saturation. Whereas, Samsung output is always a brown coloured moon whose light does not even exist in OP's screen. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]BojackShadowFax25S22 Ultra | Galaxy Watch4 | iPhone 13 Pro [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) Whereas, Samsung output is always a brown coloured moon whose light does not even exist in OP's screen. No, it isn't. Evidently, you've never used one of the Ultras if you believe this assertion. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]whatnowwproductionsPixel 6 - OnePlus 5 - Signal [score hidden] 12 hours ago (4 children) That's literally what ML models are meant to do. It's almost like it's the first time you guys here of this when Google has been publicly releasing papers on their work on recovering lost details. It's all pure pattern recognition. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) [-]ok_how_about_now [score hidden] 13 hours ago (9 children) Applying that logic, all the "night shots" by all the manufacturers are fake too, SMH. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Andraltoid [score hidden] 6 hours ago* (0 children) Overlaying multiple shots is a well known method that uses real pixel data to extract more light information. Ai in that case only helps select more likely pixel information automatically. It doesn't create information. And if you're talking about iPhone night shots, pixel binning is a similar method to conventional multi exposure hdr where, instead of multiple exposures, neighboring pixels are combined to create "super pixels" that contain more light information which leads to blurrier (since the resolution is 1/4 or lower of the original image) but brighter photos. None of this is "fake" unlike these "ai enhanced" photos. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]armando_rodPixel 7 Pro [score hidden] 6 hours ago (0 children) That's not how night mode works. Night Sight for example works with photos taken at that moment, it doesn't go over a set of photos that trained some AI algorithm * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (7 replies) [-]notenglishwobbly [score hidden] 10 hours ago (0 children) Guys, I've got huge news for you: look into "raw" and "processed". There is a huge conspiracy going on here. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]0point1to1 [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) I've seen this type of AI before in Japanese films for "mature audiences". * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Lock_75 [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) I dont get it. Like every night photo is also AI enhanced even a normal one during the day... so all the photos are fake ? In this logic RAW photos are the only no fake ones * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Ghost94_PL [score hidden] 12 hours ago (0 children) Could you do the same but with Expert Raw? That it beautifies the moon in the default mode was my guess, because it's impossible to see practically nothing when photographing anything but landscape, whereas the moon would come out so nicely * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Captain__Cheddar [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) If it was motorola, sony , realme doing it many here would not defend like are defending samsung. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]frequenttimetraveler [score hidden] 5 hours ago (0 children) As a Samsung owner i would defend them but I can't be arsed at the moment * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]octoreadit [score hidden] 15 hours ago (0 children) Thank you for your work! * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Fredol [score hidden] 14 hours ago (3 children) When I saw the marques photo of the moon on Twitter shot from S23 Ultra, I immediately knew something was up because of the Huawei scandal. Even if you have 200 Megapixels, a zoomed photo of the moon from a smartphone could never look this good. Thank you for investigating this, you can't trust any influencer nowadays it seems. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Final-Ad5185 [score hidden] 8 hours ago (1 child) That's not even considering the 10x optical zoom camera is only 10 MP. Only the main 1x camera is 200 MP, and that's pixel binning, so technically it's not even 200 MP. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [-]xLoneStarExynos S20+ [score hidden] 3 hours ago (0 children) Samsung could literally add Kim Jong Un in the background to all photos, and fanboys would defend it saying it's computational photography.... The herd mentality is insane. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]lexcynNothing Phone (White), S22U (White) [score hidden] 8 hours ago (0 children) Not fake, it's specific AI enhancement. If you call this fake then any photo with AI enhancement should be called fake, which is almost every single photo taken on a modern smartphone. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]wutqq [score hidden] 4 hours ago (0 children) Shady Samsung strikes again. Could have just said AI enhance or some buzzwords but instead it's like our cameras are so amazing they can shoot the moon. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]JamesR624 [score hidden] 9 hours ago (0 children) ITT: Maga like fanboys still parroting the "nothingburger" narrative and desperately trying to spin the fact that Samsung is lying and falsely advertizing. I know Samsung is this subscription darling but this sub has lately put r/apple and T_D to shame in terms of apologism and mental gymnastics. Literally dismissing actual evidence and claiming that "Samsung is just clever", literally claiming that lying to your customers is now a "smart move". * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply load more comments (38 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 87 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-7dd586c5b5-r6qcd at 2023-03-12 23:01:51.563686+00:00 running 1539bf2 country code: US.