[HN Gopher] Update to the "Samsung space zoom moon shots are fake"
___________________________________________________________________
Update to the "Samsung space zoom moon shots are fake"
Author : ibreakphotos
Score : 170 points
Date : 2023-03-12 17:43 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| bee_rider wrote:
| It will be quite weird to have this brief blip in the
| anthropological record of like 1980-2010 where cameras were cheap
| enough that lots of real images were captured, and then 2010-2019
| where everyone (in rich western countries at least) had cameras
| _all the time_ and we got tons of real images of everyday life
| (filters are popular of course but using them is an intentional
| choice).
|
| Then everyone goes inside for like 2 years (pandemic), there
| isn't much to take pictures of, and then by the time we start
| going back outside everything is actually paintings by AI
| artists.
| zaroth wrote:
| When the AI generated content outnumbers human content 10,000
| to 1, and the quality is almost ridiculously varied and
| sometimes incredible, and no functional system can sustainably
| authenticate humans without being overrun by bots...
|
| Then the record from that point forward and forever hence will
| be one of AI, not one of humanity.
| btown wrote:
| Arguably this is already true of text. We have already
| entered the age where it is impossible to determine with
| certainty whether a blog article was written by a human, and
| so every text data set that includes 2023 internet data will
| include ChatGPT outputs as ground truth.
|
| Future historians will likely place a great deal of emphasis
| on 2019 being the year in which we reached a forever-maximum
| of non-pandemic-tinged _provably_ -human-created data. It's
| no reason to panic, and the mixed data sets will absolutely
| be representative of humanity's accomplishments as a whole...
| but there will be notable differences.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| It's not that hard to filter content by source. Reputable
| news sources and authors will not publish AI-generated
| content (without grave risks to their reputation). And most
| of the abundant background noise have never provided much
| value before either.
| krater23 wrote:
| > Reputable news sources and authors will not publish AI-
| generated content...
|
| This news sources are not just one blob or a black box.
| It's different people that are working for money. And we
| know reputable sources that have published fictionary
| stories as real over years(see Spiegel in Germany). Now
| it's really easy to unnotable use AI, so where is the
| reason why this will not happen?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > We have already entered the age where it is impossible to
| determine with certainty whether a blog article was written
| by a human, and so every text data set that includes 2023
| internet data will include ChatGPT outputs as ground truth.
|
| Is that any worse than unreliable humans? Whether they're
| intentionally lying or just mistaken, internet posts should
| always be taken with a grain of salt, for decades now.
| dmonitor wrote:
| The unreliability of humans is still valuable data
| because it shows what humans were thinking at the time.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I guess, but that's a really noisy signal once you
| account for deliberately misleading posts.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they mean ground truth in terms of what human
| created content looks like, not ground truth in terms of
| what is actually going on in the world, which of course
| we don't collect completely accurately.
| kukx wrote:
| I wonder what will be the first year when most of the
| meaningful comments on hacker news will be AI generated.
| flangola7 wrote:
| I fear the social effects. The days of making long distance
| friends or relationships over the internet are over.
| Anonymous communities that don't implement strong KYC are
| over.
| [deleted]
| greedylizard wrote:
| What is KYC?
| epgui wrote:
| Know Your Customer
| [deleted]
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| There are aftermarket photography apps. Has anybody tried taking
| their Samsung S23 and photographing the moon /w one of those? I
| wonder if the "AI assistant" is limited to Samsung's own bundled
| camera app, or if it's always on & modifies pictures taken via
| other apps.
| gruez wrote:
| You can just turn off "scene optimizer" in the stock app.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Scott Hanselman posted today that this is no secret. Samsung have
| been talking openly about their "Moon Recognition Engine". It's
| on their website: In Korean, of course. But there's an automated
| translation of that too.
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@shanselman/video/7209770920301399342...
|
| https://hachyderm.io/@shanselman/110012495335125530
| brokenmachine wrote:
| I wonder what kind of implications this will have for court
| cases.
|
| There will have to be expert witnesses to discuss any image that
| is brought in, if it's real or not.
| 323 wrote:
| Next gen: you go to a music concert and take some crappy photos -
| low light, far from scene. AI recognizes the artist and downloads
| artist's most recent high-res stock pictures from GettyImages,
| has a general model of how a scene is setup, lights, lasers, and
| re-synthesizes your photo into something with the production
| quality of a movie concert scene.
|
| In a movie it also resamples the clipped audio with the actual
| song ran though a "live concert" audio filter, adds some nice
| crowd noises too.
|
| Next-next-gen: using deep fake technology artist voices a song
| dedication just for you.
| cwkoss wrote:
| If crappy phone photos are enough to make a decent depth map, I
| think Stablediffusion can do this today. The only missing piece
| would be for the band to train a model on high quality photos
| from specifically their concerts.
|
| ControlNet is really neat
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| From a technological perspective those are neat. But AI (or any
| computer program) hallucinating entire experiences that never
| existed is kind of disturbing even if said experience is
| actually nice.
| megablast wrote:
| I wrote an app 15 years ago that would detect where you've been
| travelling, and get the best photos from Flickr based on the
| must see location you passed. No longer need to take photos of
| the Eiffel Tower.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Next-next-next-gen: BigTech corps offers a machine-brain
| interface so that you can "enhance" your own senses with the
| help of external processing power. Your reality is about to
| change, but not without a ton of ads which you cannot escape.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| You get a neural interface that lets you learn and process
| information 100x faster but there's always an ad in the
| corner of your vision. Do you accept?
| Gunnerhead wrote:
| Yet psychedelics and weed to also enhance your experience
| will continue to be federally illegal.
| nkurz wrote:
| Simplified summary for those scared off by a link to Reddit:
|
| He made an image of an intentionally blurry moon, and then used
| the camera to take a picture of it while it was displayed on the
| monitor from across the room. The resulting picture was of a
| sharply detailed moon!
| agilob wrote:
| Would it not be even easier to prove by simply switching camera
| app to a non-branded one?
| ghshephard wrote:
| You don't know where in the stack the optimization is taking
| place.
| chabes wrote:
| This is an update to that post, with a new image with a moon
| and a half image of the moon together in one image.
|
| The full moon is enhanced, while the half image remains blurry.
| kazinator wrote:
| Which shows you it's not "AI"; it's more like some hacky code
| running right inside the phone which detects a plausible
| moon-like object in the image and fills it with pixels from a
| canned image.
|
| This is a lot like the ages-old trick of a compiler being
| rigged to recognize particular source file (benchmark
| program) and pulls out a hand-optimized assembly program.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Which shows you it's not "AI"; it's more like some hacky
| code running right inside the phone which detects a
| plausible moon-like object in the image and fills it with
| pixels from a canned image.
|
| This is actually a common mode of breakage of standard
| vision models.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > Which shows you it's not "AI"; it's more like some hacky
| code running right inside the phone which detects a
| plausible moon-like object in the image
|
| The hacky code runing right inside the phones detecting
| objects, identifying faces and whatnot is often called AI.
| codeflo wrote:
| Fucking single if statements are called AI these days.
| That's not a strong argument. :)
| Dudeman112 wrote:
| That's because AI is an awful expression :|
|
| Should have always been called "fancy algorithms" from
| the get-go, calling it "intelligence" opens the
| interpretation up for a world of misunderstandings
| [deleted]
| ben30 wrote:
| My Samsung tumble dryer proudly tells me every time I
| turn it on, "optimised by AI". But it's not smart enough
| to know it's told me that a hundred times before.
| wongarsu wrote:
| To be fair, "optimized by AI" doesn't claim that the
| machine contains AI. Might just be "at some stage in the
| design process, AI was involved in some way". Which is
| probably for lots of hardware today.
| avian wrote:
| Check a comment in the Reddit comment thread. The author of
| the post repeats the experiment with a blurred and modified
| picture of the moon that has craters in wrong places. The
| phone produced a photo of the moon that is less blurry, but
| also has craters in wrong places. This suggests it's not
| just using a canned image.
| to11mtm wrote:
| > This is a lot like the ages-old trick of a compiler being
| rigged to recognize particular source file (benchmark
| program) and pulls out a hand-optimized assembly program.
|
| I never knew _compilers_ did this, but I remember it being
| the case for some games (There was a debacle once upon a
| time where renaming 'Quake3.exe' to 'Quack3.exe' would
| reveal such shenanigans on some drivers.)
| remram wrote:
| A less-evil example is that most compilers can recognize
| when you wrote a memcpy() and replace it with an actual
| memcpy() call, which is usually very carefully optimized
| for your specific processor.
|
| This can cause fun issues like your version of memcpy()
| (e.g. embedded libc) being replaced by the compiler with
| a call to itself:
| https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
| kazinator wrote:
| * * *
| tialaramex wrote:
| The ability to figure out what you're doing and then just
| do that well, rather than attempting to optimise the code
| you wrote is called Idiom Recognition and has been around
| for a _very_ long time, like, 1970s or maybe before.
|
| A relatively modern example was people writing code to
| count set bits in a value, because older languages don't
| provide an intrinsic to do that and it's often useful,
| these days your CPU probably has a CPU instruction
| specifically for that, it's called "popcount" (sometimes
| spelled popcnt) and so it's valuable to recognise what's
| going on in the say six lines of C++ in your program and
| emit a single POPCOUNT instruction instead. If your fancy
| method to count bits isn't recognised your program goes
| slower.
|
| The memcpy case is special because C is weird in actually
| trying to define this as a function, copying memory is so
| commonly necessary that compilers need to have a pre-
| baked implementation for the rest of what they do anyway,
| it's not a surprise that idiom recognition results in
| your custom memcpy being turned into the built-in memcpy,
| although in the case you linked that's indeed a bug.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| This is still the case with games, pretty much every new
| big release comes with an associated 'game ready driver'
| release where the driver can detect and adjust some
| behaviors to better suit that game.
| kazinator wrote:
| But that provides a real benefit whereas the compiler
| trick's objective is to look good in a benchmark.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| It doesn't tell you that at all, they could just as well
| have a moon segmentation model that returns the single most
| likely bounding box to contain a moon and applies another
| model to it. Or something even simpler, a Hough transform
| which returns the roundest object. Or a single
| convolutional model which was trained on images of the moon
| and therefore doesn't augment multiple moons since that
| falls outside of its input distribution.
| manojlds wrote:
| Read the thread. Someone did with photoshopped crater and
| it enhanced that as well.
|
| It's like saying face recognition didn't recognized when
| you photoshopped a ear in the photo.
| lwhi wrote:
| Why would people be scared of a Reddit link?
| xwdv wrote:
| [flagged]
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Same reason I'm scared of TV Tropes [1] links.
|
| [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DownTheRabbit
| Hol...
| yread wrote:
| If you didn't go through the comments, this one is interesting
| imo:
|
| someone took a handheld picture of the moon with S21 using GCAM
| instead of the default app and the results are also quite
| awesome:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/jf1Cbqu
| furyofantares wrote:
| I'm not really "nail in the coffin" convinced.
|
| Is there a process that does something akin to identifying the
| moon, and selecting a special filter for that? I'm pretty
| convinced of this. (Both by the evidence and also it's apparently
| advertised as such?)
|
| What is that filter? I don't know, and the answer to this would
| inform "how fake" I think these images are.
|
| It does seem to be a moon-specific treatment. It doesn't seem to
| be pasting a JPG of the moon and it doesn't seem to be generating
| the moon.
|
| How fake it is, is, I think a measure of how dependent the result
| is on the specific sensor data, and how localized the changes
| are. If there's a moon-specific filter that's excellent at
| filling in data "between" sensed pixels without looking at any
| pixels far away (beyond, perhaps, the initial categorization as a
| photo of the moon where this filter would be good), that's not
| very fake to me.
|
| If there was suddenly a new structure on the moon visible to the
| sensors, I'd want it reflected in the photo. I would consider the
| process very fake if it couldn't do that at all, and not very
| fake if it could do it reliably.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| lagadu wrote:
| Reading further into that thread, someone provides the OP with a
| blurry image of the moon but with craters in the wrong places:
| the "AI enhanced" photo is indeed much sharper and detailed than
| the original but it still retains the craters and land features
| in the wrong place. This suggests that the processing isn't
| simply replacing the moon with real, high-quality moon photos but
| rather that it knows how the moon, or a moon-like object, should
| look and creates detail on the original image.
|
| This looks a lot like what DLSS does in GPUs.
|
| I'm torn on this: it's fake but it's a good way of getting around
| optics limitations in certain scenarios. Is fake detail on a
| photo worse than no detail for non-scientific, consumer devices?
| dmix wrote:
| Samsung's own spokesperon said this is an explicit feature of
| the phone.
|
| > But I also want to include one caveat: the S21 Ultra's Scene
| Optimizer will not suddenly make all 100x zoom photos look as
| crispy as the Moon. Samsung flat-out says the Scene Optimizer
| can recognize "more than 30 scenes." That includes the
| following according to a spokesperson:
|
| > Food, Portraits, Flowers, Indoor scenes, Animals, Landscapes,
| Greenery, Trees, Sky, Mountains, Beaches, Sunrises and sunsets,
| Watersides, Street scenes, Night scenes, Waterfalls, Snow,
| Birds, Backlit, Text, Clothing, Vehicle, Shoe, Dog, Face,
| Drink, Stage, Baby, People, Cat, Moon.
|
| If it was just the normal camera 'faking' photos it'd be bad,
| but they literally offer a list of stuff that their zoom tab
| will AI-optimize. You can still use the regular camera to turn
| this feature off.
|
| To me this sounds like a cool but simply misunderstood feature.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Reminds me of the "Camera Restricta" [1].
|
| I encourage everyone interested in tech and photography to
| check out Villem Flusser's Towards A Philosophy of
| Photography [2] and of course Walter Benjamin's The Work of
| Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction [3].
|
| [1] https://hackaday.com/2017/01/28/camera-restricta-ensures-
| ori... [2] (1984) PDF http://imagineallthepeople.info/Flusser
| _TowardsAPhilosophyof... [3] (1932) PDF
| https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >Animals
|
| will be interesting to see how that works with less common
| animals.
|
| I can see it getting confused with, for example, a capybara,
| thinking it's a dog, and filling in the details making a
| picture of a weird hybrid dogybara.
| asddubs wrote:
| didn't seem like they tried it with a blurry picture of the
| fake moon though. it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be
| both.
| metadat wrote:
| The original discussion unfolded here 2 days ago:
|
| _" Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake, and here is the
| proof"_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35107601 (375 comments)
|
| And to potentially save you a click, here's the original post:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
| praisewhitey wrote:
| and here's post from 2021 doing the same tests with the Galaxy
| S21 Ultra
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/samsung/comments/l7ay2m/analysis_sa...
| unxdfa wrote:
| Yeah I can just about get a decent crop of the moon on my Nikon
| Z50 with the 250mm lens on it that looks reasonable, if it's on a
| tripod. There's no way this wasn't going to be some other
| trickery going on.
|
| What is worrying is why would you buy something with a camera
| that lies at source. When you need it to tell the truth, how do
| you know it will be telling it?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| To play Devil's Abacus for a moment:
|
| Why do you "need it to tell the truth"? I would bet a large
| number of the non-expert consumers (99% of users) do not care.
|
| But to defeat this own argument: just make a "AI Enhance"
| option in the UI...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Do you ever take pictures of your rental car before and after
| you return it? Because now your rental company (and/or small
| claims court) will be able to credibly claim it could've been
| subtly modified by on-board AI and thus no longer admissible
| as evidence.
|
| Besides stuff like this is like pouring gasoline onto
| conspiracy theory movements like Flat Earthers. Those may be
| just 1% of the US a population. But you know what isn't just
| 1%? Young Earth Creationists, who believe in a similar
| conspiracy theory of scientists changing the geologic record
| and maybe astrophysical records as well. These types have
| large, maybe even disproportionate, political power as well.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| You've won me over.
| aendruk wrote:
| Loving the connotations of "Devil's Abacus".
| unxdfa wrote:
| Your last point is spot on.
| to11mtm wrote:
| > Yeah I can just about get a decent crop of the moon on my
| Nikon Z50 with the 250mm lens on it that looks reasonable, if
| it's on a tripod.
|
| Yeah 300+ is more comfortable for moonshots on APSC sensors,
| unless you are in -really- good conditions (i.e. perfect sky,
| far away from artificial lighting.) With 400mm I was able to
| take a 'pretty dang good' moonshot just outside of my house,
| even with a little bit of haze that day. It took a good amount
| of tweaking in DXO to look -great-, but it was worth it.
|
| > What is worrying is why would you buy something with a camera
| that lies at source. When you need it to tell the truth, how do
| you know it will be telling it?
|
| This is one of the reasons I still don't care for getting rid
| of my DSLRs and shoot raw [0] (Besides, PureView was the last
| phone camera setup I actually enjoyed.)
|
| At the very -least-, these should be settings that have very
| obvious controls including turning it off by default, and
| Ideally should be 'opted in.' Otherwise it opens up the
| possibility that what is happening could count as cheating at
| certain photo benchmarks.
|
| [0] Okay I also shoot raw to laugh at how awkward some of
| Sony's E-mount lenses are without lens profile correction
| applied. Looking at you SEL16F28.
|
| Edit: Context of what you can do at ~550mm equiv. F8, ISO 250,
| 1/320: https://imgur.com/a/ryoqQB9
| ghshephard wrote:
| I don't know if DSLRs have changed much - but don't they all
| require post-processing in order to get any type of sharp
| picture? Out of the camera they aways seemed to be fuzzy as
| crap until you ran a sharpening filter.
|
| That is - any time you are shooting digital, you don't every
| look at what the camera saw, but at what some computer
| interpreted it to be.
|
| I'd be interesting in knowing what that picture of the moon
| looked like right out of the raw capture.
| unxdfa wrote:
| No they don't require that. I honestly, and I know this
| will annoy people, shoot jpeg and it's sharp out of the
| camera.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Unless I misunderstood you, this is a common misconception
| -- with digital cameras there is no "real" or "raw"
| picture. What the camera captures is just the output of an
| analog-to-digital converter. How that resembles a picture
| at all is always a matter of subjective interpretation,
| there is no ground truth.
| hef19898 wrote:
| RAW files so are as close to what the sensor saw as you
| might actually get. As opposed to the camera-created
| JPGs, which can look great but have much less data to
| work with. Or the JPGs created in-camera using in-camera
| processing (saturation, contrast, sharpness.
|
| I shoot both, RAW and JPG fine. The latter for quick
| sharing, with in-camera processing except for action
| shoots at 9 fps. JPG fine never runs into buffer limits,
| RAW or JPGs using processing does so. And for birds in
| flight or sports or similar I don't care that mich about
| RAW anyway.
| musictubes wrote:
| Thank you for calling them raw files and not images.
|
| Too many people think of raw files as analogous to slides
| shot in film cameras. In reality they are digital
| representations of the analog voltages made by sensors.
| In order to "see" a raw file it has to be processed which
| usually means demosaicing and assigning color to values
| based on what the camera manufacturer has provided. Oh
| and of course different displays will reproduce colors
| and brightness levels differently as well.
|
| In reality there isn't any such thing as an unmediated
| digital photograph. What is being done by smartphone
| cameras is a little further down the processing curve but
| is on the same continuum of "regular" digital photography
| IMO. This second test shows to me that Samsung is trying
| to give the photographer as sharp a picture of what they
| took a picture of.
|
| And analog photographers shouldn't get but so smug about
| capturing the "actual" image. Even if you shoot
| transparency film or collodion wet plate the resultant
| image is still mediated by the materials. Color
| reproduction, contrast, and of course the translation
| from 3d world/object to 2d are still enormous
| manipulations. Taking a picture will always be
| transformative compared to the original subject.
|
| So what is considered an "accurate" photograph will
| always be a philosophical question. IMO I wouldn't what
| Samsung has done to be "fake." A lot of these arguments
| really sound like DSLR owners being upset that decent
| pictures can be made with pocket cameras.
| hef19898 wrote:
| A full moon is what, 1/250 sec of a shutter speed? 250 mm on a
| DX sensor gets you to 370 mm, so yes, 1/250th is a tadvslow to
| handhold. One of the reasons I like heavier camera bodies, I
| get a lot less movement blur with those.
|
| Agree on the camer-faking-pictures bit, who wants that?
| unxdfa wrote:
| I shot this at 1/500 iso 400 f6.3 at equiv 375mm:
| https://imgur.com/ppj8U2Z - no edit other than crop.
|
| I reckon I could have hand held it actually. The lens has
| pretty decent VR in it. Will wait until there's a full moon
| again and have another go.
|
| And yeah I want my pictures to look natural.
| hef19898 wrote:
| That does look a bit blurry. Did you shoot with VR from a
| tripod?
| unxdfa wrote:
| I'm in the middle of London in the UK so that's pollution
| haze.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So bad? Shit, I never expected that... Over here, you
| need either fog or cloud cover for the moon to be so
| hazy...
| unxdfa wrote:
| Yeah it can get quite bag. I'm right near the airport as
| well which doesn't help.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I guess I'm lucky then, in clear nights max I get is
| atmospheric haze. Other than that, from the living room
| window, the moon is crisp sharp. Despite living in a city
| of 300k odd people...
| dotnet00 wrote:
| The fact is that most people are not looking for a phone camera
| to tell the 'truth', they're simply looking for good images
| similar to what they're used to seeing from pros with their
| much more fancy equipment (and remember that most of those
| photographs are also heavily edited, just by a human instead of
| AI). The only objective truth that matters much to the average
| person is stuff like the text or qr code remaining correct.
| unxdfa wrote:
| I think it's more difficult than that. People are intimately
| aware when things are not what they seem. The brain is really
| good at being suspicious about stuff. If you take a photo and
| it comes out better than you can see yourself, then questions
| will be asked. This discontinuity does not sit well.
|
| As for the professionals, a lot of stuff is edited yes. But
| there is an art to not needing to do any editing worth
| mentioning. I think there's some intellectual honesty in not
| painting over any cracks.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Most people do not care about their phone camera telling "the
| truth" because they are operating under the base assumption
| that cameras _do_ tell the truth, and that their phone camera
| is honestly Very Good(tm) at capturing the true image that
| they 're seeing with such a level of detail. That customers
| are not aware of the level to which professional images are
| processed is no justification for these features being
| sneaked in.
|
| If these features were openly presented as some kind of
| augmented reality or editing it wouldn't be an issue, but as
| it stands it is no different from, for example, presenting an
| entertainment television network as if it were actual fact-
| based news, and justifying it by arguing that viewers are not
| looking for the truth but for something that makes them feel
| that they know the truth.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It happens that Samsung is actually doing brilliant job in faking
| it, even accounting for obstruction like tree branches etc:
| https://twitter.com/David4252579/status/1634919880217731075
|
| All this could have been OK if Samsung wasn't misleading people
| into believing that the picture is a result of computational
| photography and excellent optics.
|
| I would love to have this in my phone's camera, but clearly
| identified as details added after the fact and might not
| represent the actual scene. It's done so well that practically no
| one noticed and people like MKBHD reeved it as a photography
| achievement.
|
| The truth is, the non-AI implementations also fail to capture how
| we see the Moon and fixing it with fake details is a welcome
| improvement as long as it's clear that that's not actual capture.
| sorenjan wrote:
| According to a comment on Reddit this only happens when "Scene
| Optimizer" is active in the camera. I don't know if this is the
| default, it probably is nowadays, but my phone camera's
| equivalent is labeled AI.
|
| I think the public needs to be educated that modern AI
| basically means to make up new data based on a statistical
| model from training data, i.e. fake.
| mrtksn wrote:
| In that comment which refers to an article, scene optimiser
| is described as AI optimising photography parameters like
| exposure, doesn't mention making up details. If this is
| Samsung's position, then it's totally not cool.
| xattt wrote:
| I'm just frustrated that there isn't even basic thought from
| Samsung's end. It could at the very least pull location data,
| check to see if the moon is above the horizon for the location,
| check to see if the phase of the moon matches what it sees and
| THEN apply the filter.
| msm_ wrote:
| Do we know what it's doing exactly? It can be just doing some
| AI enhancement during post-processing. In this case the moon is
| not literally hardcoded, but a part of some opaque machine
| learning model.
| achairapart wrote:
| I'm amazed at this New York Times article from 1984 narrating
| about a "not-too-distant future" that is actually happening now:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/04/magazine/photography-s-ne...
|
| > In the not-too-distant future, realistic-looking images will
| probably have to be labeled, like words, as either fiction or
| nonfiction, because it may be impossible to tell them apart. We
| may have to rely on the image maker, and not the image, to tell
| us into which category certain pictures fall.
| [deleted]
| drhagen wrote:
| I'm still skeptical. He blurred it and then cropped it. The sharp
| edge from the cropping is going to mess up the deconvolution
| optimization by causing any and all deconvolution to strongly
| reduce sharpness along that edge. If I'm right, the Samsung would
| restore both halves equally well if the blur was applied after
| the cropping rather than before.
|
| I still want to see this whole thing done without Gaussian blur,
| which is readily reversible by even primitive algorithms.
| redox99 wrote:
| > which is readily reversible by even primitive algorithms.
|
| Not true unless you know beforehand the exact kernel. Besides,
| there's 0 reason why a camera software be programmed to, or
| attempt to revert Gaussian blur.
|
| And finally, he downsampled the image, and you can't recover
| from that.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| Isn't a gaussian blur a pretty standard blur done by a poorly
| focused camera? Perhaps Samsung went to great lengths to
| reverse a Gaussian blur because it _happens all the time_?
| Jasper_ wrote:
| No, a real camera would give you a box blur, because the
| out-of-focus light rays are distributed uniformly across
| the sensor.
| toxik wrote:
| Gaussian blur is indeed super common in nature, any sum of
| noise will be Gaussian in the limit.
| jrockway wrote:
| Gaussian blur and the blur from out-of-focus lenses are a
| different kind of blur:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defocus_aberration
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_blur
| sorenjan wrote:
| Perfect deconvolution of a gaussian blur is only possible in
| theory, or in ideal cases where you control the signal end to
| end, like a programming assignment. In reality there's plenty
| of sources of errors, like discretization noise, lens blur,
| sensor noise, and SNR is instrumental to the result. I've never
| seen a blurry image get reconstructed using deconvolution
| without artifacts.
|
| Then there's the fact that a photo enhancement program has no
| reason to even try deconvolving gaussian blur, they should use
| a more appropriate kernel that better describes out of focus
| blur.
|
| His original blurred moon image is available in his first post.
| Without even taking the detour of photographing it from a
| monitor, try using his image and any deconvolution software you
| want, and try getting anywhere near his result.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-12 23:01 UTC)