Surely this is worth $2000
the photos on the left do look a bit dark.as for the AI 'improvements':the first photo, i dislike the intense contrast induced by the selective increase in brightness. the hills in the background are too dark for the wheat in the foreground.the second photo, in my opinion, is, or would be, an improvement - however, it introduced an awful lot of completely unnecessary changes - grapes on the desk, blur in the background, removed the glass behind the chair, changed the wood texture.the third photo looks as if the lens was dirty, smeared with human fingers or something. objectively bad.ofcourse from the standpoint of legitimacy, these are no longer photos but re-creations inspired by an original photo, authored by a diffusion model. but whether thats important to the author is up to them. plenty of product photos today are AI-generated or AI-modified, within reason.
>>108829410Sony is such a failed company, what went wrong with their team?
>>108829538their hardware is still premium, their software not so much.
>>108829410>using ai>using ai for photography>using ai for photography on a fucking mobile phone
>>108829410pictures on the right are just what HDR images look like on an SDR display
yeah i saw this earlier and what the actual fuck are they doingtheir actual cameras have good colour science right?how the fuck did this shit get approved?
>>108829489the grapes are there on the left, but the shot's not 1:1. I don't know why that comparison specifically used different images.
>>108829410>every aislopped image is objectively worse and completely changes the photo
>>108829672>their actual cameras have good colour science right?>how the fuck did this shit get approved?"We asked 100 normalfags which image they would rather have and had a 100% preference for the AI image!"Creating a good product doesn't sell the product. Creating a product people think is good sells it.
>>108829538Listened to Commiefornians, unironically.
>>108829410No words. Did they seriously not look at this?Anyway, shares are probably up 20% after posting this. >OMG, Snoy does AI! BUY BUY BUY
>>108829410Is this a joke? Left looks like a screenshot from a DV camcorder.
>>108829630kys for trying to sound smarter than you areall pictures go through tonemapping so what you're saying makes no sense, maybe if you tried watching raw hdr but why would you do that>>108829814left has a lot of values to play with but I understand what they're trying to do, it's like automatic photoshop for people who don't know how to use photoshop/camera rawI don't know about the phone so I don't know if they have different profiles you can use or if they bake that look into all pictures, if it's the latter it's terrible if it's the former it could be pretty decent for people who aren't into photography
>>108829556if you havent noticed, the ai camera shills are far less abundant because all the ai shills live in gujarat where theres only trash and fecees to take pictures of
No fucking way the right is an upgrade. Did they mix the labels up?
>>108829556What's funny is that every camera app uses "AI" to some extent to fill in the blanks of the sensor. GCam is so magical thanks to it's image processing and half the reason you get a Pixel phone is for GCam, the other is for the sensor to compliment the package.What Snoy is doing is just regular Snoy. Snorting coke and losing their minds. At least you'll still have the manual mode on their app and most people buying a Snoy phone will be using that anyway.
Sony phones are total dogshit anyway. Hardware is failure prone and the software is REALLY bad on their Android phones. I've only owned Samsung and CAT android phones beside Sony and both of those are a massive upgrade no matter how much I hate Samsung.I wish it wasn't like this, Sony is the only manufacturer that makes phones I don't hate in terms of the physical characteristics.
>>108829556No AI exists.
>>108829630wrong
>>108829961>First thing in the morning, what do I see? A pile of shit... staring at me!
