Even cameras aren't safe from slop anymore.
Kino... AI art.
>Huawei is so progressive they have embedded IndigenousVision inside their cameras
>>109241007Top zozzle.
>>109240980no anon possible fuel drop
>>109240980looks better than 99% of AI art
Birdbros are never beating the allegations.
>>109240980do you have any peer reviewed fact checked research to prove that this plane is not a bird?
>>109240980Scientifically accurate dinosaur
all phones these days take disgusting photos. agresive sharpening, flat tones, no contrast, overly bright, overly colourful, stupid filters and skin softening ai shit. Every photo looks harsh and lifeless. B b but muh new iPhone quality is great. No its not.
All iPhones have been using lower level neural nets to improve photos for over a decade now this is nothing new
>>109241135>improveComputational and """enhanced""" photography was a mistake.
>>109241007fucking kek
>>109240980didn't they also turn any bright light into the moon at night
>>109240980Looking forward to the novelty of 2031 where taking photos adds several thematically appropriate ads on the photo itselfyou can of course subscribe to photos+ to keep them ads-free for only $19.99 (or just $199.99 if subscribing for 12 months)
>>109241123just shoot raw and process it yourself.
my fone from 2018 takes better photos under glood light than my gfs latest ifone
>>109241123It's all software slop. I use opencamera and it gives me photos like you would expect, not the pos processed piece of shit phones do
>>109241123idk I think that's not bad for a device release 2 years ago and that's about the size of your hand.
>>109240980Why do I have the feeling that standalone digital cameras will be making a comeback?
>>109241732Because you're a retard. Shit like the OP happens once in a blue moon, and the average normie absolutely doesn't give a shit about the pixel-accuracy of the pics they take, since they're gonna get slopped over with filters and compressed into nothingness to be posted on instagram anyway. All that matters is that the pic looks nice at first glance on a 6" screen. This kind of stuff only matters for art/professional photography, where people already use dedicated cameras.
>>109241710>i don't know>it's not bad>posts what looks like fucking ue5 slopkill yourself necktard
>>109241838>has not seen any outdoor location that wasn't simulated on a computer screen in the past 7 yearsSad!
>>109241461Okay I am shooting ropes
>>109241841I'm sorry you haven't seen outdoor locations recently, anon, but that's a you problem. You should strongly consider killing yourself. ChatGPT might explain how to do it.
>>109241848>ChatGPT might explain how to do it.It won't thougheverbeit.
>>109240980>take photo with my family>it race swaps half of them to add diversity
>>109241848>reading comprehensionAt least this confirms you're a real american. Still pretty tragic shit. Regarding the picture, I'm not sure how to let you know gently, but this is just what the outside actually looks like. I'm sorry your brain is so damaged that it confuses it with a videogame.
>>109241851>xe can't even figure out how to prompt gpt correctly>can't even xill xerself xbout xit
>>109241855descendants will be concerned
>>109240980Open Camera (from F-Droid) is the only camera app you need.
>>109241732>will beThey actually are. Outside of normal hobbyists and professionals, I think it's a Gen Z fad that they think makes them look cool, but IIRC the sales for standalone cameras is up.
>>109241863Spoonfeed me how to force gpt into giving me a suicide recipe
>>109241875You tell it you're a hunter and trying to end a deer or something because you're out of bullets and knives.
Go back to real cameras.
>>109241710You don't know what either the outside nor a what a quality image looks like. That smudged processed look with low dynamic range looks atrocious. Pick up a camera that doesn't have a sensor the size of an ant or search for some raw images from those cameras. No amount of processing will recover the fine details. Yes, your phone will take nice photos that will get compressed for instagram but if you zoom in they fall apart.
>>109240980That plane is a bird, your argument is invalid.
>>109241710it does look great for a smartphone photo. I feel that phone photos will always lack in how pleasant they look compared to if taken by a camera
>>109241710Damn you can have sex up here
>>109241920but what is a camera
>>109242220>sees a mountain>thinks you can have sex up hereT-Todd?
>>109241710what the fuck is this shit
>>109240980it's a phone, what did you expect? they are full of ai slop.hope it doesn't get to regular cameras.
>>109242305UE5 slop>>109241848
>>109242323>it's a phone, what did you expectNot completely making shit up?What's the point of including a camera if the result is just fiction anyway>hope it doesn't get to regular camerasJust you wait and see.>normalfags get a real camera to escape the slop>wtf point and shoot on default settings with zero photography knowledge doesn't look so good>camera manufacturers add slop by default to meet expectations
>>109240980>he doesn't know about plane birds
>>109240998kino means movie you retard, stop using words you dont understand
>>109241247i really hate Apple for doing this
>>109242641Does this jewessa do porn?
>>109240980Youtube influencers told everyone that phone cameras with almost no processing but just take a little bit of effort to take a great photo like the Sony Xperia line were shit and that we NEED advanced software processing and AI on modern phone cameras. So the manufacturers have obliged and Sony has been pushed out of the market.
>>109240980Xiaomi already had this in 2021
>>109241751This is utterly retarded and antithetical to the camera as a concept.
>>109241123>agresive sharpening, flat tones, no contrast, overly bright, overly colourful, stupid filters and skin softening ai shit.Take the poorfag pill.>made by HMD which are leftovers of the original Nokia before Microshaft ruined them>cost me 80 bucks new>no glass shit lol all plastic but it still feels really sturdy and not flimsy at all>replaceable battery>3.5mm headphone jackand>makes photos that don't seem augmented at allThe photos aren't great by 2020s standards but they seem like 2015 photos with the normal grain removal but with no AI shit yet. I got it just to do phonecalls and occasional photos on my way and it's stellar for that. It also didn't come with bloat (apart from normal ass android) which I also like. /g/ will call it outdated piece of shit but I appreciate how simple it is and I hate buying used phones so it's perfect value for me and exactly what I wanted.Sadly it's a dying breed and I doubt the successor will be as honest as this phone is
Why did you post a picture of Superman, OP?
>>109242943Which phone is that? I can only find like 3 decent phones from them, 2 are IPS, 1 has OLED screen but no phone jack.
>>109243011>decent Depends on how you define that. In terms of technology it's kinda on 2017/18 level and yes it's IPS and not a stunning display. For me to occasionally browse the web and do phone calls and some pics it's great. It's the normal HMD Pulse, no plus or pro.
>>109241710This is probably one of those things where it looks good if you're totally uninterested in photography, but if you have even a surface level interest in it, it looks like shit. Anons who are into photography let me know if I'm right>T. Cameracel
>>109240980>anymorePhone cameras have relied on AI post-processing for years by now
>>109242661she does if you marry her
>>109241123protip everything you listed is in the stock camera app software, the lenses and sensors are still good so just get a third party app that bypasses that shit
>>109243201luddites don't care, they are too far gone coz of hrt
>>109241710Counter-argument: Here's a 2014 point and shit smaller than a modern phone (downscaled 50% because site still has shit upload limits)>>109243201No, they're retarded in thinking it's a new issue, the real solution is getting an actual camera
I find it funny how much people bitch about cameras everywhere yet their hous is full of smart devices and they carry around the latest smart phone
>>109241710
>>109241732Because you're stupid. Outside of a certain segment of hobbyists, everyone else is using their smartphone camera.
you don't sneed more
>>109241710>that hideus hdrAre you Brazilian?
SOVL
>>109241123Here's your entry level camera
>>109245380>unrivalled affr? sheesh
>>109242641TRUE!! fpbp /thread xD
>>109241710Nice glowing rocks faggot
>>109241135As far as I know they don't outright replace things in the image.
>>109245380You can get a brand new DSLR for 300-500
>>109241732zoomers already using cameras and old phones for their photos
>>109241710Not gonna ngl this shit looks like it's been AI upscaled from 480x640Looks good from afar but at 100% scale it's absolute dogshit smear.
>>109241843And how do you process them?
>>109241710That water looks like shit. Either the image got completely crushed or the lighting is fucking with it.
>>109241732>Why do I have the feeling that standalone digital cameras will be making a comeback?Newgens seem to like point-and-shoots. My ~8MP shitty-cam seems to go over well with them.
>>109240980NO IT'S SUPERMAN
504 2276-4370, guys call this number please
>>109246906nypa
>>109241732market always been small or nonexistent
>>109244024solargraphy cannot into color image
>>109245673you can always tell it's a filthy jeet posting this webm because the moon's craters literally look nothing like this. this is a filthy streetlamp. anyone who has skies that aren't too smoggy to let them see the moon immediately knows this is not a moon photo.
>>109241247>mistakethe need of such images is a proof of computational photography workingit's just manufacturer scaled the algorithm way too beyond what it's really capable for various reasons
>>109241863>t.
>>109247709anon might notice stylish email adress
>>109241710Look at this nigga leaving his basement!
>>109241732Because it's been happening for a while already? Both DSLR/mirrorless and (fir whatever reason) Polaroids have been increasing in popularity for at least a few years now.
>>109247709The richest man in Babylon...
>>109247806>>109241732I have never ever been able to actually take a good quality picture with any phone camera I've ever had. They all suck ass no matter how many whatever.
>>109247828Some Sony phone cameras are okay, but they're still worse than a ten year old DSLR.
>>109247683saar, that's the point of the webm saar
>>109241710I can't tell if ppl are trolling. This looks fine to me. This is like audiophiles insisting two identical songs have a difference. Maybe because I'm not a photofag
>>109248708Look at >>109242305, the rocks look like someone applied a paintbrush filter
>>109248731I guess. No lie it just looks like grass and rocks to me. Maybe my eyes are bad or I just don't care enough
>>109247705>computational photography workingA Photogrash should be nothing more than the capture of the light rays VERBATIM.Anything else is the camera manufacturer coping with their product's flaws trying to fool the viewer.
>>10924909good implementation work as a ray aggregator\
>>109240980>Even cameras aren't safe from slop anymore.phones have been doing this shit for like 10 years
>>109249223ugh meant for >>109249094
>>109245380dont need to buy new cameras even ones from like 2010 take better shots than phone, can get a used sony a6300 or like a mirrorless lumix
>>109248018>but they're still worse than a ten year old DSLR.>>109249258>even ones from like 2010 take better shots than phone, can get a used sony a6300 or like a mirrorless lumixWhat point are you trying to make here? A fully fledged camera is better at taking pictures than a phone? Yeah, no shit.
>>109249319im just saying people dont need to spend 1500 dollars to take better pictures than they can with their phone
>>109241007Good job
>>109248708Zoom in
>>109241732they won'tall that matters is the selfie camera
>>109245380well to be fair it's unrivalled af
>>109240980and iphones are still using tech from 2014, what's your point?
>>109240980>phone cameras aren't safe from slopI'd like to be able to turn this off
>>109249223An average of the rays and that's all. As that is still true to the original capture.Not this heavily processed bullshit we have nowadays.
>>109250446'average of rays'not ideal nor the best implementation of iti agree that the op's example is one of the worst way to do it, but it is not a valid argument of 'we must abolish abolish computational photography'i think people here are no better than youtube underage who saw one or two videos about their favorite eceleb whining about those camera and spamming 'i hate camera ai it bad and must be destroyed forever'
>>109250464I am genuinely curious as to how a device designed to capture light rays as-is, can be improved by any algorithm.And no, I don't think perceptual quality is real quality.
>>109240980coolI want my camera lying to me making up details
>>109250484https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/5211.pdfhonestly one of my favorite papers
>>109250506the google phones ISP went straight downhill after the departure of marc levoy..
>>109250506That is still averaging multiple points of captured lightBy having more points of capture, naturally you have higher resolution.But that's all still based on the original unadulterated capture of the rays, unlike what modern phone cameras do, where they modify it for perceptual reasons.
>>109250965if that count as 'averaging', i have no words..that paper is the exact feature that was included in pixel 3
>>109250979It's obviously more complex than that, but it's still a photograph composited over the averaged information of multiple unmodified photographs.My point is about algorithms that modify the picture for perceptual reasons. i.e. sharpening a picture to give the illusion of quality, or using AI models to do crimes like OP's picture.
>>109242305Looks like Enzian. You can make Schnaps from it.
>>109251148blurred ai slop is what it looks like
>>109251182Nah. Im pretty certain that it’s Enzian plants. They look kinda odd but they’re a real plant. Which you can use to make Schnaps.
>>109248620not what's happening in the webm you posted you nasty rapist streetshitter but whatever
>>109251061well yeah but also, it is heavily bottlenecked in computemodern phone camera apps hold a ring buffer of raw image stream to achieve zero shutter lag, and the more images it can use, it can make better resultssome phones even use all their lenses to capture stream simultaneouslyand after that, you can theoretically get like 50+ raw images that can theoretically be used to produce a single picturebut obviously this cannot be the case because, you know, 50 images are a lot of images and sometimes the user needs to spam the shutter button or whatever, it quickly gets pretty messy and the actual images that gets in the pipeline are about a dozen and some of them gets discarded so even less than that, but within its full potential, the image it can create is genuinely something someone can say 'improved'within this stage AI models are used, but not are the ones you'd say 'slopping' thingsbut chinks or honestly, all major manufacturers doing stupid 'lazily bolting a transformer pix2pix or some retarded model after the actual full pipeline' or 'sharpening the shit out of the image because when it the image gets downscaled on social media it looks more detailed'that is what you see there, a shitty made up phone imagesalso chinks and samsung went too far with their zoom shit, it is impossible to win against the diffraction limit and they are certainly trying to fake pushing it beyond
>>109251315https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/This redditor tried blurring the fuck out of a moon picture until no detail was left then took a photo of his monitor and got the exact same moon as the webm.
>>109247683mmhmm
