Samsung caught faking Zoom Photos of the moon
- Thread starter mallik
- Start date
You hit the nail on the head! Without the aperture, the sensor can't even see the details. So it is compensating by adding it from a model of the moon that it has access. This is akin to a blind person describing the moon to another. They can't see it, but have heard others describe how it looks like, so they pass off that knowledge as their own.
You have it wrong, more megapixel doesn't mean better quality or "more zoom". It is the lens that is collecting the light form the subject and magnifying it. I can take a better picture through a 640x480 webcam through a telescope, than a 100MP phone with whatever lens it has.
I think you missed this part of the video.
TLDR: If this tech can bring out details in the moon, but not any other blurry object, then it is not "bringing out the details" per se, but adding it to the image, from what it knows the moon should look like.
You're on the right track here. DLSS/FSR needs to be trained with game data first for it to actually work properly. Basically it should know what the output should look like beforehand, so that it can produce it later. If the geography of the moon suddenly changed due to massive seismic activity, Samsung would keep showing the old moon until it received an OTA update for the current.
Wolkswagen probably thought the same when designing their emission test cheat.
Nah the seismic activity would just form another Rick Astley shaped crater that the processing would convert into a new crater like shown in the video.
As far as applying texture is considered I think as much as it is "fake" and used only for marketing, I'd rather have the moon texture added than not if I'm just taking a quick picture
I meant it more as a comparison of horsepower (considering the same horses i.e. pixels and lens, like differing in the amount of "same" CUDA cores).
If you can have the performance of a 4090 using your 650, would you not use it? Even if it means having "fake" frames?
You read that wrong. I said I would flash a fake BIOS to the 650 and sell it to you at the fraction of the 4090's price. Why do you believe you would get 4090 performance from 650 with a firmware mod?
Perhaps the answer to that lies in your belief that software tech has no limits and anything is possible.
Anyhow, your earlier question has been answered by the OP of the reddit post. The S22 is adding moon texture to a blank area of the blurred photo.
Input: [Note the blank square with zero surface detail]
Output:
Close-up: [Note that the square is now filled with texture of the moon. This is not sharpening; there was nothing to sharpen]
So there you have it: Samsung is copy pasting the moon into your photo to make your purchase seem worthwhile and allow you to flex over the iPhone rivals.
The mr.whosetheboss video about this has enough evidence to conclude that the galaxy ai model is adding in detail where there is none, or not enough to improve the photo using existing details.
This would border on the topaz ai based image upscaling, or its ai video optimizer. I would say Samsung's ai goes a step further by referencing moons shots in its database to add texture, something like a photoshop brush does, it overlays the image with an translucent texture.
This would border on the topaz ai based image upscaling, or its ai video optimizer. I would say Samsung's ai goes a step further by referencing moons shots in its database to add texture, something like a photoshop brush does, it overlays the image with an translucent texture.
Never fell for the 100x Zoom crap.
Though I do want a phone camera to do good with astronomy.
My S10+ has never been able to take good photos of the moon no matter what I try.
Wide (or UW) lens can take non-reflective images but the object appear really far.
And the other lens can take closer images but reflective as hell.
Also tried with lower ISO. Either I'm bad with photography or this camera just isn't good enough for moon and night photos.
Though I do want a phone camera to do good with astronomy.
My S10+ has never been able to take good photos of the moon no matter what I try.
Wide (or UW) lens can take non-reflective images but the object appear really far.
And the other lens can take closer images but reflective as hell.
Also tried with lower ISO. Either I'm bad with photography or this camera just isn't good enough for moon and night photos.
Attachments
Last edited:
Widefield is possible, but telephoto is unlikely to happen. A camera is not just the sensor. The lens matters more. This is why DSLRs are verstaile with different lenses for different application. In fact you would get better results with cheap camera + expensive lens than expensive camera + cheap lens. When you zoom in/magnify:
- the light coming from the object gets spread over a larger area, so it becomes much dimmer
- to make it brighter you need to increase aperture of the lens to collect more light
- and to have sharp images, you need high quality, aspherical lens/mirrors which don't produce artifacts like what you see in those pics
- to top all this no sensor can capture the high dynamic range than your eyes see, but some phones have HDR modes that don't look cartoonish
Inspite of all these limitations it is amazing how incredibly useful phone cams are to capture the moment. With the Wide/Ultra Wide lens you can take long exposures with noise reduction. Here's a lightning I captured a few years ago:
alekhkhanna
Level H
All right, MKBHD gets respect. He accepted he was wrong, and of course Samsung is just faking shit.
"It's this computer's interpretation of what it thinks you'd reality to look like". Sums up perfectly.
"It's this computer's interpretation of what it thinks you'd reality to look like". Sums up perfectly.
He first says he was wrong and then he goes on to rethink the meaning of photography? That doesn't sound like much of an apology.
What is a photo?
Moon mode magic makes the media mad
But many more manipulated megapixels have their merit
Is he really trying to gaslight everyone into thinking we need to change our definition of photography?! Making the grass look greener is one thing, but to add grass in the middle of a desert is laughable.
Just goes to prove that people who make money on the internet by promoting products are always in bed with the manufacturers, not the customers who get conned by marketing BS.
If the camera records what it actually sees, it is photography.
If it adds/removes stuff then it is CGI plain and simple. Like an artist's rendering - it doesn't reflect reality, merely shows a concept that it assumes is possible.
Anyhow, enjoy this super detailed video shot by NASA's LRO from orbit around the moon. You get to see the "other side" :
(Yes, I'm a photographer, and an amateur astronomer, so was triggered, how could you tell?)
Ssreek
Level G
That's the whole point of youtube and youtubers. They (almost all of them) are not for "customers" or "viewers".
Their whole endeavour is to make money, and they always work based on inputs by companies.
Things tend to change over time based on what companies wants to sell us and that's what they are doing. They changed so many things and gaslighted people to feel it's okay.
Now it's photography's turn.
They are saying: if you disable scene optimizer, you get the actual picture. Only when it is turned on, you get these fake/modified/AI/XYZ picture.
If this is an optional feature, then it is good for people who want to use such feature. If it's a forced feature, then it's definitely bad.
I am only worried if it will become a norm and the "new default", people too will be manipulated to think this is the right way.
Remember headphone jack? One famous youtuber called people who wanted a headphone jack as "godzillas" and the comment section went hell yeah. Now most people feel headphone jack is bad.
alekhkhanna
Level H
Non sense statement. Most people don't care about a headphone jack since tech has caught up with providing a relatively seamless wireless experience. Most people are not audiophiles, they don't care about FLAC files and the compression with MP3 etc. Most people just want to sit back and enjoy a song without going through much effort. That's where convenience comes in.
Ask Google Assistant to play your fav song and just listen to them wirefree via earbuds. The convenience trumps having to rip CDs and load them on your phone and plug in a wired bud to "enjoy" music.
Humans are build for convenience. Throughout history, every innovation is stemmed in convenience. Whatever is convenient and stable enough is what will survive in the future.
Massive difference between hate vs indifference.
Ssreek
Level G
You seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying and I am not against your ideology regards to this topic.
But first, let's apply your own rule to this scenario.
Most people don't care about traditional photography since tech has caught up with providing an enhanced/processed/tweaked/XYZ experience. Most people are not orthodox photographers, they don't care how much a photo is enhanced/processed/tweaked/XYZ. Most people just want to point and shoot, get good pictures quickly and share them without going through much effort. That's where convenience comes in.
Humans are built for convenience. Throughout history, every innovation is stemmed from convenience. Whatever is convenient and stable enough is what will survive in the future.
(How much of film photography has survived in spite of being superior in a few ways?)
I never talked about ripping CDs and it is not even related to a headphone jack. Let's avoid adding unnecessary topics.
Getting back to the topic. What Samsung and a few other manufacturers are doing is controversial. But if the majority of consumers are okay with it, then manufacturers will continue doing so and bring several advancements to this feature. As long as it stays optional and can be turned off, it's not a big problem. Just satisfy most types of consumers so that you can sell big.
alekhkhanna
Level H
I wasn't even replying to your overall comment, just the "headphone jack is " comment. That's a delusional take.
And yeah, even after all the media highlights, Samsung (and soon other manufacturers too) will double down on AI for not just pictures, but other stuff too. Let's see how fast Dalle 2 and Midsummer and others change the photography landscape. Not to forget GPT4 finishing most things for us.
Future looks very different.
How long you kept the shutter open, and was it on a tripod. That is "Interchangeable Lens Camera" grade photography!
Adding textures seems more like adding pebbles and mineral particles instead of grass though, just saying.
Already had a crackup when photoshop became mainstream, wouldn't like another one over what's real and what's not and the entire ethicality over it.
On the other hand if the AI becomes so good it can recognise every scene and do 99% of a professional photographer then more power to the people(coming from a novice/amateur photographer but my expectations are still very different when I use a smartphone{quick snaps to capture the moment} vs a camera{figuring out the entire scene to portray a story} for photography)
Precisely. I mean this is more of a "are modern day photos really photographs?" and depends on how people look at things(Again, no one is right no one is wrong, if everyone could agree we'd be making a new montreal protocol here).
As long as I as a consumer get an option to select my own preference (Albeit RAW or with AI) I'm happy.
Last edited:
Hey, thank you. The shutter was open for 30 secs and my OnePlus 3 was either on a gorillapod knockoff, or supported by my wallet, can't remember now.
That's the thing - a better camera will only increase the quality of the image, but to capture images is a learn-able skill that needs to be developed by the individual. People blindly assume good pics can only be taken on pro level cameras, completely ignoring the photographer's techniques/skills. This pic was taken on a single-camera phone.
The funny thing here is my DSLR was in the bus parked a few hundred metres away. When lightning strikes started all I had on me was my phone so used that to capture.