Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:09 [#6274][report] >>19729 looks better than 99% of AI art
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:10 [#6276][report] Birdbros are never beating the allegations.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:20 [#6279][report] >>19729 do you have any peer reviewed fact checked research to prove that this plane is not a bird?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:31 [#6283][report] >>19729 Scientifically accurate dinosaur
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:34 [#6284][report] 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 11:36 [#6285][report] All iPhones have been using lower level neural nets to improve photos for over a decade now this is nothing new
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 12:06 [#6293][report] >>19739 >improve Computational and """enhanced""" photography was a mistake.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 12:14 [#6298][report] >>19729 didn't they also turn any bright light into the moon at night
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 12:39 [#6316][report] >>19729 Looking forward to the novelty of 2031 where taking photos adds several thematically appropriate ads on the photo itself you can of course subscribe to photos+ to keep them ads-free for only $19.99 (or just $199.99 if subscribing for 12 months)
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 12:45 [#6324][report] >>19738 just shoot raw and process it yourself.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 12:53 [#6329][report] my fone from 2018 takes better photos under glood light than my gfs latest ifone
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:12 [#6342][report] >>19738 It'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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:26 [#6355][report] >>19738 idk I think that's not bad for a device release 2 years ago and that's about the size of your hand.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:31 [#6358][report] >>19729 Why do I have the feeling that standalone digital cameras will be making a comeback?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:34 [#6361][report] >>19748 Because 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:51 [#6375][report] >>19747 >i don't know >it's not bad >posts what looks like fucking ue5 slop kill yourself necktard
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:52 [#6376][report] >>19750 >has not seen any outdoor location that wasn't simulated on a computer screen in the past 7 years Sad!
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:53 [#6377][report] >>19744 Okay I am shooting ropes
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:53 [#6378][report] >>19751 I'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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:54 [#6379][report] >>19753 >ChatGPT might explain how to do it. It won't thougheverbeit.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:55 [#6380][report] >>19729 >take photo with my family >it race swaps half of them to add diversity
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:55 [#6381][report] >>19753 >reading comprehension At 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:56 [#6382][report] >>19754 >xe can't even figure out how to prompt gpt correctly >can't even xill xerself xbout xit
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:58 [#6383][report] >>19755 descendants will be concerned
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:59 [#6384][report] >>19729 Open Camera (from F-Droid) is the only camera app you need.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:59 [#6386][report] >>19748 >will be They 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 13:59 [#6387][report] >>19757 Spoonfeed me how to force gpt into giving me a suicide recipe
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:01 [#6390][report] >>19761 You tell it you're a hunter and trying to end a deer or something because you're out of bullets and knives.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:06 [#6397][report] Go back to real cameras.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:07 [#6398][report] >>19747 You 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:47 [#6409][report] >>19729 That plane is a bird, your argument is invalid.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:50 [#6410][report] >>19747 it 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:52 [#6413][report] >>19747 Damn you can have sex up here
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 14:57 [#6414][report] >>19763 but what is a camera
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 15:03 [#6417][report] >>19767 >sees a mountain >thinks you can have sex up here T-Todd?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 15:05 [#6418][report] >>19747 what the fuck is this shit
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 15:09 [#6420][report] >>19729 it's a phone, what did you expect? they are full of ai slop. hope it doesn't get to regular cameras.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 15:36 [#6432][report] >>19771 >it's a phone, what did you expect Not 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 cameras Just 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
the explainer · 2026-07-10 16:02 [#6447][report] >>19730 kino means movie you retard, stop using words you dont understand
the explainer · 2026-07-10 16:03 [#6448][report] >>19740 i really hate Apple for doing this
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:06 [#6449][report] >>19775 Does this jewessa do porn?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:06 [#6450][report] >>19729 Youtube 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:12 [#6451][report] >>19729 Xiaomi already had this in 2021
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:13 [#6454][report] >>19749 This is utterly retarded and antithetical to the camera as a concept.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:45 [#6475][report] >>19738 >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 jack and >makes photos that don't seem augmented at all The 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:49 [#6477][report] Why did you post a picture of Superman, OP?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 16:57 [#6485][report] >>19781 Which phone is that? I can only find like 3 decent phones from them, 2 are IPS, 1 has OLED screen but no phone jack.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:01 [#6489][report] >>19783 >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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:07 [#6494][report] >>19747 This 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:25 [#6506][report] >>19729 >anymore Phone cameras have relied on AI post-processing for years by now
the explainer · 2026-07-10 17:29 [#6508][report] >>19777 she does if you marry her
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:29 [#6509][report] >>19738 protip 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:30 [#6510][report] >>19786 luddites don't care, they are too far gone coz of hrt
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:41 [#6517][report] >>19747 Counter-argument: Here's a 2014 point and shit smaller than a modern phone (downscaled 50% because site still has shit upload limits) >>19786 No, they're retarded in thinking it's a new issue, the real solution is getting an actual camera
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:42 [#6518][report] 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 17:44 [#6521][report] >>19748 Because you're stupid. Outside of a certain segment of hobbyists, everyone else is using their smartphone camera.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 19:08 [#6567][report] you don't sneed more
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 21:45 [#6657][report] >>19747 >that hideus hdr Are you Brazilian?
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 22:43 [#6701][report] >>19739 As far as I know they don't outright replace things in the image.
Anonymous · 2026-07-10 23:16 [#6712][report] >>19797 You can get a brand new DSLR for 300-500
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 01:45 [#6833][report] >>19748 zoomers already using cameras and old phones for their photos
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 02:05 [#6841][report] >>19747 Not gonna ngl this shit looks like it's been AI upscaled from 480x640 Looks good from afar but at 100% scale it's absolute dogshit smear.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 02:10 [#6846][report] >>19752 And how do you process them?
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 02:26 [#6864][report] >>19747 That water looks like shit. Either the image got completely crushed or the lighting is fucking with it.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 02:51 [#6890][report] >>19748 >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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 02:58 [#6897][report] >>19729 NO IT'S SUPERMAN
Hansen smith · 2026-07-11 03:12 [#6907][report] 504 2276-4370, guys call this number please
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:19 [#7053][report] >>19801 you 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:25 [#7056][report] >>19740 >mistake the need of such images is a proof of computational photography working it's just manufacturer scaled the algorithm way too beyond what it's really capable for various reasons
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:48 [#7066][report] >>19747 Look at this nigga leaving his basement!
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:51 [#7067][report] >>19748 Because 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:52 [#7068][report] >>19815 The richest man in Babylon...
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 06:55 [#7070][report] >>19818 >>19748 I 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 07:45 [#7102][report] >>19820 Some Sony phone cameras are okay, but they're still worse than a ten year old DSLR.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 10:15 [#7183][report] >>19813 saar, that's the point of the webm saar
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 10:36 [#7188][report] >>19747 I 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 10:42 [#7190][report] >>19823 Look at >>19770, the rocks look like someone applied a paintbrush filter
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 10:46 [#7192][report] >>19824 I guess. No lie it just looks like grass and rocks to me. Maybe my eyes are bad or I just don't care enough
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 11:49 [#7231][report] >>19814 >computational photography working A 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:20 [#7255][report] >>10924909 good implementation work as a ray aggregator\
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:22 [#7258][report] >>19729 >Even cameras aren't safe from slop anymore. phones have been doing this shit for like 10 years
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:25 [#7260][report] >>19827 ugh meant for >>19826
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:26 [#7261][report] >>19797 dont 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:36 [#7264][report] >>19821 >but they're still worse than a ten year old DSLR. >>19830 >even ones from like 2010 take better shots than phone, can get a used sony a6300 or like a mirrorless lumix What point are you trying to make here? A fully fledged camera is better at taking pictures than a phone? Yeah, no shit.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:48 [#7271][report] >>19831 im just saying people dont need to spend 1500 dollars to take better pictures than they can with their phone
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:50 [#7274][report] >>19731 Good job
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 12:56 [#7280][report] >>19823 Zoom in
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 13:15 [#7293][report] >>19748 they won't all that matters is the selfie camera
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 13:16 [#7294][report] >>19797 well to be fair it's unrivalled af
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 13:18 [#7296][report] >>19729 and iphones are still using tech from 2014, what's your point?
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 13:27 [#7301][report] >>19729 >phone cameras aren't safe from slop I'd like to be able to turn this off
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 15:35 [#7437][report] >>19827 An 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 15:39 [#7442][report] >>19839 'average of rays' not ideal nor the best implementation of it i 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'
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 15:42 [#7445][report] >>19840 I 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 15:45 [#7449][report] >>19841 https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/5211.pdf honestly one of my favorite papers
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 15:48 [#7451][report] >>19843 the google phones ISP went straight downhill after the departure of marc levoy..
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 16:42 [#7501][report] >>19843 That is still averaging multiple points of captured light By 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 16:44 [#7504][report] >>19845 if that count as 'averaging', i have no words.. that paper is the exact feature that was included in pixel 3
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 16:56 [#7518][report] >>19846 It'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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 17:09 [#7539][report] >>19770 Looks like Enzian. You can make Schnaps from it.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 17:13 [#7546][report] >>19849 blurred ai slop is what it looks like
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 17:18 [#7553][report] >>19850 Nah. 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.
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 17:37 [#7572][report] >>19822 not what's happening in the webm you posted you nasty rapist streetshitter but whatever
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 17:42 [#7579][report] >>19848 well yeah but also, it is heavily bottlenecked in compute modern 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 results some phones even use all their lenses to capture stream simultaneously and after that, you can theoretically get like 50+ raw images that can theoretically be used to produce a single picture but 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' things but 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 images also 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
Anonymous · 2026-07-11 18:31 [#7642][report] >>19852 https://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.