>>19827
ugh meant for >>19826

>>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

>>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.

>>19831
im just saying people dont need to spend 1500 dollars to take better pictures than they can with their phone

>>19731
Good job

>>19823
Zoom in

>>19748
they won't
all that matters is the selfie camera

>>19797
well to be fair it's unrivalled af

>>19729
and iphones are still using tech from 2014, what's your point?

>>19729
>phone cameras aren't safe from slop
I'd like to be able to turn this off

>>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.

>>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'

>>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.

>>19729
cool

I want my camera lying to me making up details

>>19841
https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/5211.pdf
honestly one of my favorite papers

>>19843
the google phones ISP went straight downhill after the departure of marc levoy..

>>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.

>>19845
if that count as 'averaging', i have no words..
that paper is the exact feature that was included in pixel 3

>>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.

>>19770
Looks like Enzian. You can make Schnaps from it.

>>19849
blurred ai slop is what it looks like

>>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.

>>19822
not what's happening in the webm you posted you nasty rapist streetshitter but whatever

>>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

>>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.

>>19813
mmhmm