[favaq]

Of course there are details to be enhanced. The moon has craters. The craters are details. If a bad picture of the moon shows blurry craters, making the craters sharp enhances the details of the moon. I don't see where the lie is.

[jbotz]

There could be a new crater by an asteroid that impacted the moon this morning. The crater is big, but not quite big enough to be visible on the blurred "real" image you shot this afternoon. After Samsung's alogrithm enhances the picture it has a level of detail in which the crater /should/ be visible, but since that enhancement is based on older images, the cater remains invisible.

This situation may seem contrived, but it is actually quite common that people disagree about details that were present at a certain event and try to resolve the disagreement by referring to photos. Now photos can nolonger be trusted as arbiters.

[derekp7]

It doesn't even have to be a new crater. The moon wobbles throughout the month so that the part that faces the earth is slightly different through time. Combine with how close the moon is to the earth (which varies) and the amount that is lit up, each day's picture of the moon is fairly unique (at least unique enough over a largish data set).

I would hope that their enhancement software pulls the current timestamp and synthesizes a picture that would be the same as what would be taken from a real high resolution / telescopic image at that time and place.

[x3n0ph3n3]

Because it's not getting those details by looking at the moon right now, it's getting them based on pictures people have previously taken of the moon.

[favaq]

That doesn't make it a lie to say that it "enhances details". You are discontent with the method used.

[filoleg]

One method uses the photo you actually took as the base and enhances from that. The other method used a random old picture of the moon from elsewhere and copypastes details of that onto your photos.

The distinction is significant, as for one of them your photo is the sole source of truth, while for the other it just "inserts" the image from elsewhere into your own photo. The former is expected, but the latter is not.

It's the same as the difference between enhancing a photo of yourself by doing some color/light processing or upscaling/sharpening using AI vs. "enhancing" by getting Brad Pitt's eyes and Angelina Jolie's nose copypasted onto a photo of your own face.

[buffington]

I'd argue that "enhancing details" is not the same as "replacing details".

Modifying the existing pixels captured by the sensor isn't the same as replacing an AI recognized section of the original pixels with other pixels entirely.

I think other interpretations of "enhance" aren't wrong either, since "enhance" is pretty subjective in the first place.

[x3n0ph3n3]

If there were suddenly a new crater on the moon whose photons were reaching the camera, and the AI algorithm decided that it didn't exist (and removed it) because older pictures of the moon didn't include it, I'd contest that the photo wasn't "enhanced."