[bawolff]

> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.

If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters.

The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.

[wtallis]

> If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus,

Bad example. Autofocus makes changes to the light that goes into the camera, not just the data that comes out.

> photoshop or instagram filters

Bad examples. Those both give the user a before-and-after comparison so the user can decide what kind of alterations are reasonable or desirable.

[bawolff]

> Bad example. Autofocus makes changes to the light that goes into the camera, not just the data that comes out.

Arguably so do the AI things (i.e. they take multiple shots at different exposure and composit them).

The point is, we have ceeded manual control of photography to automated systems a long time ago. Most people are happy with that choice, as phone cameras serve a cultural function and are not scientific instruments.

[icehawk]

When a cell phone camera auto-focuses, it's still literally recording what light strikes the cmos chip.

Do you think its recording some other light?

[bawolff]

A) i think that is not true if focus stacking is in use.

B) the light has been modified based on an algorithm, causing the camera to capture different things. Its not just the light as it would be by itself.

In terms of the output of the camera the effect of this is much more significant than the AI stuff being complained about.

[UberFly]

A camera takes a picture of what it sees. What comes next is a different thing all together.

[enriquto]

> A camera takes a picture of what it sees.

All images taken with digital cameras have been filtered by a pipeline of advanced algorithms. Nobody ever looks at "what the camera sees". What kind of savage would look at an image before demosaicing the Bayer pattern? (Except from the people who work in demosaicing, of course.)

[CamperBob2]

What a goofy point to be raised as many times it as it has been in this thread. All of that stuff serves the purpose of more faithfully emulating actual human vision.

[bawolff]

Actual human vision works a lot more like the AI stuff then you think. Human vision is famous for filling in details that aren't there based on what you expect to see.

[CamperBob2]

Oh, certainly, the human visual system is batshit insane. But nobody knows how to model it exactly, so trying to fool it with made-up data is not OK.