There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

_sideffect ,

Sorry, but I don’t want to see fake “real” images just because people think it looks good.

jmbreuer ,
@jmbreuer@lemmy.ml avatar

I feel most of this is a slippery slope / negative sum spiral.

See e.g. Liv Boeree’s video on beauty filters.

General_Effort ,

FWIW, The Samsung Boss said:

As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture.

I understand this as talking about a definitive original, as you get with trad analog photography. With a photographic film, you have a thin coat (a film) of a light sensitive substance on top of a strip of plastic. Taking an analog picture means exposing this substance to light. The film is developed, meaning that the substance is chemically altered to no longer be light sensitive. This gives you a physical object that is, by definition, the original. It is the real picture. Anything that happens afterward is manipulation.

An electronic sensor gives you numbers; 1s and 0s that can be copied at will. These numbers are used to control little lights in a display.

As far as I understand him, he is not being philosophical but literal. There is no (physically) real picture, just data.

prole ,

I would consider the negatives to be “the original” over the first photo that was printed using them.

General_Effort ,

I agree. The negatives are the developed film. They were physically present at the scene and were physically altered by the conditions at the scene. Digital photography has nothing quite like it.

NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

Are the raw photos manipulated or are they just the original 1s and 0s unedited?

Not sure if there’s any preprocessing before the processing.

Edit: I’m imagining a digital camera that cryptographicly signs each raw frame before any processing with a timestamp and GPS location. Would be the best you could probably do. Could upload it’s hash to a block chain for proof of existence as well.

Edit: I guess the GPS system would need some sort of ceyptographic handshake with the camera to prove the location was legitimately provided by the satellite as well.

General_Effort ,

Are the raw photos manipulated or are they just the original 1s and 0s unedited?

I think your average camera does not have the option to save RAW files. It seems somewhat common even outside professional equipment, though.

Could upload it’s hash

Yes, exactly. However, this would only prove that the image (and metadata like GPS coordinates) existed at that particular point in time. That would add a lot of credibility to, say, dashcam footage after a collision. It’s curious that misinformation has become a major issue in the public consciousness, at a time when we have far better means of credibly documenting facts, than ever before.

But it would do little to add weight to images from, say, war zones. Knowing that a particular image or video existed at a particular point in time would rarely allow the conclusion if it was real or misinformation. In some cases, one may be able to cross-references with independent, trustworthy sources, like reporters from neutral countries or satellite imagery.

Creating a tamper-proof camera is a fool’s errand. The best you can do is tamper-resistant. That may be enough if the camera can be checked by a trustworthy organization and does not leave its control for long. But in such a scenario you would rarely need that, and it’s not the usual scenario. The price would be very high. Fakes that do pass muster will be given more credibility.

Kazumara ,

the original 1s and 0s

I think your issue starts there, you already have to decide how to build your sensor:

  • If it’s a CMOS sensor how strong do the MOSFETs amplify? That should affect brightness and probably noise.
  • How quickly do you vertically shift the data rows? The slower the stronger the rolling shutter effect will be.
  • What are the thresholds in your ADC? Affects the brightness curve.
  • How do you layout the color filter grid? Will you put in twice as many green sensors compared to blue or red as usual? This should affect the color balance.
  • How many pixels will you use in the first place? If there is many each will be more noisy, but spacial resolution should be better.

All of these choices will lead to different original 1s and 0s, even before any post-processing.

BeatTakeshi ,
@BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world avatar

They do have a point when they say AI is here to stay, and what they propose (A ‘watermark’ in the metadata for AI edited content) is at least a way forward. There should be also some electronic seal/signature for this to be effective though (md5?) , metadata so far is easy to tweak

taanegl ,

There’s no such thing as a real CEO… they’re just target practice what got up and walked.

pinkdrunkenelephants ,

So, I’m just going to not buy their garbage.

OutrageousUmpire ,

edits made using this generative AI tech will result in a watermark and metadata changes

The metadata is easy to erase. It’s only a matter of time until we start seeing some open source projects come out that can remove the watermarking the AI players are starting to try.

Siegfried ,

Im 14 and this is deep

General_Effort ,

There are certainly purposes for which one wants as much of the raw sensor readings as possible. Other than science, evidence for legal proceedings is the only thing that comes to mind, though.

I’m more disturbed by the naive views so many people have of photographic evidence. Can you think of any historical photograph that proves anything?

Really famous in the US: The marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima. It was staged for the cameras, of course. What does it prove?

A more momentous occasion is illustrated by a photograph of Red Army soldiers raising the soviet flag over the Reichstag. The rubble of Berlin in the background gives it more evidentiary value, but it is manipulated. It was not only staged but actually doctored. Smoke was added in the background and an extra watch on a soldier’s arm (evidence of robbery) removed.

Closer to now: As you are aware, anti-American operatives are trying to destroy the constitutional order of the republic. After the last election, they claimed to have video evidence of fraud during ballot counting. On one short snippet of video, one sees a woman talking to some people and then, after they leave, pull a box out from under a table. It’s quite inconspicuous, but these bad actors invented a story around this video snippet, in which a “suitcase” full of fraudulent ballots is taken out of hiding after observers leave.

As psychologists know, people do not think in strictly rational terms. We do not take in facts and draw logical conclusion. Professional manipulators, such as advertisers, know that we tend to think in “narratives”. If a story is compelling, we like to twist neutral snippets of fact into evidence. We see what we believe.

SocialMediaRefugee ,

The situations that drive me nuts are the conspiracy idiots who zoom in super hard on some heavily compressed image they pulled off of the web. They then proceed to claim that compression artifacts, optical flares, noise, etc are evidence of whatever crap they are pushing.

Taking things out of context is another issue. It has become painfully common online. I would see it all the time when pushing the “all police are bad!” narrative. They will deliberately edit out the violence that triggered the arrest then make it look like the arrest was unwarranted and overly physical. People will do this with dashcam videos and show road rage but edit out the part where they triggered it with their own aggression.

Silentiea ,

Ok the one hand, yeah. Actions have consequences. On the other hand, no amount of aggressive driving “deserves” to be responded to in the way some do, and no amount of someone doing something dangerous or illegal justifies police using unnecessary force (or else we wouldn’t call it that). Once they’ve been subdued, it should be done.

Kbobabob ,

Can you think of any historical photograph that proves anything?

Any photos from war zones.

Tienanmen Square images.

Moon landing.

To name a few that are IMO.

General_Effort ,

Any photos from war zones.

I gave 2 photos from war zones as examples. What do they prove and how?

Mrkawfee ,

The one in Berlin illustrates the inevitable triumph of Communism over capitalist fascism. Obviously.

Simulation6 ,

The fact the scene was reenacted for the photo does not change all that much. There was a time when most people thought that photos never lie, but that hasn’t been for a long time.

General_Effort ,

The fact the scene was reenacted for the photo does not change all that much.

How do you know that they were reenacted? There are AIs that can produce deepfake texts.

pinkdrunkenelephants ,

The Moon landings? Hello?

General_Effort ,

Seriously? At least clarify that you mean film and not photographs. The effects of lower gravity and not atmosphere take at least some effort to get right. Photos can be staged anywhere.

Have you ever looked at the arguments of moon hoaxers? A lot of them would be good questions, if they were questions. Why can’t you see the stars? Why are there multiple shadows if the sun is supposed to be the only light source? The boot prints are so perfect, as prints only are in wet sand. How can the flag wave without an atmosphere?

You can easily find answers (and more questions). How do you “prove” these answers? How do you go from that to actually turning photos, and even film, into proof positive of the moon landing?

pinkdrunkenelephants ,

Oh my god, this IS just a launchpad for lame conspiracybros 🤦🤦🤦

No, the Moon landings were real and the images/clips you see of it online are real too. If it was faked, the USSR would have screamed to the high heavens about it. Just because you personally haven’t experienced something does not mean it can’t actually happen.

Grow the fuck up and accept reality doesn’t conform to your wishful thinking.

Oh, and the Earth is round, too, and NASA livestreams and photos of the very clearly round Earth are valid too.

Just because the majority of people believe something without thinking about it doesn’t mean it isn’t true or they’re not critical thinkers. People know what’s worthwhile to question and what’s not, and that’s a vital aspect of critical thinking you did not consider because you don’t understand or care about what it is, it’s just an emotional cudgel for you to accuse regular people of bullshit to brainwash and abuse them.

Get off of my feed. Go outside.

Inb4 “Well that’s not his point” – yes it is; he’s just trying to pretend to be reasonable to get his foot in the door. Salesmen do this shit all the time; it’s a common tactic and it’s why we know not to listen to people like him.

General_Effort ,

Well, that’s one straightforward, though rather disturbing, demonstration of what I was talking about. You perceived some snippets of fact and constructed a story around it.

There’s no rational way you can deduce any parts of that story from my posts here. There is nothing that suggests any hidden motives on my part. Occam’s razor would say that you should simply accept my stated motive, as it is a sufficient explanation.

A more linear rational view would find problems with your story. You brought up the moon landing and I responded. This contradicts the idea that I have any particular interest in moon hoax ideas.

A taxonomy of fallacies might identify this as an ad hominem attack or character assassination. You made up lies about me, instead of replying to my arguments. I note that you do not use photos or film to argue for the reality of the moon landings, but refer to the reaction of the Soviet Union. That is something worth thinking about some more. While it is still a narrative, we do glimpse a rational argument.

So, thanks for the example. The way you just conjure a paranoid fantasy tale, instead of engaging rationally, is a very topical demonstration of conspiracy thinking.

prole ,

Just stop. Stop trying to repackage stupid, boring conspiracy bullshit by couching it in faux-philosophy and five dollar words.

Nobody with more than an 8th grade education is falling for the “This sounds smart and I see big words, therefore the person who wrote it must be smarter than me and know what they’re talking about” bit.

General_Effort ,

Can I ask why you feel the need to insult me?

prole ,

I didn’t insult you

General_Effort ,

Ok, if you feel that way. Can you express why you felt that the content of your replies was reasonable?

prole ,

Inb4 “Well that’s not his point” – yes it is; he’s just trying to pretend to be reasonable to get his foot in the door.

Maybe it’s just this particular instance, but lately my Lemmy feed has been full of comments doing exactly this. To the point where it’s ruining my experience. Which seems to be the goal.

prole , (edited )

Really didn’t take long for this site (maybe just this instance?) to turn into another reddit. A cesspool of astroturfing and proud ignorance. Either a complete inability to think critically, or just brain rot, in this case.

It seems like there are just certain people who are dead set on ruining any space on the internet that still exists for people without brain rot. Like they know they’re lowering the overall quality of discussion, and instead of doing better, they lean into it. If they can’t enjoy themselves, then nobody can.

Just one more extension of their childish, petulant demeanor. It’s exactly why over 70 million people voted for a traitorous, demented man child; they see themselves in him.

Pulptastic ,

Do you think that’s air you’re breathing?

Nilz ,

https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/1874bd9e-ca3f-43be-bccd-8c089bf17dae.webp

HeavyRaptor ,

How can the picture be real if your eyes aren’t real?

themeatbridge ,

The universe is a hologram projected from 19 dimensional space to look like it exists in 4 dimensional spacetime.

macarthur_park ,

Settle down, Jayden

hsr ,
@hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Hands Monopoly money to the clerk at a Samsung store

“I’ll take the S24, money is a made up concept anyway”

yesman ,

Ha ha, very clever… money is just made up. But wait, so are borders, sovereignty, language, art, moral and commercial value, the law, logic, authority, human rights, culture, and government.

According to Jacques Lacan, experience itself is a fabrication; the worst thing that can happen to a person is to come into contact with the real.

Hyperreality ,

Relevant:

Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which, because of the compression of perceptions of reality in culture and media, what is generally regarded as real and what is understood as fiction are seamlessly blended together in experiences so that there is no longer any clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins. ... Hyperreality is the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced societies.

tfw_no_toiletpaper ,

Reminds me of jREG’s hyper-self rant

foggy ,

We are truly in a post-truth era

Lie on your resume.

MaxHardwood ,

Photo manipulation has been a thing since photos have been a thing

Akrenion ,

While that is true, it has gotten incredibly easy to alter and spread such photos. We all love interesting ways to take photos with optical illusions and practical effects.

Just like using a gun. It has gotten very easy to inflict disproportional harm compared to just 50 or 100 years ago.

key ,

The only way to stop a bad guy with a camera is a good guy with a camera?

bionicjoey ,

That’s true, but they didn’t used to sell you a camera claiming it would take a picture when in fact it just invented a picture it thought looked similar to the picture you were trying to take.

XeroxCool ,

“and that’s why cutting and pasting a picture of the moon in the backend of the processing done to your shitty attempt to take a shaky picture of the moon without appreciable amounts of optical zoom to share with absolutely no one that cares is totally fine in a Samsung. You could have been doing that with scissors or MS Paint your whole life”

w2tpmf ,

Lie on your resume.

Wait… we weren’t supposed to be doing this for decades already? No one told me.

sab ,

What absolute hogwash.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •