Google smartphones today have a special feature in their cameras, NightSite, which allows the device to take pictures in the darkest situations and places. The small camera on Google's Pixel 3 is supernatural, capable of detecting things the human eye can not see.
When you spend nights visiting dark places and taking pictures using Night Gate's new phone ($ 800), friends sitting in a candle-lit cafe, for example, seem to be carrying light equipment, dark streets glittering red and green . Midnight shots seem to have been taken at daytime, according to US experts. This feature provides more performance than the intrusive filters offer.
"NightSite" is a major development in the field of telephone photography, an example of the transformation of our images to a huge degree of falsity.
Yes, that's the truth, many do not like their pictures. True, the goal of photography was not only to capture the truth, but modern phones take pictures to unprecedented new heights.
Until now, NightSite is just a mode that works in the dark images taken with Google's camera, not more. Smartphone makers generally boast the beauty and beauty of the images their devices offer, but not their reality. For example, the "Portrait" mode in iPhone handsets to distract the background and focus on facial features and reduce the redness of the eyes. The silphic images taken by popular phones in Asia focus on reducing the size of the head, lightening the eyes and beautifying the skin automatically. Most modern phones also use a technology known as HDR. (HDR) that integrates several footage to make a much nicer version of the truth.
Geoffrey Fowler says he took a picture of the sunset with the iPhone 6 in 2014 and then the iPhone 10R this year. He was stunned by the result. The image of the new iPhone seemed like a painting painted in watercolor.
what is happening? Today's smartphones offer a sort of democratic photography for 2.5 billion people, having taken a brilliant picture requiring special devices with a guidebook.
Today, artificial intelligence and other software developments offer an opportunity to capture beautiful images freely. Yes, as a whole, editing images no longer requires skill in Photoshop. Today, when we put phone cameras in front of beautiful landscapes or smiling faces, they rush to use software-specific algorithms that have been trained on what people like to see, to finally give us pictures that fit our tastes.
Your smartphone today has very advanced lenses, so you should consider your camera as an industrial intelligence system designed to make you happy, rather than a reflection of the truth.
Today, taking a picture by phone is much more than simply passing light through a lens to a sensor. These tools are still very important, of course, but they have made great progress over the last decade.
But the improvement in our images is increasingly due to programs, not hardware. "It's overpriced, but it's true," says Mark Levoy, a retired professor of computer science at Stanford University. Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were Levoy students, who are now working on camera equipment projects, including NightSite.
Levoy's work focuses on the fixed-size controls that surround the smartphone. Phones do not carry large lenses (and the sensors required) as conventional cameras, forcing phone makers to find innovative ways to compensate. Here are the techniques that replace optics with programming, such as the digital integration of several shots in a single image.
The new phones from Apple, Samsung and Huawei also use these programs, but Levoy says, "We're betting everything on programming and industrial intelligence," giving Google full freedom to explore new ways to make images.
"Google has risen to a new level in programming," says Nicholas Tatcher, vice president of marketing at Dxomark Image Labs, which specializes in independent camera ratings. (But it remains a question that was enough to help Pixel extract the superiority from Apple and Samsung).
Break the night
With NightSite, Google is maximizing its performance by capturing up to 15 dimmed images and blending them together to brighten faces, providing clear details and satisfying colors in a way that pleases the user. Without flicker, this feature enhances the light in the image industrially.
No one who ever tried to take a dimly lit photograph with a conventional camera would realize that it was difficult to get a clear, non-blurry shot. But with NightSite, and before you press the capture button up, the phone measures your jerk and movement in the scene to determine how many shots to shoot and when to keep the shutter open. When you press the shutter, you are warned of the need to install and shoot for up to 6 seconds.
In the next two or two years, NightSite divides all of its footage into a group of small slides, then blends and blends the best into an ideal image. Finally, Artificial Intelligence and another program analyze the image to select colors and light levels.
But the feature of NightSite has some difficulties in focusing and in scenes that are almost completely lacking in light. So, you have to keep your device stable in the right position to pick up.
But the truth is that most of the images you take during the Google 3 pixel test are fantastic. The camera worked in portraits of him to beautify the skin and increase the severity of the eyes. In the night scenes, the hidden details were illuminated and colored.
But the problem is: how can a computer choose the degrees of light and colors of objects that we encounter in the dark? Should the starlit sky be turned into a dusk?
"We could not see her, we would not know what to look like," Levoy said. There are a lot of aesthetic decisions that we apply in some way, and can be applied differently. Perhaps these phones will finally need a button (what I see) offset by a button (what actually exists).
So, as long as our phones give out the colors and lights we wanted, is this really a photograph? Or is it a work of art run by a computer?
Some proponents of the Safavid doctrine (the fundamentalists of purity in their professional sphere) agree with the second possibility, and Levoy believes that this is always the case with adaptive techniques. What is the meaning of the word "fake"? He asks the latter. Professional photographers have long used Photoshop techniques or dark rooms to make adjustments to images. Prior to that, filmmakers have been manipulating colors to get a certain result. Any talk made in this context can be the result of a love of photography, academic fears, or even the importance of the memories of one third of humanity.
How far will smart phones take away our images of the truth? What will digital programs teach us to see naturally? What parts of the image do we allow the computer to modify? In a snapshot of the White House (without the use of the NightSite feature), it was observed that Pixel 3's flawed pixel camera algorithms eliminated the real geometric details that were seen in the image taken by the iPhone.
The question posed by the camera rating company "Dex or Mark" is: How can we even judge the images that are analyzed by digital software for facelift parameters?
"Manufacturers sometimes exaggerate," says Tachiard. We usually say that it is okay if they do not destroy our information. If we want to be objective, we should look at the camera as a device to capture information. "
To hear another opinion from Kenan Aktuluun, the founder of the annual iPhone Photography Award, Actolone has over the past decade examined nearly a million photos taken by the iPhone and has not seen any major changes.
Aktolo said the line between digital art and photography "becomes very blurry at a certain stage." But generally welcomed the technical improvements that facilitate the process of manufacturing image and visual tools. The attractive factor in photography by smartphone is that it is available to all, that is, the user becomes a one-click camera, and industrial intelligence is a continuous development of this situation.
"As the technical quality of the images improves, emotional communication remains what we are looking for," said Aktolo. The images that get the most attention are not technically ideal, they are the ones that give a glimpse of a person's life or experience. "