>Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms.
Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.
The device in question was an iPad, the company that made the software (Apple) was not involved, the "expert" was a third party explaining the standard enlargement methods.
If the judge mistrusted the enlargement method, he should have ordered them to display it on another device or software.
Real-time video upscaling is very standard filtering that's not introducing extra hallucinated details. At most, some TVs use ML to tune their sharpening and color rendition, but it can always be disabled. The iPad has never been shown or proven to use those for video playback, and even if it did, the courts should have a standard video player to present details with standard filtering.
The judges non-technical stance on things, isn't borne out of reality and again, any capture time post processing should be completely independently viewed from playback time processing.
>The quality that comes out of phone cameras is remarkable
It's more than that, it's completely mind blowing when you compare it to a DSLR.
In "good" lightning condition, your iphone will give you a picture 75% as good as what you could get with a 4k$ fullframe DSLR kit that's 10" long and weight a few pounds.
the problem is when light is not perfect, that's when the bigger lens/sensor are worth it even for a beginner that doesn't know much about photography. And if you need to edit your pictures, you don't get those extra stops of exposure up or down because the iphone already needed all the dynamic range of the sensor to create the picture you got.
It would be very interesting to see a colab between apple and a DSLR company to get the best of both world. A large FF senor and lens ecosystem like Canon combined with whatever dark magic Apple is doing on their tiny sensor would have massive potential.
> the problem is when light is not perfect, that's when the bigger lens/sensor are worth it even for a beginner that doesn't know much about photography.
I think the opposite is true, from my (amateur) experience. It's much harder to get a good photo in poor light with a dedicated camera if you don't know what you're doing than it is to get a good photo with a smartphone.
In good light, the better sensors shine through, but in poor light (e.g. and overcast day, not talking about some limit of darkness condition) the superior processing and auto-adjustment of a top-end phone will make for much better photos. Again, talking exclusively about amateur photography, not what a master can do.
Snapping good low light photos really comes down to how fast your lens is (smaller f stop number). A lot of kit lens (the ones sold with cameras, even nice cameras), are surprisingly low quality lens, and don't really open up much. My Sony A7-3 came with a kit lens that opens up to F3.5.
This summer I purchased the 24mm GM F1.4 and WOW does it take fantastic night photos. No tripod needed, it lets in enough light that I can use 1/30+ shutter speed. https://i.imgur.com/CcNEUsM.jpg (photo I took recently. 1/40s, 1.4F, 1250 ISO. No photoshop magic, just basic lightroom adjustments)
Also, the iphone opens up to 1.4f, so you're probably not making a fair comparison to your camera (assuming your lens does open up as much)
EDIT: Sony has a 1.2F 50mm lens I really want to get my hands on, but now I am an entrepreneur so my spending days are over for awhile.
f1.4 on a tiny sensor does not equal f1.4 on a FF sensor.... that's why they have to use "AI" to fake the bokeh. Yea a f1.2 might be nice but you would have to be really skilled to get stuff in focus wit that razor thin dof.
Yes and no - even latest iphone 13 pro / nexus 6 cameras will produce shots that are blurry in shadows due to aggressive noise reduction or let some fugly color noise pass through the alghoritms. You just need to open any night photo on bigger computer screen instead of just phone.
You have much much better starting point with a full frame.
Of course if you compare a clueless FF user with clueless phone user, phone can win but thats an unfair comparison. You don't invest often 5k into photo equipment and then be oblivious of what options it gives you. And even if you don't actively try to improve yourself, just using the camera will get you there (somewhere) eventually. Its not a rocket science, just keep doing it. That's not a "master" level, more like experienced beginner.
And even in the case of ignorant users, all cameras these days have auto setting which is actually pretty good and you can take final jpegs from it, ignoring the power of raw edit completely. Counter-intuitively, holding a bigger camera system steady for a good shot is easier commpared to lightweight, awkwardly-shaped phone.
That all being said, I will invest into some top-end phone next year mainly due to its camera power these days and convenience of always having it with you, and sharing kids photos with family instantly. No more always lugging around 2.5 kg of Nikon D750 with 24-120 lens and good bag. I will not make technically better pictures with it, but in my case other aspects outweight this.
And the provenance of which NFT is legitimate and/or original is not on the chain either.
I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
If you publicly state which smart contract is your NFT, then that would be the real one. Similarly someone could claim a physical painting is yours, but you could publicly say it isn't. The blockchain doesn't know anymore than a physical canvas "knows" what is real and what is fake. The blockchain is a tool, the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is.
1) Regardless of if the physical painting is the original or a copy made a talented painter, you can still enjoy how it looks on the wall. The painting doesn't magically disintegrate if you find out the certificate was forged. You also have no option but to buy it (or a replica) if you want to place it own your wall.
With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.
2) Creating a fake painting that looks "original", even to an amateur that doesn't know anything about art, is hard and expensive. Even when the painter isn't trying to pass it as the original one, it can easily cost thousands of dollars to get decent quality replica that looks close to the real thing.
To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
> With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.
I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.
> To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
>I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.
Even a half blind person would tell you the print doesn't look anything like the painting. If you want something that looks close to the really thing, it's difficult to make. There is modern art that would be cheap/easy to replicate (eg. a blank canvas made by artist trying to create a debate about what is art or not) but anything that you are likely to want on your wall will easily cost you >500$ to replicate properly in its original size (they are larger than they look).
>It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
I wrote it poorly, I was referring to the art behind the NFT that you can replicate easily. If I see a very cool picture and want to use it as my wallpaper on my laptop, I don't need to recreate the exact same smart contract with the same wallet key or pay for the NFT, I can just copy the picture in a few clicks. The picture will look the same with or without the NFT
As I stated before, the art is less important than the proof of ownership. The creator says, “This is the contract. There are only this many. All others are fake.” And for whatever reason I like the creator and want to own it. Just like a perfect print simply isn’t the real thing, I don’t want the saved image, I want the real NFT.
And again, you are fully allowed to disagree, I’m trying to explain the mentality of the NFT purchaser and it’s similarity to the physical art world.
That doesn't solve the issue. You have no way of knowing if the art I'm selling as NFT was made by me or if I copied it from the webpage/DeviantArt of an other artist. Being the first to create an NFT of an image doesn't mean you created the image. And if the images are slightly edited to prevent google image searches (or similar technique), people might never know that 3 people are selling the same stolen image.
That’s why I’ll rely on the .eth or wallet address listed by the artist on deviantart. NFT buyers buying from scammers aren’t doing their due diligence to check if it’s legit or not; they could simply contact the artists directly to confirm if the listing is real.. I’ve done just that, contacting the artist directly to make sure.
If you ask “well, how do you know that’s their real deviant profile?”, at that point, it’s not a crypto/NFT problem, but an identity problem. My understanding is that keybase.io was one way to do that, but I never used it so I can’t say much. What if a scammer registered the keybase first before the real artist? Not sure what happens in that case.
it's none of these things because all you buy is an hyperlink. If the art itself was hosted on the blockchain directly (they are not, it would be too expensive), then it would be interesting.
some are. some people care about completely onchain art.
minting a completely image onchain is also not too expensive and can also be passed on to the community, as most relevant NFT collections are minted by the community and not the artist. people stand up their own websites for this, the people minting their own artwork directly on the marketplaces are their own segment and that has remained a race to the bottom with starving artists crowding it.
I don't see how they do it "the expense of the American worker". It's a Chinese company founded in China by a Chinese man and selling worldwide online, it's perfectly normal for them to make their product in China.
They have been doing it since at least 2017. I noticed it on my account with Game of Thrones episode and when I googled it at the time, it was a known issue. They didn't warn you like they do for virus, the files simply wouldn't show up when people opened the shared folder.
I also learned the hard with PUBG that you need to use a separate steam account for these types of multiplayer games.
They refuse to share with you why you got ban or reverse it and they keep the money. I got my refund through Paypal and the warning Steam support gave me hinted that I'd lose my account if I did that a second time.
regarding your edit, IMO they shouldn't be allowed to permaban your account for a bad driver without first warning you that you need to update it. Even if they use a fake reason for it, turning off windows update shouldn't be a bannable offense.
The problem is also that people are using the word "ponzi" to describe every investment they think is bad and/or don't understand. offering high rates doesn't automatically means it's a ponzi. With the definition that some of you are using here, literally every single bank, currency, edge fund and all publicly traded companies would be a ponzi.
I think it's a good rule of thumb to assume that anyone who guarantees returns greater than the historical return of the S&P 500 is a ponzi scheme.
I don't know of a single reputable bank, hedge fund or publicly traded company that does that.
A huge number of places do have high returns from time to time. But any reputable firm points out that past returns do not guarantee future results. No reputable firm guarantees returns that high in the future.
The key is the guarantee.
Anyone who GUARANTEES returns that high in the future is suspect, and therefore must be more transparent than usual in order to clear the bar. The article indicates that Celsius was less transparent than usual in describing exactly how they made their high returns.
Celsius does say "While Celsius strives to maintain stable reward rates over time, any change in circumstances may bring about changes to such rates, and in some events the rates may drop to 0%" deep in their Risk Disclosure.
it also mean having high end plugins and integrating well with other industry-standard tools. That doesn't matter for home/amateurs users because you can't afford these tools anyway, but it does for studios.
Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.