Samsung's Moon shot explained: Scene Optimizer plus Super resolution and AI magic
- ?
- Anonymous
- wri
- 17 Mar 2023
DarlingYext, 16 Mar 2023Vivo X70 Pro+, X80 Pro and X90 Pro+ are really good photogr... moreNobody wants to spend more than 400USD buying inferior phone with unknown brands.👍
99% of people buy unknown brand phone because its cheap.
- ?
- Anonymous
- wri
- 17 Mar 2023
Next article headline:
"Image result of your beautiful skinnier face, brighter skin, and acne free taken from your chinese phone are actually NOT your REAL face, it was enhanced by using AI."
😂🙏
- ?
- Anonymous
- wri
- 17 Mar 2023
Looks like some people still living in 2010.👍
Any photo image taken from any phone are being AI-processed these days.
Thats why an ugly person could have beautiful image with skinnier face, brighter skin and acne free👍
Similiar case with the moon shot taken from S23 Ultra, the moon looks beautiful because it was processed with AI.
Someone who wants an image without being AI-processed, could take a photo from RAW camera app.
Want Real photo = Samsung RAW EXPERT app
Want AI enchanced photo = Samsung CAMERA app
Life is very simple. No need to make drama👍
Hate AI technology = hate all brand of smartphone.
- ?
- Anonymous
- vxt
- 17 Mar 2023
Mills, 16 Mar 2023Long story short,
While the shots are not faked, they�... moreHAHA! Quite hilarious. Not a fake image but also not the real one. So...
The world is f'cked up. hahahaha
- ?
- Anonymous
- PG0
- 17 Mar 2023
i just love the thumbnail😅
- ?
- Anonymous
- vGE
- 17 Mar 2023
AutoFocus, 16 Mar 2023Moon shot or other shots every shot in a Smartphone is heav... moreNext thing you will say that a shot of sky at night can magically have stars and planets in it because of course, processing. But is that photo accurate ? No it isn't
A phone camera tries to capture the object as it is, but can't details on it's own because then it's not camera anymore, is photoshop
- ?
- Anonymous
- 3@3
- 17 Mar 2023
i would never buy a smartphone just because it takes good photos of the moon. I mean who cares for moon photos? I've never taken any photo of the moon in my life for any reason.
- T
- Teak
- IJf
- 17 Mar 2023
I have taken amazing photos of the moon from my s 23 ultra. To many people have to much time on their hands
- R
- RayVone
- pf0
- 17 Mar 2023
If you want to take pictures buy an Xperia, if you want to have renderings of what you see so take the others (Xiaomi, Samsung, Iphone...)
- ?
- Anonymous
- gDf
- 16 Mar 2023
cod, 16 Mar 2023S ultra series even without the scene optimizer shoot reall... moreThanks for this post. Yes, already two years ago I wrote that the S21 Ultra's moon photos are fake due to machine learning, but that the actual result wouldn't be much worse because I took a moon photo with a Canon M50 with a 105mm lens at f/16, so the effective lens diameter was similar to the effective lens diameter of the S21 Ultra's periscope and this effective diameter makes it physically possible to capture the Tycho crater of the moon.
But note that the S21 Ultra's periscope can theoretically capture better moon photos than the S23 Ultra. The effective lens diameter of the S21 Ultra is 12.5% larger, this allows for up to 12.5% more "reach" due to diffraction. The S21 Ultra's periscope also has 3% more pixels per angle than the S23 Ultra's periscope.
Also note that the Galaxy S21 uses much more machine learning for the moon than the S21 Ultra. 2 years ago, I noticed in a Youtube video from a reliable Youtuber that the moon photos from the S21 looked nearly identical to the S21 Ultra's moon photos, there were fewer craters, but other structures looked identical, even though the S21 doesn't have a periscope, has far less pixels per angle and a much smaller effective lens diameter.
- ?
- Anonymous
- gN%
- 16 Mar 2023
IpsDisplay, 16 Mar 2023let's call a spade a spade it's fake... Don�... moreIt's a very nice Photoshop but done by AI and the template (actual image) is provided by the user.
- A
- Anonymous
- XSs
- 16 Mar 2023
Anonymous, 16 Mar 2023well its not first time Samsung is misleading its costumers... moreSo as apple. Yet Samsung's was not misleading but Apple everything is surely
- A
- Anonymous
- XSs
- 16 Mar 2023
Anonymous, 16 Mar 2023so are saying 1 inch sensor is a joke to you? or leica is a... moreYeah those 1 inch bs is still specially when can't deliver as per paper. And you're not aware of Leica lens for sure. Iconic yet far from the best. That gimmicky 200mp really smashed the competition.
- ?
- Anonymous
- gDf
- 16 Mar 2023
Nick Tegrataker, 16 Mar 2023I have defended Samsung for this mode in the past because w... more"ML-based super-resolution alone isn't a bad thing - that's what every so-called AI upscaler does (e.g. Adobe's Super Resolution, Gigapixel AI) and they can be definitely useful when you need a large print for your photo. "
It is a bad thing. I tried Gigapixel and it only made photos worse due to fake details and that's obvious: Machine learning super resolution can only add fake details because there is no information about the true details. People who think that such software improves photos, simply don't look accurately or don't care about fake detail. Due to fake details, such soft actually ruins every photo because (if you don't have the original photo) you don't know anymore which details are true (see below the issue with the scanners). What's even worse is that people are sometimes even not aware that they use machine learning super resolution, for example, Adobe's Preserve Details 2.0 does use a neural network, too.
It's dangerous because sharpening halos and moiré are artifacts that can be easily identified as fake details. But machine learning tries its best to make fake details less obvious and it relies on a dataset of photos that were taken from a different object at a different time and at a different place whereas traditional algorithms rely on neighboured pixels of the same photo.
That's why Apple's digital zoom even alters numbers, see m.youtube.com/watch?v=rBILZe1eEcE at 2:00 (number 57 instead of 12). There was a huge scandal due to scanners which altered numbers in documents in the past. See dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning , "The last 8 years of PDF scans of affected devices may not only contain arrors, but also I think they might be of no legal value alltogether, regardless if they are actually proven to contain errors."
So, I think that iPhones would deserve it to get banned due to this issue.
And regarding the moon photo: It is even possible that an airplane is in front of the moon, but machine learning will replace the plane with craters. That's nothing else than a 100% fake.
- ?
- Anonymous
- fI%
- 16 Mar 2023
Not this sh!t again ... Every few years, there will be people questioning about this ...
- N
- Nick Tegrataker
- Xpf
- 16 Mar 2023
I have defended Samsung for this mode in the past because we never knew what was going on under the hood, but since they have just revealed how it really works, here's my thought on this.
ML-based super-resolution alone isn't a bad thing - that's what every so-called AI upscaler does (e.g. Adobe's Super Resolution, Gigapixel AI) and they can be definitely useful when you need a large print for your photo. The issue here is that Samsung's moon mode seems to be trained *solely* based on moon photos to produce what looks like the moon whenever the camera recognises there's a low-resolution, round light source and indiscriminately applies the processing to "invent" the textures of the moon to make sure it looks as close to the sample moon photos as possible. At this point, there's not much point in taking a picture of the moon by yourself since no matter how awfully crappy it is you will be guaranteed that it will be at least just as detailed as the set of images that have been fed to the algorithms during the training process - I mean, they could technically push it harder and reconstruct a high-resolution image of the moon out of 5x5 pixel image out of a blurred circle using this method, so why bother, right?
It's not *entirely* fake as the algorithms still apply processing to the input image to recreate the textures rather than slapping on a sample image and calling it a day. The original training data isn't retained inside the phone, either. But at the same time, it's also not real, and certainly not the moon that you have "taken" with your camera - I don't consider any "photos" of the moon produced this way as actual photos, regardless of which phone brand does so.
- A
- AlexS
- Ggr
- 16 Mar 2023
This just brought a big downgrade in my opinion of GSMArena even more than Samsung.
It is quite shameful because GSMArena is like the police.
Not all processing is equal like not all plastic surgery is equal.
- I
- IpsDisplay
- 4m}
- 16 Mar 2023
let's call a spade a spade it's fake...
Don't bother rationalizing or defend Samsung
- DarlingYext
- 6mM
- 16 Mar 2023
cod, 16 Mar 2023S ultra series even without the scene optimizer shoot reall... moreThey should've just kept it like that. That was impressive, this however is just fake.
Yes, I know you can just turn off this mode, but it honestly shouldn't even exist.
- c
- cod
- 3bm
- 16 Mar 2023
DarlingYext, 16 Mar 2023Yes and they are both right and they both proved it. These ... moreS ultra series even without the scene optimizer shoot really detailed images of the moon, here is video on s21 ultra shooting in pro mode with the 10x zoom camera.
https://www.reddit.com/r/S21Ultra/comments/thk8eg/iss_lunar_transit_watch_very_closely_captured_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button