Yeesh. I can't be the only person for whom this sentence makes my skin crawl.

Good thing that won't show up in photos!

And I can't be the only person who feels modern life is like perpetually flying through Miyazaki Hayao tentacles and making out the best of it.

Do you mean Junji Ito?

I was thinking in terms of creatures from Nausicaa and Mononoke but ... that works too I guess ... The difference is whether those accepted the beings live or nothing can be done to those who were touched by it, but that could be just a perspective difference.

That might be good for myself, or if I’m honest even my wife, but my daughter looks perfect to me and I only want to see her in reality.

No imaging system reproduces reality. You're always getting a compromised result.

Yeah, even your eyes don't reproduce reality perfectly but at that point it's just semantics. He means he wants to see his daughter the same way through the camera that he sees her through his eyes, in real life, otherwise known to him as "reality".

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow context of the statement to allow us to disregard "reality" as it pertains to quantum wave functions, in favor of something more human. There's a large difference in something that's goal is to capture what the eye sees and something that's goal isn't. It feels like Apple thinks they know what's better for us than we do, which I admit it's perfectly capable of doing in certain scenarios. But, when Apples thoughts do not align or go directly against our wishes it's uncomfortable, it feels like your "reality" is being ripped from your hands in favor of what some giant corporation thinks your reality should be, for any large number of opaque or intentionally obscured reasons.

The amount of post-processing your brain does to make you believe you see far more than you actually do in far higher resolution than you do, whilst combining two 2D views into a pseudo-3D view, is incredible.

That doesn't mean I want a camera to do it. With a bigger sensor I can get a nice crisp image, and that should be the target for what a phone makes.

There's straight-up blank spots in our raw vision, we don't see ~any color at the edges, etc., and that's just the _start_ of what our eyes/brains elide out. Really crazy stuff.

As far as I understand the goal of using ML augmentation in camera phones is to capture what the eye sees. It's to compensate for the limitations of the hardware which on its own is not able to produce a true-to-eye result. You seem to be implying that the goal is to improve the photo to be better than reality but I don't think that's the case.

Right, but it can only guess at what the eye sees when hardware limitations don't allow it to capture enough information. Maybe most of the time it guesses right, but it's still a guess, and it appears sometimes it guesses wrong. Really wrong.

If it's combining information from multiple shots or multiple camera sensors, isn't that more like sensor fusion than "guessing"? I think calling it guessing is an uncharitable interpretation of what's happening.

> You seem to be implying that the goal is to improve the photo to be better than reality but I don't think that's the case.

I think it is, Afterall that's what all the Instagram filters are for, and that's where most photos end up

That's not even remotely close to AI/ML processing, and also is something you have been able to accomplish-- manually or with presets-- in Lightroom for ages.

I mean to illustrate the attitude of a typical user, not technology

Sure, but altering the hue/saturation/lightness of colors is a little different than replacing a bunch of pixels to achieve a "prettier" result.

Yes but the knowledge of how it was created affects how I see it. If it’s just denoising etc it feels different than if I know it’s painted in some other data.