News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Samsung “space zoom” moon shots are fake, and here is the proof. Parent comment

Re:Samsung “space zoom” moon shots are fake, and here is the... by Atheros on Saturday March 11, 2023 @06:35PM (#35113945)
The level of BS in this thread perfectly resembles the BS in religious-level audiophile discussions. A mixture of provably correct and provably incorrect statements all mixed together with common words used in uncommon ways.

> But yes, there is information lost. But some data can still be approximated and/or inferred.

The perfect summary.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Samsung “space zoom” moon shots are fake, and here is the... by brirec on Saturday March 11, 2023 @08:33PM (#35115308)
So Sydney is an audiophile? Got it!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Samsung “space zoom” moon shots are fake, and here is the... by godelski on Sunday March 12, 2023 @12:45AM (#35117104)
Not all information is equally important though. Most people can't tell flac from a high quality lossy compression. If you cut off everything above 19khz and below 70hz you've lost information but not important information. The same analogy holds true about imagery. Which information is lost is important which is why I discuss clipping different levels and masking to make a stronger case. I'm just saying I don't think we can conclude an answer from this experiment, not that their claim is wrong. I want to be clear about that.
[ Parent | on HN ]