Its been half a decade already from when I first noticed iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality, had to break out an ILC (DSLR without the SLR) to capture the world more congruently to how I see

s/iPhones/the iPhone Camera.app/

Apps like Halide and Pro Camera have no trouble handing you over control of white balance. I've captured both faint aurora borealis and red/brown hue when sand and dust is brought over to inland Europe by scirocco with great success.

With an unfiltered camera, it looks like I'm making eye contact with you when I'm actually looking directly at my camera, and likewise it looks like I'm staring off to the side when I'm looking directly at your image in my screen.

A camera centered behind my screen might be marginally better in that regard, but it still wouldn't look quite right.

What I'd really like to see is a filter for video conferencing that is aware of the position of your image on my screen, and modifies the angle of my face and eyes to more closely match what you would actually see from that perspective (e.g. it would look like I'm making direct eye contact when I'm looking at/near the position of your eyes on my screen).

You could imagine this working even for multiple users, where I might be paying attention to one participant or another, and each of their views of me would be updated so that the one I'm paying attention to can tell I'm looking directly at them, and the others know I'm not looking directly at them in that moment.

Jokes aside, I think you're absolutely right. Online interactions have dynamic geometry, so mounting a camera behind a screen will just not cut it, unless the entire screen is a camera. Also, some people might prefer projecting/receiving no eye contact at all, at times, in situations. And vice versa.

Philosophical stance here is purely traditionalist, it decides on behalf of people. What people would like to use, that should exist. "Videos are and will" is a strange claim, assuming its claimer has neither control over it nor any sort of affirmation that it is going to be true.

There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen.

Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too.

Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable.

It's generally considered rude or an act of intimidation to maintain eye contact with people in Japan, for example. Not nodding occasionally while someone is talking is also seen as a sign that you're not paying attention. Are we going to modify videos to nod automatically too? Or maybe we can stop trying to fake social interactions and enforcing local customs on the world.

Well I would have expected any court would have stopped accepting audio and video as evidence by now.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-ca...

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en

> Limitations

> “Captured with a camera” only appears if a creator opts to use C2PA technology during filming. If it’s missing, it doesn’t mean the content has modified audio or visuals.

> Note: This feature is separate from our existing altered and synthetic disclosures.

> The metadata that leads to a “Captured with a camera” disclosure is made by a 3rd party (for example, a camera manufacturer). This means there is some risk that someone could take a photo of another screen showing synthetic content. Because the other screen shows an image that has been modified, it wouldn’t be eligible for the “Captured with a camera” disclosure. This issue is called “air-gapping.” Camera manufacturers will continue to develop detection measures to prevent “air-gapping,” but the sophistication of those detection measures may vary in the near term.

https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-tran...

Controversial stance, but for the same reason I reject wearing makeup.

Girls, you are beautiful as you are! No need to fake it! Most guys don't do that either and everybody is perfectly fine with that too.

Isn't it okay to feel good about looking good, sure (i love dressing up and doing my hair for occasions)! but obviously that can turn very problematic very fast. Honestly, I wish I knew where to draw the line in the sand. Is it makeup? piercings? nice clothes? surgery?

Just a parent with two daughters who has more questions than answers.

Messing with hair in our youth is fun and it grows back. No worries.

Modest piercings society does not frown on. . No tattoos and especially none on the face, hands, etc...

We had boys and girls and it went OK. Not too much complaining and when they became adults, we handed them the keys and wished them well and help where and how we can.

Maybe our experiences help with understanding yours.

On closer inspection it turns out it was actually smoothing my hair and boosting the contrast so I looked like I had dyed "highlights", along with airbrushing my cheeks a flat orangey coloured skin tone with a rosy center, as if I were wearing foundation and blusher!

It's optional on discord. Besides, it's conceivable that you might create a similar effect with a nice audio hardware setup

If the problem is that society (in bubble X, Y or Z) teaches us our value is judged solely based on our appearance, then we should address the lessons we teach. I feel it is unproductive to play whac-a-mole with the emergent symptoms of such an underlying problem.

…We may talk all day how bad and unfair that is, but none of that changes the reality for an average person out there.

[0]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-ne...

I interpreted ndndjdjdn's comment as sarcasm. (due to the use of the phrase "next up") That is, I think he was saying that if you take sadcherry's logic to its limit, then people wouldn't shower or would shower less. sadcherry's logic is that people shouldn't wear make-up because it cosmetic is not beneficial to health. Thus I think ndndjdjdn was talking about the fact that people use showers for cosmetic reasons, and believes sadcherry probably doesn't actually want people to shower less, and so should probably rethink his views about make-up.

You then posted your comment, saying that the health benefits of showers justify them even if they do have cosmetic benefits.

I then comment, saying that I shower in a way that is bad for my health because of cosmetic reasons. I wanted to imply that a lot of people shower like this, and therefor the fact that moderate showers might have some health benefits is irrelevant, because the way many/most people shower is actually unhealthy. I probably should have been more explicit about the fact that I thought many/most other people shower in unhealthy ways.

As an aside, I don't actually know of any concrete benefits to health besides making sure open wounds don't get infected. I tried to search the web for other benefits, and the only additional ones I got are exfoliation (which is cosmetic) and relaxation. (but relaxing things aren't generally classified as "healthy") With that in mind, I tend to believe the health benefits of showers are probably pretty over-hyped, (though not non-existent) and more like a cultural fiction to keep people showering than true knowledge.

I'd be interested to hear if you have a different take.

To your aside of health benefits of showers: I also tried to research this, but other than getting rid of contamination (hazardous elements e.g. during construction or demolishing, or just dirt on wounds) I couldn't find any serious claim that washing the skin is beneficial for health (outside of making sure hands are clean before touching food or mucous membranes), I just assumed there should be one.

I take my confident stance on this back...

I'd equate perfuming it over to make-up, not showering..

It's also quite sad that a statement "we should put less make-up on" is immediately drifting into a discussion about not showering. Way to ridicule a viewpoint.

First off, I know this is long. It is long because I am having to deconstruct the way we think about showering and make-up. I do think the deconstruction is interesting, but I wouldn't blame you for deciding not to read this.

Though ndndjdjdn's comment was phrased pretty snarkily, but I do think it is a good point. I'll try to explain why, addressing the first and last points, followed by the middle point:

I grew up on a farm. It can smell "bad", especially right after a rain storm. However, since I lived there my entire childhood, it mostly just smelled different rather than bad. I wasn't bothered by it like visitors were, though if I had to pick, I'd prefer the non-after-rainstorm way it smelled to the after-rainstorm smell.

If everybody stopped showering, then everybody would start smelling "bad". I'm sure people would adapt quickly enough, though they would still probably prefer the smell of people who regularly shower to some extent. Thus people tend towards the "showered" state to be more appealing to other people, even though people would probably get used to it if we all eliminated regular showering from our habits.

Similarly, I have seen both IRL and online where men think women who aren't wearing make-up are sickly or ugly, and that women who are wearing natural make-up aren't actually wearing make-up. If a woman stopped wearing make-up, then men would suddenly find that woman to be less appealing, though men would probably get somewhat used to it if all women stopped using make-up. Thus women are pressured to be in the "make-up" state, even though men would probably get used to it if all women eliminated make-up use from their habits.

I would like to note that the logic of the last two paragraphs is the same. Thus, my rebuttal to your point that the body would stink "uncomfortably" is that it probably wouldn't be uncomfortable if everyone stopped showering.

Now to address the middle point. I don't think there is a meaningful difference between showering and showering + wearing perfume (which I will call "perfumed" from hear on). People being in the "showered" state is considered normal, and from that point of normalcy, being in the "unshowered" state is bad and the "perfumed" state is good. However, if we are trying to figure out the best way for the world to be, I don't think what is currently "normal" should matter at all.

Now let's lay out the states people can be in:

Smell wise, people can be in the "unshowered", "showered", and "perfumed" states. As laid out in the comment you are replying to, "unshowered", or at least not daily showered, is the healthiest of these states.

Sight wise, women can be in the "no make-up" or "make-up" states. As you point out, health wise the "no make-up" state is the healthiest of these states.

Thus, if we are prioritizing health above cosmetic appeal, everybody should be in the "unshowered" and "no make-up" state. As I have argued earlier, everyone would probably get used to this eventually, but there would always be pressure for people to shower and wear make-up. Thus I think it is inconsistent to want people to be in the "showered" and "no make-up" state if you are arguing health is the reason. My personal take is that we should just let people make whatever choices they want based on their own values, and not mine or yours.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I hope you at least found that interesting. If you did read all the way through, I'd be interested to hear your response.

It's exactly those unnatural expectations of looks that are put on women, starting at a really young age, that are the issue here. Not boys, just girls. It skews expectations and boom, everybody feels like they have to do it. It's very sad. I'm not saying don't shower, don't cut or even brush your hair, etc. All fine. But the full-on makeup you see walking through a random city in the morning, geez, what are we doing to ourselves. And what are the guys doing? Nothing close to it, but spend a lot of time justifying it.

Otherwise, it is just another way humans choose to dress their external appearance for their own pleasure, fulfilment and social intentions. It's not as if it's hard to tell when someone is wearing makeup - that is, at least when you're close enough to be able to inspect their imperfections at all.

It seems to me that this idea about makeup being 'fake' stems from heteronormative dating, where a man may feel he is unable to properly assess a woman's beauty (and her attractiveness to him) if her face has been changed in arbitrary ways. But personally, I don't think we should optimize all human encounters for dating efficiency. More broadly, there is no social contract which stipulates you must wield your natural appearance at all times. I think we need not add more social expectations to an already long list.

I said, or intended to convey, that it is a personal preference. It really need not matter to others how a person, be it man or woman, chooses to dress their appearance (though of course there is a line, for example most places would encourage that you wear clothes in public.)

I don't believe that the asymmetry between men and women changes this. There may exist:

- an asymmetry between the beauty standards which are applied to men and women, or;

- an asymmetry between the pressure that men and women experience to enhance their natural appearance, or;

- any other difference of expectation between men and women.

I personally feel many of these expectations are harmful overall. However, this need not invalidate a person's choice to dress their face with makeup, and throwing more expectations (even unpopular ones) into the mix will certainly not alleviate this asymmetry.

edit: perhaps I could make it a little more clear that I have a lot of distaste for the way the world works for women. I agree with you largely and I think it's unfair. I just think there's a very large jump from 'women should not feel the need to wear makeup' to 'women should not wear makeup.'

Fellow women should feel encouraged to reject this pressure.

I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.

She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying.

I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.

Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now?

You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me.

Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.

I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.

Eye contact is a subtle and important dynamic in human interaction (to the point where it has been suggested that we have white sclera, while our closest ape cousins do not, as an adaptation in support of easily detecting eye contact.) In a meeting, that includes third parties seeing who is making eye contact with whom.

The systems being discussed here are too simple to restore this natural dynamic, and it is not clear to me that always-on eye contact correction[1] is free of unintended and undesirable consequences - for example, in some circumstances, it might ramp up the tension in a discussion, or it might help someone who is dissembling.

[1] Even with random look-aways, I suspect - in actual conversation, look-aways are often correlated with what's going on in the discussion.

I don't get many opportunities to express my exasperation with the paradigm of the youtube content creator's thousand video cuts per spoken sentence, but hell, in the same way, I think it's just $#@%ing weird.

If people laugh with their mouths open, wouldn’t a camera placed below the LED display capture the inside of their mouths, and the rest of the time just point straight up their noses?

I think some mobile phones have already done this...where they are able to put a camera behind the pixels.

Critically, the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation.

This is a brilliant way to examine / explain the distinction.

Have you ever looked at a group of friends and thought "ONE OF YOU IS BLINKING"? No. Yet it's quite common to have a photo where at least one person is mid-blink. The 30-year lifespan of that photo includes the milliseconds they were blinking. Is it untrue to have a picture where two people were not blinking and standing side by side? They did in real life, in those same poses, but fractions of a second apart. Is it a failure to capture reality by having a picture of them with their eyes open? Maybe - or maybe the blending of several moments is more true to the original situation than any specific snapshot could be.

> I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time.

That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group.

> Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible.

I agree, but having people be able to actually look at each other is surely part of this.

Isn't a "moment" a very narrow snapshot in time by definition?

Repeating my comment on a sibling ...

Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen.

Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too.

Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable

Everything but your smartphone is big enough that you'd to sprinkle your entire screen area with sensors to get the sense of me looking at you. And, that won't be cheap.

Say my laptop had a sensor dead center and I was in a group chat. Only the person dead center would see me looking to the camera.

This is better done in software.

I agree. This is one of the things that I actively worry about.

What a society! Processed food, plastics in their blood, processed sensor data. Ugh, we have strayed so far from natural interactions.

Philosophically we have abandoned being mindful of where we are, and just being our natural forms instead of being slaves to what some computer is telling you that you should be seeing.

https://icontactcamera.com/