Some thoughts on AI processing and M43.....

[Angus Gibbins]

think not, Angus. After 40+ years as both a participant and observer, I have very healthy skepticism about these claims

With respect you're afraid of cloud computing and upgrading your computer to Windows 10. You can't expect technology to move ahead if you don't move with it.

 

[John King]

With respect you're afraid of cloud computing and upgrading your computer to Windows 10. You can't expect technology to move ahead if you don't move with it.

I'm not "afraid" of anything, Angus. I have good reasons for everything I do. This is an argumentum ad hominem, not a rational examination of the facts, or the other matters raised (engineering, legal, ethical 'issues').

 

[bassman]

I think many of the ethical and legal issues related to these things have been discussed, at least in the media I follow. Sadly, the answers haven't really been fleshed out. I happen to think the legal issues are pretty straightforward: if you build/sell a car that is defective, you're responsible for any losses caused by that defect. No difference between a bad braking system and a bad autonomous driving system. Whether the legal system will actually implement this common sense is separate issue.

The more difficult issue is how one would define "defective". Is an autonomous vehicle defective if it actually performs much better than the average driver, even if it fails occasionally? The car manufacturers will fight hard to limit their liability.

And for the record, I am hardly "afraid" of new technology. I spent my career building it. I just have an experienced view of the challenges inherent in implementing structural changes based on new tech - which leads to caution, especially when lives are at stake.

 

[John King]

@bassman I was also referring to how to program the autonomous vehicle with the ability to selectively break the law when necessary, and how to limit this behaviour.

Almost every driver can do these very complex things without a second thought.

 

[bassman]

@bassman I was also referring to how to program the autonomous vehicle with the ability to selectively break the law when necessary, and how to limit this behaviour.

Almost every driver can do these very complex things without a second thought.

Agree. The edge conditions for AVs (and many other human behaviors) are the toughest. What does it do if a pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk off the curb and not moving (in some states you must stop, but not others)? What if they never move, are you stuck? How about a car inching forward out of a driveway? Can you swerve across a double yellow line to go around a tractor going 5 mph?

 

[piggsy]

Agree. The edge conditions for AVs (and many other human behaviors) are the toughest. What does it do if a pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk off the curb and not moving (in some states you must stop, but not others)? What if they never move, are you stuck? How about a car inching forward out of a driveway? Can you swerve across a double yellow line to go around a tractor going 5 mph?

2020 was supposed to have millions and millions of autonomous driving cars on the roads, with the drivers relaxed or sleeping behind the wheel on their regular drive. Instead you have: "autopilot" modes where you're not allowed to use them in dangerous conditions, dangerous conditions retroactively defined as anything that made the autopilot crash. Manufacturers wondering aloud if it's better to simply redesign all existing roads to eliminate unforeseen circumstances and have the cars drive as if on rails, similar to some other mysterious invention. Ridesharing companies boosting their miles-driven-under-autopilot metrics by simply switching off all the safety protocols and hoping for the best, and shrugging when people get run over.

It's one of those things where it's not simple rosey optimism from the proponents anymore, it's active denial of the fact that it didn't work out.

 

[Bagrphotography]

Regarding the original post - I like what the software has done, but I don't like how it has changed the face shape. The 'edit' has lost the gaunt appearance.

 

[RichardC]

Regarding the original post - I like what the software has done, but I don't like how it has changed the face shape. The 'edit' has lost the gaunt appearance.

I think the edit is stunning - it's very clever stuff.

Ears look like they've been harvested from a cadaver though - but easy enough to fix.

 

[Bagrphotography]

I think the edit is stunning - it's very clever stuff.

Ears look like they've been harvested from a cadaver though - but easy enough to fix.

Ahh.. the ears.. o m g?

I was pointing out that (based on the two images and in my opinion) the chin seems to be wider, the jaw wider and slightly rounder, the eyes have been made rounder, the bottom lobe of the left ear has changed.. (And by the Lobe, I don't mean that 'brit-villian' from Freakazoid )

It is still 'witchcraft and magery' how the software has been able to 'almost fix it' though..

 

[Hannety]

Using faster lens and software seems to be the way to go when shooting in low light situations. I thought about picking up a FF for just low light shooting but for now

Bit late, but i think it worth saying that larger sensors do not have any low light advantage.

The predominant noise source is photon shot noise and that is inversely proportional to the square root of the number of photons hitting the whole sensor. For a given shutter speed the number of photons hitting the sensor depends on the size of the hole in the lens not the size of the sensor.

Now for an FF rather than m43 lens with equivalent field of view and f stop the hole in it (and so the lens) is twice as big and lets in 2 stops more photons. The low light advantage comes from lens size not the sensor size. That said getting towards f 1.0 becomes expensive and impractical which restricts more the size of m43 lenses.

Compared to m43 an FF sensor has 2 stops more dynamic range so shots do get 2 stops more overhead for highlights.