Your phone has really high-tech beer goggles.

[Pkt_Lnt]

Seems there are many who have no sense of humor and don't like to have a little fun with an article about our incredible phone.

A man that I know just came from Golden, Colorado, oh (oh no!)
He smiled because I did not understand
Then he held out some light beer, oh ho
He said it was the best in all the land (and he wasn't joking!)

[Chorus]
And I said
"No, no, no, no, I don't drink it no more
I'm tired of waking up on the floor
No, thank you, please, it only makes me sneeze
And then it makes it hard to find the door"

 

[keaheng]

Shut up. I dont even bother to read the article. I believe what my eyes can see.

 

[jpedrolobao2000]

That's actually true, sometimes it just makes up colors for images, and that's dope, I don't care if it's fake, it comes straight out of the camera app and within 4 seconds I have a better photo that any iPhone can capture. I am gonna edit it anyway so I really don't care what kinda of fake magic Google is applying to pictures, I just love it! Nice article tho

 

[BabelHuber]

Your smartphone photos are totally fake — and you love it

"Night Sight on Google’s Pixel, which shoots pictures in the dark, shows how phone cameras have become faketastic."
"The little camera on this phone has a superpower: It can see things our eyes cannot."
"Night Sight is a super step forward for smartphone photography — and an example of how our photos are becoming, well, super fake.
It’s true — you don’t look like your photos. Photography has never been just about capturing reality, but the latest phones are increasingly taking photos into uncharted territory."
"Your phone has really high-tech beer goggles. Think of your camera less as a reflection of reality and more an AI trying to make you happy. It’s faketastic."

"Google argues that, since all phones are starting to look the same, what matters is what a phone is capable of doing. "

The author of this article is a clueless moron, as you immediately see when looking at the comments. Photography never ever has been a "refelction of reality", it always has been a form of art which paints with light.

Picture processing always has been done, just in a different way. People used darkrooms in the analog era, then came photoshop etc. Pictures taken with a flash light also never reflected reality. Or look at the super 8 videos of the 70ies - do you think colors were this way back then?

Then there is the philosophical question of what "reality" really is: Do you think that what you see is "reality"? Think again. Your eyes process the light, send it to your brain and then the information is interpreted. That's how pwople can have religious "visions".

On top, you neither see infrared nor ultraviolet "colors". A bee sees the world differently that a mammal. A cat sees things differently than a dof than a human. A child sees a different reality than an old man. Who is right, and how do you want to measure this.

As an extreme example, I saw a documentary a few years ago about events in Nazi Germany. Back then, the first color videos could be recorded with extremely expensive equipment. Only a few wealthy people could afford this.

Then look at such a Nazi event in black and white: All you see is grey, it looks threatening. Then see the same event recorded with colors: Suddenly you notice the flowers the flags are decorated with. Lots of uniforms are brown, not gray. The swastika-flags have lots of red. Everything is colorful.
Suddenly the scene doesn't look threatening anymore per default - if you wouldn't know that the Nazis were terrible murderers and criminals, you would interpret the color videos very different.

To sum it up: This article is garbage.