Okay, I see where this is going and I guess as an seperated art that uses a photo as start it is okay. In a photographic sense it is not, its not better than any given smartphone hallucinating depth of field when the mono-aperture lense does not has it.
As someone who has a photography walk every few months to years I draw the hard line in the moment its not deterministic anymore, and if I understand this right..its some kind of machine learning modell interferring the depth by looking at it. The data isnt really there, in short, the depth is hallucinated. Same when you use KI fill to touch up your photos...changing exposure, even in zones, boosting colors from raws, all fine..but the moment you non-deterministicly touch a photo it ceases to be a photo and starts to become an AI image that happens to have a photo as starting point.
That all said, on this very topic, is there a camera that actually captures distance in any meaningful resolution? There are fun ToF sensons and 3d voxel clouds of places, but those are usually not something you can snap in milliseconds.
The selective censorship of faces in the photos but not the depth maps strongly undermines their assertion that they believe they are "detailed enough to become the artwork" and "a new way to approach taking pictures". Ironic, because many of the faces can indeed be resolved in the depth maps. A curious blind spot.
Is it just me or does the depth map also include color/brightness? The vatograph images shown seem to also be mostly about subject recognition, not depth. How accurate are these inferred depth maps?
Lol. The author seems to think that people only deserve privacy when in color. Faces are blocked in the original color image but not in the black-and-white depth image.
Okay, I see where this is going and I guess as an seperated art that uses a photo as start it is okay. In a photographic sense it is not, its not better than any given smartphone hallucinating depth of field when the mono-aperture lense does not has it.
As someone who has a photography walk every few months to years I draw the hard line in the moment its not deterministic anymore, and if I understand this right..its some kind of machine learning modell interferring the depth by looking at it. The data isnt really there, in short, the depth is hallucinated. Same when you use KI fill to touch up your photos...changing exposure, even in zones, boosting colors from raws, all fine..but the moment you non-deterministicly touch a photo it ceases to be a photo and starts to become an AI image that happens to have a photo as starting point.
That all said, on this very topic, is there a camera that actually captures distance in any meaningful resolution? There are fun ToF sensons and 3d voxel clouds of places, but those are usually not something you can snap in milliseconds.
Could this be used to generate 3D models for games and such?
The selective censorship of faces in the photos but not the depth maps strongly undermines their assertion that they believe they are "detailed enough to become the artwork" and "a new way to approach taking pictures". Ironic, because many of the faces can indeed be resolved in the depth maps. A curious blind spot.
I'm big on photography and thought this was a really neat use of what is normally a transient image into the point of the creation.
related discussion from a year ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44183591
More things on there about ways to capture depth maps instead of generating them from a single image
Why is the nearby bicycle same distance as far away building?
Is it just me or does the depth map also include color/brightness? The vatograph images shown seem to also be mostly about subject recognition, not depth. How accurate are these inferred depth maps?
Lol. The author seems to think that people only deserve privacy when in color. Faces are blocked in the original color image but not in the black-and-white depth image.