the-pi-guy said:
False. Camera technology is complicated. How you capture light, a lot of modern cameras even use AI to try getting the image to closer match what the person is actually seeing. How these cameras actually automatically focus on the image. There's a ton of processing that goes on for digital cameras. If you think it's as simple as "more light was all that was needed", then I don't know what to tell you. https://thisisghanchi.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-camera-color-science "Color science is how a particular sensor, or brand of sensor, changes the colors it reproduces. Built into the camera’s sensor, color science is essentially an internal LUT, or Look Up Table. It would be fair to ask why camera manufacturers would manipulate the colors coming off of the sensor. Why not just let the sensor capture the entire range of colors, giving everything to the photographer or filmmaker so they can manipulate it in post? Some companies do this. RED cameras were “color neutral” for a long time until moving to a more subjective color space with IPP2. Sony still produces very accurately — some would say sterile — images." "Why Canon, ARRI, and Panasonic cameras don’t produce “accurate” colors has to do with the physiology of color and the history of cinema. When ARRI designed their digital cinema camera (the Alexa), they weren’t trying to create accurate colors but, rather, colors that closely resembled those captured on 35mm film and chemical emulsion. This meant skin tones (where the yellows and reds shifted closer to orange, thereby flattening the skin, hiding color imperfections, and making skin tones) seemed more consistent." "A camera’s color science is built into the capture chain of the camera. Some of the elements of color science are corrective, rather than aesthetic, which may be a result of the maker trying to compensate for tints in the IR filter, Optical Low-Pass Filter, or some other part of the image chain. The first Blackmagic Ursa mini cameras shipped with a noticeable magenta tint in the captured footage, but a subsequent firmware update corrected it." -snip- |
I'm sure there is complexity in camera tech. My point is just that one ingredient to a good photograph is good lighting and it's here where Google's manipulation originates in their Pixel ad: the photos they contrast with their beautiful Pixel pictures are ones with bad lighting.
I find the practice deceptive/manipulative.
Pemalite said:
...Is it truly woke though? They aren't telling you to treat others differently, they aren't even telling you to accept minorities or socially progressive issues... |
Depends on your definition of 'woke'. Like I said earlier, I don't like using the word 'woke'. It's a loaded term.
I just find it obnoxious how Google's Pixel ad contrasts photos with poor lighting vs their Pixel photos with excellent lighting and try to sell their phone/features based on that sleight of hand.
the-pi-guy said: Kind of a side note. I think it's overly easy in political threads to get arguably off topic. If you have a conversation about PlayStation, you might also talk about MS gaming and Nintendo to compare and contrast to Sony, to talk about their approaches to different things. To bolster the conversation about Sony. But it feels like that's a tighter subject matter. But politics is ridiculously broad. What is a woke game pretty naturally becomes a conversation about what does woke mean; we're almost instantly talking about stuff that has nothing to do with games. A lot of these political threads feel like they've gone over a line to no longer being on topic, but I have no idea where the line should be.Â
Does anyone know what this is? It feels kind of strawman fallacy-y, but it feels different to me. Where you exaggerate something to make it seem silly, feels like a strawman fallacy. I've seen people act like being called racist is somehow worse than a death threat. And I've seen people act like doing a regular good deed is "savior" like material. There's this weird hyperbole where you act like something is being treated 100x more seriously than anyone in the world is treating it. Unless this is literally the first commercial you've ever seen, no one is watching that commercial thinking that Google is patting themselves on the back as some kind of savior. There are 5 million commercials that are patting themselves on the back for anything. Nike puts out commercials that make it seem like their shoes make someone an athlete. Plenty of tech companies put out commercials that make it seem like they're making history. |
Yes, advertisers try to build themselves/their product up. Some are honest about their product, others deceptive.
I place Google's Pixel ad in the 'deceptive' category.