• vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      A Polaroid is the best representation that can be made of a scene on Polaroid photo film. The lens, the paper, and other factors will always make the representation, to a degree, not real. That was the Samsung exec’s point. It’s a little disingenuous, though. The discussion shouldn’t be about “real” vs “fake” it should be about “faithful” vs “misleading”.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So what’s an eyeball then?

        Our perception of reality isn’t real, it’s just light hitting a lens and being decoded by an organic computer.

        Or to paraphrase the philosopher Jaden Smith: How Can Cameras Be Real If Our Eyes Aren’t Real

        • vortic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Add to that the fact that our brains run software that doesn’t even try to faithfully store images and you have part of the reason that photos are, currently, more reliable than eye witnesses. That may be changing though.

          Our brains are natural intelligence and perform natural learning. The results are even less reliable, predictable, and repeatable than the results provided by artificial intelligence.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The Samsung Boss said:

      As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture.

      A Polaroid photograph is a real picture, in the sense that it exists as a single, definitive, physical thing. Whether what it shows is real is a different question, though.