"Huawei lies about Moon Mode" - true news or fake news?

Forums › Android › "Huawei lies about Moon Mode" - true news or fake news?

1 | 2

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2241790 20-May-2019 19:24

Here is a photo I took in complete darkness (outside) except for the light coming through those French doors. Notice the stars on the right - even with light coming from the left. And that's with no zoom at all:

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2241810 20-May-2019 19:51

freitasm:

Here is a photo I took in complete darkness (outside) except for the light coming through those French doors. Notice the stars on the right - even with light coming from the left. And that's with no zoom at all:

Lol that's nuts!

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2242127 21-May-2019 10:32

Seems to be more trouble to fake it than get the actual picture.

Firstly, you have to know that it is actually the moon that's being photographed, and not some other moon-like object. Presumably you can know this from the date, time, location, orientation of the camera. Then you have to calculate the right face of the moon, and the right illumination angles. You need to add in any artifacts nearby or in front like houses, aircraft, clouds, from the actual photo? Then you have to download the prepared image through whatever comms channels are available.

It would be easy to verify...

1. Remove the SIM (don't trust Airplane mode which might Shirley be faked) and go to a location outside WiFi range, and take a photo of the moon.

2. Take a photo of the moon and print it. Two weeks later, take the photo outside, hold it in front of the actual moon, and photograph it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2242213 21-May-2019 11:30

How do these urban legends get started? What possible benefit would Huawei gain from faking moon photos? Shirley there are better ways to test your camera's resolution?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2242217 21-May-2019 11:34

i feel very unsmart now but hey when I posted it, it was all over the internet's tech sites!

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2242251 21-May-2019 11:46

So I'm picking NASA got their hands on an early release version of the P30 in 1969.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2242255 21-May-2019 11:52

I think NASA is thinking Huawei hacked NASA servers to get the moon pic.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2242435 21-May-2019 15:53

freitasm:

Here is a photo I took in complete darkness (outside) except for the light coming through those French doors. Notice the stars on the right - even with light coming from the left. And that's with no zoom at all:

That is quite stunning. Not only the stars but the tv aerial and wall in the background.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2242439 21-May-2019 15:58

amiga500:

That is quite stunning. Not only the stars but the tv aerial and wall in the background.

That aerial is not even ours - it's our neighbour's, over the driveway. Just the angle I took the photo shows it so close to our house.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#2244278 23-May-2019 22:09

Oblivian:

It's no wonder us DLSR users are throwing older bodies in the trash and not investing anymore.

7D + 200mm lens at the end of the road just now.. not even.

If thats the best you can do wit th a 7d and 200mm f1.8 then a phone isnt going to help even if it s replaces the moon for you. ;-p

Is anyone surprised. Its not like RYYB is new, its been used in point and shoots for years. admittedly for sligtly different applicatoins. P30 is all smoke and mirrors, if people dont like it, they should have not bought it, to me was obvious in using the phone its not for photography prints but for web based photos. surely people dont expect more from software post processing in camera?

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#2244285 23-May-2019 22:19

freitasm:

Here is a photo I took in complete darkness (outside) except for the light coming through those French doors. Notice the stars on the right - even with light coming from the left. And that's with no zoom at all:

Lots of yellow and noise and a bliurry tree all to be expected. But what can you expect from a small sensor wit software pushing this ryyb to the limits. It says to hold the camera still for obvious reasons, Im not sure how many images it takes, but would be cool to see the same pic on a gorilla pod, with no lights on.

Again, great photos for the net, imo they need further greens and some red put back in which is not for those that want to just upload pics but who online is going to care?

The other thing, for me, using RYYB is never going to be required. I WANT to see the dark, I want to see what my eyes see. Thats a purist view, somebody else might be into extreme HDR that makes most people puke and RYYB is a new trick to them and enjoy. All good for them I say. Even in an attempt to be purist most add post process that was not there to begin with.

For me its not photography but a part of photography, post processing of a sensor. Whether it sucessfully converts it back to RGGB is up to the users opinion.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#2244289 23-May-2019 22:28

freitasm:

Unless someone comes with evidence, I am calling bullsit. Remember "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

lol I didnt even consider it more real than man landing on the moon. oh ummm, well i didnt believe this anyway.

Oblivian

7297 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2244293 23-May-2019 22:34

Talk about kicking others while they're down

Nevermind it is a crop, low on the horizon and shot across roofs of a suburb from elevated position while windy as hell. I know it was bad, but I don't think it deserved to be told I'm essentially skill-less too.

1 | 2