Top
Best
New

Posted by sajomes 3 days ago

Show HN: iPhone app takes simultaneous images from 2 lenses, fuses into 1 photo(photosynthesis.camera)
292 points | 268 commentspage 2
jagged-chisel 10 hours ago|
Not a fan of “Photosynthesis” on the demo. Sliding between the two, “standard” looks clearer and cleaner.
650REDHAIR 15 hours ago||
Why do i need a subscription for a camera app?
rjh29 2 hours ago||
The real answer: making money on the App Store is extremely difficult. Developers have worked out subscriptions make more money than one-off purchases over time, even if a large % of people will refuse to engage with them.
charcircuit 15 hours ago||
If a user gets value from an app month after month it makes sense for the user to pay for the value month after month.
alistairSH 15 hours ago|||
By that logic, I should be paying Audi and Mazda a subscription for finding utility in the cars that sit in my driveway.

And Nike for the shoes on my feet.

andai 11 hours ago|||
From what I heard they're selling them at a loss and making it back by selling your data.
whynotmaybe 13 hours ago|||
You can rent a car without buying it
backscratches 14 hours ago||||
Shoes and shirts and hats and bars of soap all should have a monthly subscription as well.
charcircuit 12 hours ago||
There are fashion subscriptions. Some people do not value being able to continually rewear clothes and would prefer to constantly having new clothes to show off.
cush 15 hours ago||||
By that logic they should charge per photo
charcircuit 12 hours ago||
That's what film cameras did once upon a time and the business model worked then.
account42 1 hour ago||
No they didn't. In general the camera manufacturer is not the one you paid for film stock.
copper-float 13 hours ago|||
That's absurd. I've gotten value from my toilet plunger for years. Let me start charging you a toilet plunger subscription just for privilege of using it when you please. That's your logic.
charcircuit 13 hours ago||
My logic is that toilet plunger manufacturers will race to the bottom resulting in a subscriptionless plunger being the cheapest one.
libertas_quae_s 2 hours ago||
This is interesting. I'm just curious to know how long will it survive until Apple adds something like that to their software. Do you have a fallback plan for this? But I must say that the idea is quite interesting.
shinycode 2 hours ago|
Apple already does that since last year at least. In many situations if you 4x and put your finger on the 1x you’ll see the picture change. Sometimes massively
libertas_quae_s 9 minutes ago||
Nice, I didn't know that.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago||
Honestly, I assumed the stock phone apps are doing this by default. It would be stupid not to? It's like a low-hanging fruit present ever since phones started having multiple cameras on the back.

(EDIT: though the only real confirmation of this being done that I have is, Samsung's "Camera Assistant" addon has an option to enable "2x zoom" as separate button, and the description there states explicitly it's a synthetic zoom made from combining the main and telephoto camera.)

(EDIT2: come to think of it, for almost any regular mode, if I use my fingers to block two of the three cameras, the image is unchanged, which empirically proves at least Samsung is not doing this - which again makes me wonder, why not? It's an obvious thing to do.)

On that note, I don't understand why there's no widespread, genai-free apps for "super resolution" aka. take a video (or a burst photo shot) of a stationary thing and use it to reconstruct a single photo with much higher detail level.

For videos I can imagine the reason would be that video compression is literally doing the inverse of that (i.e. the information you'd need to reconstruct a higher-resolution image is exactly the one that the compressor throws away for 90% of the frames), so the algorithm and compressor would cancel out. But that doesn't explain why this doesn't seem to exist for burst photos.

dmd 10 hours ago||
I'm so confused. Does the dev not know that this is what iPhones do by default?
crazygringo 14 hours ago||
I'm confused. So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?

Of course the extra detail in the middle is nicer, but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting? Like when you zoom into satellite view on Maps and it's clear that there's a blurry area and a sharp area?

I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image. I can understand why you'd want to snap photos with both lenses simultaneously as save them as separate photos, but I don't understand why you'd combine them.

account42 1 hour ago||
People do add fake depth of field to their photos that essentially has the same effect.
n2d4 14 hours ago|||
> I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image.

An image with the FOV of the wide-angle camera but the quality of the main one in the center? Assuming the border interpolation works well (which tbf is probably hard for close objects), why would anyone not want this?

DonHopkins 13 hours ago|||
>but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting?

Your own eyes work that way, so you tell me.

shmeeed 13 hours ago||
My eyes are also always focused at the center of what I'm seeing, as opposed to a picture that you can pan.
ebbi 14 hours ago||
> So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?

Yeah that looks to be the case. Not sure what use case this solves with that 'limitation'. I don't think photographers would particularly like this.

kndidneid 11 hours ago||
> I don't think photographers would particularly like this.

No we really don’t.

a2fz 1 hour ago||
Woah - Alexandra Palace spotted on the landing page?
PaulHoule 17 hours ago||
Left side and the right side look the same to me except some subtle differences in the color of shadows…. And another waitlist? Nein Danke.
cantalopes 16 hours ago||
I am co fused, 50% of photos look better in standard zoom and 50% of them look better woth photosynthesis. This is like an anti campaign for the app hinting "in the end it doesn't really matter"
sajomes 15 hours ago|
I think this may be due to an issue I've had with loading the full res zoom images on the website, I've been going back and forth trying to balance the loading times and stress on the browser with clarity of the images. Working on a new idea now, so hopefully it'll give better demonstrations soon.
copper-float 15 hours ago|
How can you in good conscience charge a subscription for this? It would be one thing if the app relied on infrastructure, but it's a one and done algorithm that's entirely local on device!

Subscriptions are charged because the developer needs to maintain the upkeep and cost of running the service, but that's not applicable here. It's capable of taking a million photographs fully offline, without any reliance on an online service.

Essentially you're saying your product is so superb that people should pay you indefinitely for the privilege of using it. Even though it costs you nothing to maintain, you somehow need people to perpetually pay you for a local, offline algorithm that you wrote one time. How gross, that's the definition of pointless greed.

Shame on you, honestly. This is exactly what's wrong with modern software nowadays. Just like Adobe and all these other companies, taking advantage of people to milk them dry forever. You'll lease a product, you won't have the right to own anything, and you'll be happy about it.

andai 4 hours ago||
> Essentially you're saying your product is so superb that people should pay you indefinitely for the privilege of using it.

Also, this part sounds like something to aspire to. RuneScape did an alright job :)

andai 11 hours ago||
>It would be one thing if the app relied on infrastructure

Look into value based pricing. It's a mistake to charge based on how much something costs you to produce.

As an example, if I make an SEO tweak that makes a company an extra $10M in profit a year, should I charge for the hour of effort it took? Or should I charge differently?

AlexeyBelov 1 hour ago||
Why is it a mistake? I mean, I know value based pricing is _possible_, but you're saying it's the only way?
More comments...