Slashdot Mirror
China's Huawei Caught Faking DSLR Shots as Smartphone Pictures in a Commercial (theverge.com)
Smartphone cameras are better than ever, but sometimes there's just no substitute for a full-sized DSLR. Unfortunately, it seems that Huawei thinks so, too. From a report: A shot in the company's latest commercial for its new Nova 3 smartphone has been revealed by a behind-the-scenes photo to be a DSLR, not the smartphone as the ad alleges. As you can see about halfway through the ad, a bickering couple takes a selfie together apparently to show off how Huawei's AI and camera tech make it so that the woman doesn't need to put on makeup. But a since-deleted Instagram picture posted by Sarah Elshamy (the actress in the scene) reveals that instead of a fun selfie from the Nova 3, the shot in question came from a DSLR, shot by a professional photographer. In fact, the Nova 3 doesn't seem in be in the frame at all.
signed,
The Great Leader
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
You would, if you were expecting a higher quality picture than what the phone actually produces.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I remember when everyone was alleging Microsoft, Sony, and the lot were using high-end, pre-rendered digital graphics in place of gameplay to oversell their consoles.
Are we still doing this?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"We need to add a clause to our marketing contracts which prohibits on-set photography or video by anyone except the contracted entity."
But we'd NEVER put a backdoor in our phones. No no no. So just trust us because we are so above board and truthful.
in other news, dog bites man
There's plenty of fakes around as the marketing peeps aren't always happy with the results and take the "no one will care anyway" approach. Heck I'd almost wager that some of the stills and maybe even a video or two from the Mars missions, Moon landing and Hubble may have been tweaked or re-rendered to give a better appearance.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Wait, so you are telling me that all of those simulated images in commercials are, well, simulated?
Most commercials will state in a disclaimer that images are simulated, but my reading ability for Arabic isn't what it once was (and even then it wasn't very good), so I am not sure if they had a disclaimer in that video or not.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I have a Nova 2i and it's camera quality is VERY good (better than iPhone 7 even)
Yes, but Apple is up to the iPhone 8 (and X) now... both with better cameras.
Cameras keep evolving year to year, especially in mobile, so it's not a surprise some phone makers would crack and attempt to present more of a leap than they had.
No phone camera is anywhere near DSLR (or mirrorless) quality.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nokia was caught in 2012 doing the same, where background reflections showed they had a full commercial camera + lighting rig shooting the supposed cellphone shot: https://www.theverge.com/2012/...
In other news, food does not actually look as good as the picture on the package.
Not saying that I like that, just wondering why start freaking out about it now.
This.
What amazes me is that Huawei didn't just use the camera on the phone. Sure, camera phones are awkward tools for pro shoots, and will never be as good as DSLRs. But they are generally pretty good, and steadily getting better. (Unless, of course, Huawei's camera sucks.)
Bad optics on this whole episode. Figuratively and literally.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So, any particular reason to include CHINA'S Huawei?? I don't recall there being too many of them to cause confusion?
I don't recall reading that an American Apple iPad exploded recently, or that South Korean Samsung had some trouble with exploding phones a couple years back.
...you mean, a company lied about their products? Inconceivable! FTFY
Until we have some Truth in Advertising laws with teeth, it is still buyer beware.
The key difference is that a reputable company only exaggerates vs lies.
With all that said. Showing off your phone with an ultra-high resolution display on TV and Print will not normally show well or express the quality of the product, so they will normally green screen a doctored image to make the display seem sharp and bright on print, your TV or computer.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The pictures weren't even vertical.
Have gnu, will travel.
what surprises me is that everyone else hasn't gotten caught doing this. Modern phones can take great pictures but this seems to likely to be the start of a diesel-gate-esque revelation where even apple ends up saying 'ok ok ok ok...we used a dslr, but the ad looked good, right?'
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Thereâ(TM)s a huge difference in post processing an image to get better results in things like color balance for example than implying that the camera on the phone took the photo when it didnâ(TM)t. If I remember right MS/Nokia got in trouble because photos and video shot âoefrom the Lumia 920â didnâ(TM)t actually come from the phone but from professional cameras.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Microsoft got caught because you could see in the commercial a reflection where a professional video camera rig was used.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Which is why I wait for real world reviews / benchmarks before making a decision.
Please stop drooling while typing your slashdot comments. It drops on your keyboard, shorting it out, and this produces plenty of garbage characters.
what surprises me is that everyone else hasn't gotten caught doing this.
With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.
A few years ago photographer did a fashion shoot with the then-new IPhone 3GS. The pictures looked great, because he had thousands of dollars of lighting equipment helping the camera out.
Also, really good photographers can take great photos with almost any equipment, because it's about the skill, not the equipment.
If I was photographer putting together their ad I wouldn't want to use their shitty phone camera either.
love is just extroverted narcissism
It's digital, but it's not a single lens reflex. Why they felt they needed to drag forward that acronym is unclear. SLR didn't historically mean 'real good camera' in the first place. SLRs were small portable medium-quality cameras. Good film cameras were Hasselblads and other larger format cameras, not cameras designed to shoot little tiny frames on what was originally motion picture film (35 mm).
a few years back, MS did the exact same thing with their surface phones.
aaaaaaa
That photo in ad is so obviously heavily professionally retouched, nobody would see that an think, "Boy, that phone takes great pics!"
This phone is a Data General Nova 3 emulator, right?
So much for the "my phone takes pictures just as good as DSLR" trolls.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.
And Picasso could have made great art with even with crayons on foolscap. Thank goodness he went with oil paint on canvas.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Next thing you know they will be photo shopping those Victoria Secret models.
Which would matter if we were buying the models.
It's a mainland Chinese company.
With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.
And Picasso could have made great art with even with crayons on foolscap. Thank goodness he went with oil paint on canvas.
Thanks for adding "foolscap" to my vocabulary. :)
Had to look it up. I've heard of like, 10 kinds of material for drawing and painting on in my art class that I took, like bristol-board and newsprint and vellum, and learned what "tooth" was with reference to material choice... but I'd never heard of THAT one though.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
So much for the "my phone takes pictures just as good as DSLR" trolls.
Mine does... but that's because I have an iPhone,
As if we needed any more evidence that Apple owners are delusional.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I have an iPhone and an APS-C DSLR (not a high end full frame one), and the iPhone doesnâ(TM)t even come close. Even comparing the photos on the small phone screen that hides the more obvious sensor noise, differences in clarity, etc. Apple do some amazing things in software, but they do not come close to the DSLR in any measure but convenience.
It is called false advertising. Like how the McDonald's burgers look so delicious on picture but is in fact a soggy mess.
In some countries that is illegal. Sadly the law is selective. Which is why I make my burgers at home.
A 4 x 5, 5 x 7, or 8 x 10 sheet film negative is vastly larger than a little frame on a roll of film, whether the camera back is oriented portrait or landscape.