'Almost Genius: A Camera That Decides the Best Pic to Take'

[william_burn]

<p><a href="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661952/almost-genius-a-camera-that-decides-the-best-pic-to-take">http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661952/almost-genius-a-camera-that-decides-the-best-pic-to-take</a><br>

Interesting stuff. The thought that occurs to me is on what principles the designer has based his 'aesthetics inference engine'; it's not explained in the article, nor on his own website, but I'd love to know. Perhaps in future one could load custom 'aesthetics inference engines' according to the style of photography, or photographer we'd like to achieve. The Cartier-Bresson AIE might give us a percentage rating on how successfully we've captured a chap jumping into a puddle.<br>

The question I ask is, what aesthetics inference engines would you like to see, and why?</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Based on the video, it looks like the "aesthetics inference engine" is just a rule of thirds algorithm. So, what do you do if you can't get to 100% - give up and skip the shot? Maybe Herr Kupresanin could develop a robot that will take this camera and go out and do all your photography for you.</p>

<p>It's pretty ironic that my browser taskbar displays an "error or page" message on that link...</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Fix it onto the self walking tripod and there is no need for the photographer to go out at all.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> There was software that rated pictures (based on Flickr ratings) back around 2007, and talk of putting it into cameras back then, so as the photographer framed the picture, the camera would tell them how it would rate on Flickr. </p>

[rossb]

<p> Since it will do all the thinking for me maybe it could take itself out to the e-waste bin and jump in. That would be very useful and save me some trouble. Then I would have a bit of extra time for some pancakes and coffee.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I think it says it all right in its motto- The camera that thinks, so you don't have to.</p>

<p>IOW, a camera for stupid people. 8>D</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>If it's automated, it WILL have a shutter lag that renders it useless.<br>

Actually, it might work in an "instructual" mode. Should sell if it has a mode rating "American Idol style "Hunkiness / "Curvyness".</p>

 

[paul_robison1]

<p>I see something like this being used like a light meter or placed in conjunction with a light meter. Something off camera to advise, but I can't imagine how effective it would truly be.<br>

Last year, researchers at the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors put a couple of writers through a computerized program to rate and judge some of their more famous works. The results were a bit off, to say the least. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6913318.ece <br /><br /><br>

As for the AIE I would want, I think a landscape aesthetic would be a doable proposition. In conjunction with a GPS the program could rate the scene from you location or suggest a new one based on the time of day, what season it is, and previous imagery.<br>

It's similar to Photoshop CS5's content-aware fill discussions I've read. Does the technology destroy the aesthetic or make it easier to do the "professional work"?</p>

[peterq]

<p>Effective or not, tools like that will kill creativity. No problem if the photog isn't creative at all.</p>

<p>BTW, if there were standard criteria for "the best", we'd have no more competitions and juries......</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Thats Hilarious!<br>

Its a bit late for April 1st isn't It!</p>