Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app - <AUTHOR> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/lens-blur-in-new-google-camera-app.html <comment><USER4> We had an interesting discussion about this a few nights ago at a Photojournalism talk.

In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits.

It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not very representative of what my eyes saw. If I take the photo at f/18 then use an app like the one linked, producing extremely similar results, that's banned. Fascinating what's allowed and what's not.

I find even more interesting is the allowance of changing color photos to B/W, or that almost anything that "came straight off the camera" no matter how far it strays from what your eyes saw.

[1] [http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2007/04/15/A-basic- rule...](http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2007/04/15/A-basic-rule- Newspaper-photos-must-tell-the-truth.html)

<comment><USER5> When you say "digital edits are seriously banned," I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo.

What's not allowed, as you allude to, is retouching a photo.

So does introducing blur after the photo was taken count as retouching, or does it fall into the same category as color correction? It's an interesting question. On the one hand, it has the potential to obscure elements of the picture, which seems like retouching, but on the other hand, you could just as easily achieve the same effect with a DSLR and there would be no outcry.

<comment><USER6> Those permitted edits you mention seem to all preserve the pixel-level integrity of the image. The fact that intentional blurring does not do this seems to be a distinction to me. I think that the fact that the blur layer must be synthesized heuristically indicates that not all of the information of the final image was really captured from the real world.

I suppose that resizing (resampling) an image might be said to not preserve the integrity of the original pixels, but I think it does if you consider the original pixels to be a reflection of the continuous field at the sensor.

Question for professionals -- how are noise reduction, masks (unsharp), etc. treated?

<comment><USER4> >Those permitted edits you mention seem to all preserve the pixel-level integrity of the image.

Curiously, you're allowed to convert color to black and white, which in my opinion is not preserving the pixel-level integrity. An algorithm is making a guess at what level of black to convert a pixel to.

> Question for professionals -- how are noise reduction, masks (unsharp), etc. > treated?

I'm not a pro yet, but my understanding is it's a big no-no.

<comment><USER7> Huh? Noise reduction is not a no no by any means. At least in some newspapers I know.

Also, I have to add that it differs for news reporting versus stuff like interview shots, travel shots etc.

<comment><USER4> > Also, I have to add that it differs for news reporting versus stuff like > interview shots, travel shots etc.

Right, it really depends on if the shot is being used for "news" or if it's just an artistic shot to fill space.

That's why at the start of this whole thread I reference photojournalism.

<comment><USER7> > _That 's why at the start of this whole thread I reference photojournalism._

I saw it, but it's not that clear cut.

What you write, "an artistic shot to fill space" implies to me generic illustration pictures, which the above isn't an example of.

I think the restrictions to editing are mostly contrained for photos about stuff like politics, world affairs, crime etc -- stuff that is presented as 100% dry news.

But the term photojournalism covers other stuff too, right? Isn't, say, a travel article written by a journalist with a photographer photojournalism too? Or the images taken by a photojournalist for a piece on dance culture, the burning man, stuff like that. Or for a sports feature.

<comment><USER4> > But the term photojournalism covers other stuff too, right? Isn't, say, a > travel article written by a journalist with a photographer photojournalism > too? Or the images taken by a photojournalist for a piece on dance culture, > the burning man, stuff like that. Or for a sports feature.

I agree, and as I understand it, anything beyond some basic level/color adjustments and cropping is a no-no in those areas if you want to keep your integrity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Regarding the technology (achieving shallow depth of field through an algorithm), not Google's specific implementation ...

Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR). You can simulate it in Photoshop, but generally it takes a lot of work and the results aren't great. The "shallow depth of field" effect was one of the primary reasons why I bought a DSLR. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, quality of the lens and sensor are important too.) Being able to achieve a passable blur effect, even if it's imperfect, on a cellphone camera is really pretty awesome, considering the convenience factor. And if you wanted to be able to change the focus after you take the picture, you had to get a Lytro light field camera -- again, as expensive as a DSLR, but with a more limited feature set.

Regarding Google's specific implementation ...

I've got a Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom, which hasn't yet gotten the Android 4.4 update, so I can't use the app itself to evaluate the Lens Blur feature, but based on the examples in the blog post, it's pretty good. It's clearly not indistinguishable from optical shallow depth of field, but it's not so bad that it's glaring. That you can adjust the focus after you shoot is icing on the cake, but tremendously delicious icing. The S4 Zoom is a really terrific point-and-shoot that happens to have a phone, so I'm excited to try it out. Even if I can use it in just 50% of the cases where I now lean on my DLSR, it'll save me from having to lug a bulky camera around AND be easier to share over wifi/data.

<comment><USER8> _> Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR_

In 2008, I had no trouble taking shallow-depth-of-field photos with a dirt- cheap Canon A570 pocket camera. For example:

[https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2069/2076688334_aeae12583b_b....](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2069/2076688334_aeae12583b_b.jpg)

<comment><USER9> Your example looks fucking delicious... (currently living abroad and missing double doubles more than ever)

<comment><USER10> animal-style, no less

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Isn't this just a copy of Nokia's Refocus?

[https://refocus.nokia.com/](https://refocus.nokia.com/)

edit - better link: [http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/14/nokia-refocus-camera- app-...](http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/14/nokia-refocus-camera-app-lumia- update/)

<comment><USER12> The method at least is very different. The Google app is doing structure from motion, which essentially uses parallax to get the 3D shape of the scene. From there, you can blur/deblur according to depth. The Nokia app uses focal sweep, i.e. it just takes lots of pictures of the same scene focussed at different depths. I'm not sure what the pros and cons of each approach are.

<comment><USER13> The Nokia app requires a longer exposure time, encompassing multiple shots, which basically means that anything moving is a no-go. The quality of its pictures is theoretically superior, though, because the depth effect comes from the photos themselves, and not a simulation.

Google's version, on the other hand, works with only a single photo, so it's more versatile. It may suffer issues with quality, though (arising from the difficulties in accurately extracting depth values from a 2D image). That has yet to be seen.

<comment><USER14> > Google's version, on the other hand, works with only a single photo, so it's > more versatile.

This doesn't seem to be what everyone else is saying. Most people here are saying it takes multiple shots as you move the camera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I believe the algorithm could be improved by applying the blur to certain areas/depths of the image _without_ including pixels from very distant depths, and instead blurring/feathering edges with an alpha channel over those distant (large depth separation) pixels.

For example, if you look at the left example photo by Rachel Been[1], the hair is blurred together _with the distant tree details_. If instead the algorithm detected the large depth separation there and applied the foreground blur edge against an alpha mask, I believe the results would look a lot more natural.

[1] [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bZJNDZGLS_U/U03bQE2VzKI/AAAAAAAAAR...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bZJNDZGLS_U/U03bQE2VzKI/AAAAAAAAARI/yQwRovcDWRQ/s1600/image3.png)

<comment><USER16> I'd love to see some test images with that (just get a side-by-side with the app and a larger aperture camera).

As I understand what you're proposing, I'm not sure it would actually be closer to what a large-aperture camera would capture. The light field from the farther depth field _should_ be convolving with the light field from the near depth field.

Still, side-by-side would be the best way to view these :) I'll do it later this weekend if I get the chance.

<comment><USER17> Side by side comparison [http://onionpants.s3.amazonaws.com/IMG_0455.jpg](http://onionpants.s3.amazonaws.com/IMG_0455.jpg)

<comment><USER16> Thanks! Great example. Does it look like the large camera is focusing a few inches back from the front of the ball and the Google Camera is sharpest at the center of the ball?

Edit: I was trying to look at the sharpness of features on the ball -- specifically the lettering on the left side.

<comment><USER17> Focus point of the large camera should be the exact center of the image. The center of the ball is a little out of focus as the center of the image is the top left of the ball. User Error :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is the app taking more than one photo? It wasn't clear in the blog post. AFAIU to have any depth perception you need to take more than one photo. Calculate the pupil distance (the distance the phone moved) then match image features between the two or more images. Calculate the amount of movement between the matching features to then calculate the depth.

As described you then map the depth into an alpha transparency and then apply the blurred image with various blur strength over the original image.

Since you're able to apply the blur after the image, it would mean the google camera always takes more than one photo.

Also a Cool feature would be to animate the transition from no blur to DOF blur as a short clip or use the depth perception to apply different effect than just blur, like selective coloring, or other filters.

<comment><USER19> Yes - you have to move the camera upwards as it takes a series of photos. It is not working from a single photo.

<comment><USER20> I just used it, it seems to use the movement to calculate the depth, but the initial image is not blurred or mutated in any way other than how it has calculated the depth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I sure wish you could buy a DSLR that just plugs into your iPhone. I don't want any of that terrible DSLR software -- just the hardware.

I think many devices should become BYOD (bring your own device) soon, including big things like cars.

edit: I don't just want my pictures to be saved on my phone. I'd like the phone to have full control of the camera's features -- so I can use apps (like timelapse, hdr, etc.) directly within the camera.

<comment><USER16> They have large-aperture digital cameras that are similar already: [http://store.sony.com/smartphone-attachable-lens-style- camer...](http://store.sony.com/smartphone-attachable-lens-style-camera- zid27-DSCQX100/B/cat-27-catid-All-Cyber-shot-Cameras)

I'm interested why you'd want DSLR, though, because if it attaches to my phone i'd probably be happy to use the phone screen as the viewfinder and save the depth and weight that would otherwise go to a moving mirror assembly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I did a quick comparison of a full frame slr vs moto x with this lens blur effect. I tried to match the blur amount, but made no other adjustments. Work really well compared to everything else I have seen! [http://onionpants.s3.amazonaws.com/IMG_0455.jpg](http://onionpants.s3.amazonaws.com/IMG_0455.jpg)

<comment><USER22> Humm ... Looks only 'ok-ish' to me ... Though I've done some experiments (no DSLR here) just with people, and it looks good there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is looking at the examples giving anyone else a headache? It's like the software blur falls into some kind of uncanny valley for reality.

<comment><USER24> I agree that it irks me. But I find that irritation hard to justify: Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way. Even saying "Your eye is like a camera" is only partly true. You can't get at the unprocessed image. What you think you see isn't the image on your retina.

So saying that the effect as a result of a wide-open aperture is more truthful than algorithmically blurring the background of a photo seems odd. Both are a photographic artifice that approximates what you think you see when your attention is on one object in your field of view.

The same is true for the effects of focal length. A longer lens _approximates_ , but can never actually reproduce, the effect of the brain trying to make same-sized things look the same size. A shorter focal length does the opposite, and puts more emphasis on foreground objects.

<comment><USER25> I do not understand what you mean by _" Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way."_ If I hold my hand very close and focus on it, the background obviously becomes blurred.

<comment><USER24> Your eye has long-ish depth of field. Your brain also compensates for focus. So you perceive an in-focus area several inches to many feet deep.

With an f1.2 lens, I can put objects just a few millimeters in the foreground and background of a subject out of focus.

Photographers, consciously or otherwise, use a language of optics effects to suggest ways of seeing, but they never work the same way as your vision system, which also lacks the ability to introspectively show you the raw data from your eye. So the saying that "your eye is a camera" is true, but the camera image is not directly accessible to your own mind.

So, somewhat ironically, this faux DoF effect might work more like your eye, putting a whole foreground object in sharp focus, and making the background uniformly "blurry."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So Google basically took what Lytro has been using hardware to achieve, and did it entirely in software. Pretty impressive.

<comment><USER27> The difference is that Lytro actually does it, instead of simulating it.

It'd be fun to play around with the software to see in which cases it breaks (perhaps taking a photo of a framed landscape photo with another landscape behind, for example)

<comment><USER28> Lytro is also "just" simulating it, but with slightly more/different data. They capture a light field but that doesn't magically give them depth values; they have to estimate them using an optimization, and then render the final image using a very similar algorithm.

<comment><USER27> Edit: Whoops: I mis-read the article; 'Lens Blur' uses multiple frames. That lets you get a lot more information.

<comment><USER27> Well, The Lytro will still win on moving subjects where a sequence convolves subject motion with the depth map.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Doesn't look totally convincing, but it's good for a first version.

The real problem with things like this is the effect became cool by virtue of the fact it needed dedicated equipment. Take that away and the desire people will have to apply the effect will be greatly diminished.

</comment><comment><USER30> Wow.. this is missing the _entire_ point on why lens blur occurs. Lens blur in normal photographs is the price you pay because you want to focus sharply on a subject. The reason photos with blur looks "cool" is not because the blur itself but its because the subject is so sharply focused that its details are order of magnitude better. If you take a random photo, calculate depth map somehow, blur our everything but the subject then you are taking away information from the photo without adding information to the subject. The photos would look "odd" to the trained eyes at best. For casual photograph, it may look slightly cool on small screens like phone because of relatively increased perceived focus on subject but it's fooling eyes of casual person. If they want to really do it (i.e. add more details to subject) then they should use multiple frames to increase resolution of the photograph. There is a lot of research being done on that. Subtracting details from background without adding details to subject is like doing an Instagram. It may be cool to teens but professional photographers know it's a bad taste.

<comment><USER31> > Subtracting details from background without adding details to subject ...

Not sure what you mean by this. Blur is only due to focus distances and aperture sizes. Making the depth of field narrower (making the OOF regions more blurry) does not add detail to the areas that are _in_ focus. Usually, it's even the other way around.

Example:

Say we shoot a portrait of a person at 5m with a forest 30m away in the background, at 3 different apertures: f/1.4, f./11 and f/20

At the largest aperture (f/1.4) the background will be completely out of focus and the face of the subject will have sharpness at "80%" of what my lens/sensor combo can do in terms of resolution. The less-than-excellent subject sharpness is because lenses aren't perfect and using the largest aperture will reveal this. Even if you use an expensive professional lens, it will have it's maximum sharpness at some aperture that is smaller than the largest. What does happen in the shallow DOF shot is that we have a form of perceived sharpness (usually referred to as "pop") which is an effect that is simply due to the fact that the subject is so distinct from the background.

At f/11 the subject sharpness is better than at f/4\. It is now probably near 100% of the maximum resolution the sensor/lens combination can deliver. The background is significantly more discernible/focused now. If it was a green blur in the f/1.4 shot is now a forest of very slightly blurred trees.

At f/20 the subject's sharpness is again less (e.g. 90%), this time due to the physical limitation known as diffraction that occurs for very small apertures compared to the wavelength. This shot has completely focused trees in the background.

To put it another way: when you take the f/11 portrait and go to f/1.4 you take away almost ALL of the background information, and SOME of the foreground information, while adding NO new information. The entire shot will be less focused when you do.

<comment><USER32> But there are still advantages. With a larger aperture the sensor/film is receiving more light which means the shutter speed can be increased. If the subject isn't perfectly still this can result in decreased blurriness. It's been a while since my HS photography class but I think that's correct.

<comment><USER31> Yes, my wall of text above applies to static subjects and cameras only.

Whether the freezing of subjects results in more information (detail) or less (without movement info) is subjective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> With these algorithms, will it become feasible to make a driverless car that doesn't need a LIDAR and can run with just a few cameras?

Currently, the cost of LIDARs are prohibitive to make (or even experiment with) a DIY self-driving car.

<comment><USER34> These algorithms can allow you to have a self-driving car with only cameras. But, there would be a lot of problems if you tried to make a camera-only system for consumer vehicle navigation. Vision systems need distinct "features" in images to find and track across frames to allow you to compute distance, speed, etc. If you don't have many features, pure vision approaches won't work. Nighttime operation is a big problem, as is driving on relatively smooth, featureless terrain.

The basic downside is that standard consumer cameras are passive devices. That's why Google uses LIDAR- it's an "active" technology that creates its own features. And driving is an application where the usual computer vision "it works most of the time" is just not good enough. Time of flight cameras are interesting sensors that combines active with passive technology. As this technology matures it might allow for self-driving cars without LIDAR.

<comment><USER33> Thanks for that explanation. I have been thinking of experimenting with automated driving with cameras and got encouraged by things like these: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcm9NpMNi68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcm9NpMNi68) . But yeah, I can understand how ideal conditions are very different from the real world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Impressive feat. Took a few snaps on my Nexus 4 and it seems to work really well given a decent scene.

<comment><USER36> I tried it out as well. Good results, especially from their first public iteration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> A couple of other really cool depth-map implementations:

1) The Seene app (iOS app store, free), which creates a depth map and a pseudo-3d model of an environment from a "sweep" of images similar to the image acquisition in the article

2) Google Maps Photo Tours feature (available in areas where lots of touristy photos are taken). This does basically the same as the above but using crowdsourced images from the public.

IMO the latter is the most impressive depth-mapping feat I've seen: the source images are amateur photography from the general public, so they are randomly oriented (and without any gyroscope orientation data!), and uncalibrated for things like exposure, white balance, etc. Seems pretty amazing that Google have managed to make depth maps from that image set.

</comment><comment><USER38> One of the greatest features is the ability to change your focus point AFTER you shoot. This is huge.

<comment><USER39> Kind of like an all-software Lytro [https://www.lytro.com/](https://www.lytro.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I find it funny that this was one of the "exclusive features" of the HTC One M8 thanks to the double camera, and days after it's release Google is giving the same ability to every Android phones.

I'm sure the HTC implementation works better, but this is still impressive.

<comment><USER41> Well, only Android 4.4.x phones. But coming to other Android version.

<comment><USER42> Where do they state < 4.4 users would ever get it? I only find mentions of 4.4.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The interesting part is not that it can blur a part of the image. The interesting part is that it can generate a depth map automatically from a series of images taken from different points of view, using techniques used in photogrammetry.

</comment><comment><USER44> Well, the Lytro guys are screwed now. They're selling a $400 camera with this feature as the main selling point.

<comment><USER45> Except you don't have to move the Lytro

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is what i got with Moto G Google Camera App [http://i.imgur.com/a6AxO4e.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/a6AxO4e.jpg)

<comment><USER47> Your pic looks better than the ones on Google's blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> This app is now on the Play Store and works with most phones and tablets running Android 4.4 KitKat. Unfortunately it seems to crash on my S3 running CM 11, but your experience may vary.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.GoogleCamera)

</comment><comment><USER49> Isn't the real story here that Google is continuing to break off core pieces of AOSP and offer them directly via the Play Store?

</comment><comment><USER50> Does this pretty much blow Lytro out of the water, and mean that you no longer need dedicated hardware to do this?

<comment><USER51> The Lytro images have a lot more data in them (although probably fewer pixels). You can move around slightly in a Lytro photo because it samples light from all directions. Also, Google's version doesn't seem to use the multiple exposures in the final photo. It only uses them to determine which pixels to blur in the first photo, and uses normal gaussian blur instead of simulating a lens.

<comment><USER52> It does simulate the lens, it says so in the article

<comment><USER51> Oh... well it doesn't do a very good job. The last example has her hair blurred where it should be sharp. That's not very lens-like.

<comment><USER52> Yeah, in the first example too (hair at the bottom). But it's still _much_ better than Gaussian blur...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Lately I've been watching various TV shows that are using green screen/composite effects. At times, I felt there was some kind of weird DOF thing going on that just didn't look right.

Now I know what that is. Computational DOF. Interesting.

Along these lines, wasn't there a camera technology that came out last year that allowed total focus/DOF changes post-image-capture? It looked awesome, but IIRC, the tech was going to be several years until released.

ADD: Here it is. Would love to see this in stereo 4K: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro) The nice thing about this tech is that in stereo, you should be able to eliminate the eyeball-focus strain that drives users crazy.

</comment><comment><USER54> It's interesting that the DoF is calculated in the app. I am wondering if this uses some known coefficients about smartphone cameras to save computation, but in any case I hope this depth mapping becomes available in plugin forms for Photoshop and other users.

As an indie filmmaker, it would save a lot of hassle to be able to shoot at infinity focus all the time and apply bokeh afterwards; of course an algorithmic version would likely never get close to what you can achieve with quality optics, but many situations where image quality is 'good enough' for artistic purposes (eg shooting with a video-capable DSLR) then faster is better.

</comment><comment><USER55> I've created a parallax viewer for lens blur photos. It's an open source web app available at [http://depthy.stamina.pl/](http://depthy.stamina.pl/) . It lets you extract the depthmap, works on chrome with webgl and looks pretty awesome on some photos. There is quite a few things you can do with this kind of images, so feel free to play around with the source code on github [https://github.com/panrafal/depthy](https://github.com/panrafal/depthy)

</comment><comment><USER56> I guess that is exactly the same as Nokias Refocus that is on the Lumia Phones for quite some time: [https://refocus.nokia.com/](https://refocus.nokia.com/)

<comment><USER57> Refocus is awesome and I owe many but not as powerful as this at all - <USER2> takes like 10 photos at different levels of focus, so you're limited to the amount of bokeh that the small phone sensor can produce, i.e you only get a nice blurred background when you're taking a really close up picture of something. The new Google Camera feature lets you take a portrait at a normal distance, and simulate f1.8, which is a lot better than what Refocus can do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'd like to see an example of a evening/night shot using this. I can't imagine the results are anything like the examples here, but would love to be surprised.

Are there more samples somewhere?

<comment><USER52> Next they should introduce an infrared laser for measuring depth like in Xbox, then is will totally work in the dark :)

<comment><USER59> Google Project Tango: [https://www.google.com/atap/projecttango/](https://www.google.com/atap/projecttango/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> On iOS you can customize your DoF with an app called Big Lens.

Normally apps like Instagram and Fotor let you pick one point in the picture or a vertical/horizontal segment and apply focus there while blurring the background. Big Lens is more advanced since it lets you draw with your finger what you'd like to be in focus.

They also include various apertures you can set (as low as f/1.8) as well as some filters -- although I personally find the filters to be overdone but others might find them tasteful.

</comment><comment><USER61> Just installed it. Frankly speaking I loved the new app!

</comment><comment><USER62> Happy for this "invention" but I would wait for this kind of stuff when smartphones will have all their laser sensors for depth measurment, so this calculations doesn't require a sequnce of taken picture, as the main character could move quickly and deform the final picture or the blur effect. But for static photography or selfies looks amazing.

</comment><comment><USER63> I may be wrong because I don't know much about image based algorithms, but this seems to be a pretty successful new approach to achieving this effect. Are there any other existing "lens blur" or depth of field tricks that phone makers or apps are using?

I'd love to see their code open sourced.

<comment><USER64> SynthCam is one, free but not open source. You might be interested in the various bits of lightfield rendering code released by Stanford: [http://lightfield.stanford.edu/](http://lightfield.stanford.edu/)

<comment><USER16> Synthetic aperture-like algorithms are also common at SIGGRAPH if you go through the past two decades.

A quick search didn't unearth any, but there is open source software to do parallax depth inferencing, and you could just apply proportional gaussian blur kernels to each depth segment to get a very similar effect.

<comment><USER65> Gaussian blur looks _very_ different from the blur produced by an aperture. You need a round blur kernel, not one with a bell curve fall-off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> So, is there a way to get the depth map out of the image separately for more post-processing?

Fake DOF is nice, but there are a lot more fun things you can use a depth map for. For example, it seems like ghetto photogrammetry (turning photographs into 3D objects) wouldn't be too far away.

</comment><comment><USER67> This sounds clever but also massively complex for what it does. I don't have anything finished but I can think of a few approaches to this without needing to reconstruct 3d things with clever algorithms... still very neat visually if technically underwhelming

</comment><comment><USER68> Is this related to the point cloud generation feature modern compositing programs use, like Nuke? Example/tutorial video: [http://vimeo.com/61463556](http://vimeo.com/61463556) (skip to 10:27 for magic)

</comment><comment><USER69> Neat effect--I'm definitely interested in trying this app. Would be cool to see them go further and try to turn highlights in the out of focus areas into nice octagons or other shapes caused by the the aperature blades in a real camera.

</comment><comment><USER70> i just noticed i have the update and i tried it out. wow, first try. amazing: [https://plus.google.com/+ScottDraves/posts/W4ozBLTBmKy](https://plus.google.com/+ScottDraves/posts/W4ozBLTBmKy)

</comment><comment><USER71> How is Nokia Refocus similar or different to this? It allows refocusing a part of the image which blurs out the rest.(Not a pro) [https://refocus.nokia.com/](https://refocus.nokia.com/)

<comment><USER72> Nokia Refocus is quite different.

Refocus is a set of photos with different focal lengths, and a look up table.

For each "pixel" (The look up table isn't full resolution) the look up table tells which of the photos has the most variance (i.e., is the most focused) at that point, and the viewer simply switches the photo that's shown.

<comment><USER71> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> It's a cool gimmick that would be useful for Instagram photos of food. But selfies will still be distorted when taken up close with a wide angle lens.

It would be interesting to pair this with Nokia's high megapixel crop-zoom.

</comment><comment><USER74> Isn't it interesting how, by diminishing the overall information content of the image by blurring it, it actually communicates more (in some ways, particularly depth) to the viewer?

<comment><USER75> Well, usually it's for a specific purpose (drawing attention to something) or aesthetic that you use a shallow depth of field. There have been artists in the past that tried to go extreme in the other direction, trying to capture as wide DOF as they could.

This is a good example: [http://gallery.realitydesign.com/dof.jpg](http://gallery.realitydesign.com/dof.jpg)

Both of these are good individually. But what is best depends totally on what exactly you're going for. Stanley Kubrick did very interesting experimentation with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The app is fast on my nexus 5. The lense blur feature is really neat. I've taken some pictures this evening and they have turned out great. Overall a nice improvement.

</comment><comment><USER77> > First, we pick out visual features in the scene and track them over time, > across the series of images.

Does this mean it needs to take multiple shots for this to work?

<comment><USER45> Yes it says so in the previous paragraph

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If nothing else, these improvements make HTC's gimmick of adding the extra lens while giving up OIS seem all the more silly.

</comment><comment><USER78> I'm no photographer, but I was tought this was called bokeh not blur. Blur is more because of motion during open shutter.

<comment><USER79> "Bokeh" is specific to photo characteristics. "blur" is more general but still applies: "a thing that cannot be seen clearly".

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> the accurate depth map creation from 2 photos on a mobile device is impressive. The rest has been done many times before

This is cool, but I am waiting more for RAW images exposed in Android camera API. Will be awesome to do some cutting edge tonemapping on 12bits of dynamic range that the sensor gives, which is currently lost.

</comment><comment><USER81> Shallow depth of field is so overused these days. I much prefer having the entire frame in focus, and let me decides what to focus on. I understand the photographer is trying to emphasize certain parts of the photo, but in the end it feels too limiting. It's analogues to mobile "optimized" websites - <USER3> give me all the content and I'll choose what I want to look at.

</comment><comment><USER82> I wonder what is the exact reason that my country is not included. It is just a fricking camera app.

</comment><comment><USER59> But it can be used only on static subjects because it needs series of frames for depth.

</comment><comment><USER83> If you couple this with instagram does it break the cosmological fabric?

</comment><comment><USER84> Nice! Since they got a depth map, 3D-scanning can be a next step.

</comment><comment><USER85> I don't see this mode. I have a Note 3 from Verizon. Do you?

</comment><comment><USER86> I wish google camera gets ported to iOS. The best alternative for iOS seems to bee the "Big Lens" app, where you have to manually create a mask to specify the focused area.

</comment><comment><USER52> So glad I did the Coursera course on Probabilistic Graphical Models, so I totally have an understanding of how this is done when they mention Markov Random Field...

</comment><comment><USER87> Game changer

</comment><comment><USER88> Got me beat

</comment><comment><USER89> Looks exactly like "shallow" mode of BlessN900 app for Nokia N900 from few years ago.

It's funny to see how most of the "innovations" in mobile world presented today either by Apple or Google was already implemented on open or semi-open platforms like Openmoko or Maemo few years before. Most of them only as experiments, granted, but still shows what the community is capable of on its own when not putting unnecessary restrictions on it.

</comment><comment><USER90> If only they had not confused shallow depth of field with Bokeh (which is not the shallowness of the depth of field, but, rather, how out-of-focus areas are rendered), this writeup would have been much better.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh)

Cool technology, though.

<comment><USER91> Bokeh = shallow depth of field _effects_

The author isn't the one confused.

<comment><USER92> Hi,

I am the author of the Lens Blur blog post and the sentence was indeed wrong as a result of multiple edits. Bokeh and shallow depth of field are indeed two different things. By Bokeh we mean that the blur is synthesized using a disk kernel, e.g. as opposed to a Gaussian Blur. The blog is now fixed.

<comment><USER93> Hey, is there any chance we can download the RAW data alongside the JPG file?

<comment><USER92> You can extract the computed depthmap, all-in-focus image, and focus settings from the XMP data of the jpeg. See

[https://developers.google.com/depthmap- metadata/](https://developers.google.com/depthmap-metadata/)

for the depthmap format.

<comment><USER80> That is awesome! But I think he meant the RAW image that hasn't still been debayered or saved in a lossy 8bit format (jpg)

It made the news last year but I guess hasn't still landed? For post processing, the RAW is so much more useful than a jpg

[http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2707133307/google- android-a...](http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2707133307/google-android-api- camera-raw)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying

<comment><USER2> If there ever was a smoking gun to convince people that corporate power goes unchecked, this is it.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I tell SO that its impractical to be a temp non-mobile developer? - <AUTHOR> SO wants me to move temporarily to Chicago for 6 months...
I do not plan on focusing on any other type of engineering outside of work in that 6-month span.  She thinks I should bite the bullet, and take a web or back-end development position.
My priority is to maintain the level of engineering in mobile development [I'm currently a lead mobile engineer in nyc]. I will be 100% taking a full-time mobile position again after that contract period if I do move...  How do I explain to her even if there are programming options available in her area (that aren't mobile), that it's not the smartest choice to take them and it'll make negotiating tougher if I take a 6-mo hiatus from mobile development?
My biggest fears are taking a huge pay-cut temporarily and taking awhile to get back to that level.  If I do contract around Chicago, how hard would it be to find a $120/hr~ 6-month mobile contract position?  What would be realistic to expect?
I'm in a fairly stable position too right now. <comment><USER2> _My priority is to maintain the level of engineering in mobile development [I 'm currently a lead mobile engineer in nyc]._

If you phrase it that way, then I guess things are pretty simple: your highest priority is your career, not your relationship. Which is of course, perfectly fine -- I know many quite happy, well-adjusted people who, when a romantic partner gets a job offer (or needs to finish grad school, etc -- I have no idea what's drawing her to live in Chicago for 6 months), just kind of shrug and say "Well, we had a good run. But you know, your life's work is your life's work."

Then again, if you were to phrase it like this:

 _My SO is the best thing that ever could have happened to me. She 's literally given me her all -- mentally, physically, and spiritually. And she proves it to me all the way, each and every night. Everytime I look at her, I feel like I've won the lottery... Zuckerberg, Brin, Page, Musk might as well all just be beggars. I couldn't even imagine letting her go._

Then things would be pretty simple, also. One's life work is important and all -- but when you think about, jobs come and go, don't they, and money always comes around, doesn't? But the love of someone (who truly loves you back) can't be weight against any amount money, recognition or praise by strangers. Especially not recognition and praise by some "hot" company that can easily turn around in the space of those same 6 months, pull out everything from beneath you, and basically leave you twisting in the wind.

If so, then I know what I'd chose, in your shoes.

"If you are truly wild at heart, you'll fight for your dreams... Don't turn away from love, Sailor... Don't turn away from love... Don't turn away from love."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_at_Heart_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_at_Heart_\(film\))</comment>


How the Second Law Nearly Fell into a Black Hole - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/68/context/how-black-holes-nearly-ruined-time <comment><USER2> "But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

\- Arthur Eddington

Another great quote:

"A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. _It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown,_ within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts."

\- Albert Einstein

<comment><USER3> I feel like thermodynamics must be true in pretty much any conceivable universe that evolves over time.

<comment><USER4> If you had to simulate such a universe in a computer program, how would you do it? What would it look like?

Perhaps instead of Brownian motion you'd have something more directed. Scientists inhabiting the universe would observe a "force" that brings elements of like kind together into nice orderly structures instead of random soups. It would be as if time ran in reverse. Perhaps instead of a big bang, the initial state would be a flat universe with just the minutest of perturbations in the energy gradient that would gradually evolve into a state of maximum order.

<comment><USER5> Once you take into account the force, you will still have the second law. Or you are just looking at the universe in reverse and once you look at the arrow of time it's all normal again.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Quit job and do a startup - <AUTHOR> Hi Folks,
I am a SDE 2 at Amazon and would like to have my own startup in the near future. I believe a 9 to 5 routine is not for me. I enjoy having a lot of autonomy, moving quickly, taking calculated risks and crushing it at whatever I believe in.
However, at the moment, I don't have any ideas or problems that I would like to work on. My job keeps me pretty occupied and finding time to do side projects or research ideas is pretty difficult.
I am looking for opportunities wherein I can work remotely so that I can sustain myself. On the side, I would like to travel, live life of a digital nomad while I figure out the path ahead. I would like to give myself a year of time to come up with something -- build a prototype, research ideas.etc.
I am currently based in SF and am here on my H1B(will need a visa transfer). I am well versed in java, spring, hibernate, aws technologies, springboot, etc..and can learn new stuff fast and deliver.
If anyone who reads this post would like to get in touch, please email me at: firstname.lastname@example.com
Let's see if we can work something out to our mutual benefit :)
I will also take any advice anyone here has to offer.
Thanks! - Remote User <comment><USER2> I fear that you have only read about the rosy side of being a traveling and being digital nomad. You are unlikely to find problems in unfamiliar territories to solve as your savings dwindle to nothingness.

My advice is to stick with your well paying job and at the same time open your eyes to problems that you can solve or identify startups that can use your skills and at the same time inspire you more than you are at Amazon.

I would assume you commute to and from work - that is time that you could do some reading about non-technical stuff, e.g. social causes, challenges. I assume you have a life outside of work, so talk to non-tech people understand what frustrations they have in their lives, etc. There is no shortage of problems. Sooner or later something will "click for you".

<comment><USER2> Since I wrote the above response, I came across a great article which you might want to read: [https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229037-how-to-come- up-...](https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229037-how-to-come-up-with- great-ideas/abstract)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi! There are a lot of websites where they have remote working jobs like weworkremotely.com, I am sure you can find some good jobs there. I also outlines some other places in this video message I recorded for you: [https://www.useloom.com/share/d046f063c8394730a3663b0f9671b9...](https://www.useloom.com/share/d046f063c8394730a3663b0f9671b920)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi -- Thanks for your video message! How do I get in touch..any email? Can we have a quick chat?</comment></comment>


HP pays $108 million to settle foreign bribery probes - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-poland-hp-idUSBREA380EZ20140409

<comment><USER2> Assuming that they indeed are guilty of this (settling claims such as this isn't an admission of guilt), that would just be a tiny fraction of the net profits they made by doing this.</comment>


Flash video gets dramatically more efficient - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/12/flash-video-gets-dramatically-more-efficient.html

<comment><USER2> It's interesting how Adobe's excuses have been shifting since Apple kicked Flash criticism in to high gear.

A year ago, they were complaining that they needed low-level access to GPU decoding engines in order to make Flash play videos with acceptable CPU load. Apple gave them exactly the API they asked for, and Flash performance on OS X still sucked, especially for people who didn't have one of the supported GPUs.

They've mostly settled now on the excuse being that Flash has to do color- space conversions and compositing on the CPU, though this post adds the extra apologetic twist that they never intended Flash to become the standard way of delivering streaming video over the web.

The compositing excuse strikes me as pure bullshit, because a Flash video that is playing with no non-video elements overlaid and doesn't have input focus still eats up too much CPU, despite the compositing stage being a no-op.

The YUV to RGB conversion is obviously not complicated enough to make much difference to the CPU load, because standalone players that do all the decoding and color space conversions in software easily achieve less than 1/5 the CPU load of Flash, and the actual decoding has got to be at least 70% of that work.

Last spring, we were told that Flash's inefficiencies were partly due to browser plugin APIs being poorly suited to the task. There has been no intervening revolution in such APIs, so that can't be the source of the new improvements enabled by this StageVideo feature.

The only documentation that seems to be available at the moment for StageVideo is a flash video tutorial, and the text in that video uses subpixel rendering with the opposite subpixel ordering from my monitor, so I can't read it without getting a headache. That said, it appears that this StageVideo feature requires the flash object to be modified, so it won't provide any immediate real-world benefits, and it requires the flash designer to code in the fallback rendering path for people who don't have the right kind of GPU.

Meanwhile, OS X still has an API for playing videos that will automatically decide whether to use hardware-accelerated decoding, and an OpenGL-backed vector graphics API that can handle all the compositing needs for Flash. These APIs have broader hardware support than StageVideo.

One gets the feeling that Adobe doesn't want to fix any of the suck, just to move past it.</comment>


Google Glass in 10 years: the view from dystopia - ms-rm http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-in-10-years-the-view-from-dystopia/ <comment><AUTHOR> I assume he wanted the readers to now think negatively about this future. I kind of like it. Plus, that's not just the "Google world". It's the Internet. Do you think you can just unplug from the Internet 10 years from now? Can you do it now? It's only going to get harder, especially for new generations that are born with it.

What does worry me about the future, is governments having _total knowledge_ about every single person, no matter what they are doing, who they are, and what service they are using. Do you really think they will need Google for this? Sure, in a way companies like Facebook and Google are making their jobs a lot easier. But do you think this will matter when they will have quantum computers? They will be able to get signals from a billion actions you've done on the Internet, regardless of what service you used. Gmail and Facebook usage will just be some of the signals.

And what happens when governments have total knowledge about everyone, whether it's legal or not? What happens when the governments can predict with quantum computers the potential of committing every type of crime for every single person? Maybe you have a 0.0000001% to be a terrorist. Maybe a 1% chance to beat someone, and maybe a 5% chance to smoke pot. Do they arrest you now, or do they wait until the quantum computers predict it's 10%?

These discussions about privacy breaches from companies seem like mainly a distraction from the real issues to me. It reminds me of the outrage of gun owners who "want to defend against an oppressive government" and "protect the 2nd amendment", but don't make a sound when the government cancels the 4th, 5th or even the 1st amendment. Or the 6 months outrage of the media over Benghazi, while covering the AP spying story for like 3 days.

Google can't physically harm you or destroy your life. Governments can. I would worry more about that. _A lot_ more.

<comment><USER2> I think the "hive mind" can destroy your life.

A few weeks back I think, there was a story on HN about a mobile App that would help you in boycotting companies and products by scanning the product's bar code while you are in a grocery store. I immediately thought, "Wow... this would be much better as a Glass app that just puts a big X over every product you reach for whose purchase would support a company which acts in a fashion contrary to some user defined view! Or even if the product has ingredients that are incompatible with your child's allergies!"

And the app WOULD be better if it operated like that. The issue is that you can take that a step further right? You, as a manager in a corporation, could look at resumes and have a big X come up whenever you look at one from some guy with bad credit. Going even further you could have a big X come up whenever you look at one from a guy with questionable comments in the online forums he participates in. You see, he tried to hide behind pseudonyms, but it was all noodled out by a new service running ultra powerful analytics software on ultra powerful computing grids. Or the analytics service may go quantum, who knows? (And all that wouldn't even be necessary if your ISP is the same as the analytics service provider. Like if you use ... say ... Google Fiber.)

Material point is this...

now your job prospects have been impacted.

That's not all though...

You see, our hypothetical guys are, understandably, bummed about not getting that big job. So they go to the local bar to listen to a local band and relax for a while. Only the people in the bar see a huge "KKK" or "New Black Panther" label over the guy who made all the questionable comments on the internet. (Via a new dating service that most young women have decided they need because, let's face it, it's dangerous out there.) Don't misunderstand me, the service also operates in a good way. For instance, an ex-convict with the rape conviction would have VERY bad luck because the Glass would put an "EX CONVICT: SEXUAL ASSAULT" label over him.

The interesting thing, however, is this... wherever you are, these labels can potentially be displayed via facial recognition software combined with you telling your name to the guy looking at you through the Glass. The grocery store, the health club, your kid's school play, etc. All because of some comments you may have made on CNN forums a decade ago about say ... Hurricane Katrina victims. Or immigrants. Or white people. Or asians. Or men. You get the picture.

It's critical to realize one very important thing... and that is that there is no technology, in my limited recollection, that's ever failed to be developed on ethical grounds. This is why I tell young people whenever I get the chance, take great care in what you post on the internet. The content... even the TONE of the post could contribute to your "profile summary" in a detrimental fashion. This stuff really will affect your future a lot more than many people realize. And in a great many more WAYS than many people realize.

And that leads them to make questionable assumptions...

like assuming Google, or the information on the internet in general, can do them no harm.

<comment><USER3> You are basically making the case that more information is bad. You also assume that humans will not augment themselves to become more rational with this data - which may or may not be true.

My take is that the more that is laid bare, the easier it will be for all of us to finally become completely truthful and finally eliminate once and for all the different masks we wear allowing us to all be where we are most comfortable.

So right now there is some person who is secretly leading a double life with a separate family and is also secretly into Pokemon and loves listening to Justin Beiber. No one knows about this because they hide their music in a hidden folder, go to sporting events and take a visit to Argentina once a month to visit the second family while ostensibly on "business."

This person would be mocked, disgraced and the like for their thoughts and behaviors by different disparate groups.

If instead this was all made open to everyone there would be a social demand that would likely end up synching that persons interests and desires with their actions.

I am ok with ending social mores and hangups.

<comment><USER2> "...You are basically making the case that more information is bad..."

No not at all.

In fact, I specifically mention that having more information readily available works out to one's BENEFIT in many cases. Like the girl who might otherwise be taking a risk on a dangerous guy. Or the grocery shopper who gets immediate feedback that a certain cereal will aggravate her child's allergies.

My only point is that this information cuts both ways, and we should be teaching young people how to operate successfully in this new information context.

The fact is, if you, me or anyone else sees a black guy with a "New Black Panther" label over him... we will deal with him in a different fashion than we would deal with a black guy without that label. And for our own safety... we should. Similarly for "KKK". This is the reality of the information context. It will not change humans at the core... it will only change the amount of information available to... and analyzable by... the human.

In other words... I doubt mores and hangups will go away. Mores, hangups, fantasy and wonder are what make up the Human. And it is important for people to be mindful of all of the potential issues they may run into when dealing with the Human in an age of ubiquitous information.

<comment><USER3> >Mores, hangups, fantasy and wonder are what make up the Human

True statement. Hence why a group of us are trying to transcend that humanity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow! I've always had a thing for dystopian literature, and the world this article presents actually seems plausible. Two ideas I particularly found intriguing:

-The idea of using an avatar to mask your true physical appearance. This seems like an appealing idea since changing your avatar on a settings panel is easier than keeping well-groomed and presentable. Perhaps citizens of the Google Glass world no longer feel the need to stay healthy and attractive? Could this level the playing field and take sexual attractiveness out of the picture altogether? Never again would someone be "out of your league." Will all our loving relationships be calculated and planned based on some OkCupid-esque compatibility algorithm? Perhaps a side-effect of this is a higher rate of sustainable marriages and a decreased divorce rate. So not completely bad and creepy.

-The way the author claims "You know you have free will, but don't feel like you need it." I've felt for a while that the more realistic dystopian future is closer to Brave New World than to 1984, in which people willingly give up their freedom rather than have it snatched away from them. Instead of saying "You know you have free will, but it doesn't really feel like it," Pananberg opts for the phrasing "don't feel like you need it." It seems to suggest that free will in a Google Glass world is a burden, and that giving up that freedom to a benevolent intelligence just _feels easier_.

Either way, when I finished the article I pressed the "like" button, sending the event to my Facebook Timeline so that all my friends can stay connected with the things I find interesting and so that Facebook's Hadoop clusters can factor it into their advertising algorithms, allowing the company to more intelligently display products I would be interested in buying. I'll tell you one thing, that no longer includes Google Glass.

<comment><USER5> _A Brave New World_ does seem more modern than _1984_ even though it was written nearly 20 years earlier. I suppose it's because international politics right now resemble the early 1932 mood more closely than the mood in 1949.

The audience _A Brave New World_ was written for probably didn't think that their countries faced existential threats or that much could happen that would radically change the world order. Reading texts around the early responses to the Great Depression you get a sense of a great dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that advocates of both fascist and of communist policies thought their biggest threat was the obstinance of the status quo rather than revolutionary change in the "wrong" direction. The dystopia of _A Brave New World_ seems to have come about by a gradual but unstoppable transformation.

The _1984_ audience on the other hand would accept a larger domain of world- changing possibilities, but perhaps have been conditioned to war, and have acknowledged that habituation toward a perpetual state of war was a tool for autocratic government, just as much as a government unchallenged by external threats had freedom to become autocratic. Though the _1984_ world has war depicted as distant and a routine part of life, it was a key part of the story, and difference between the two stories might be summed up as the difference between a peacetime dystopia and a wartime dystopia.

You can probably find both trends in our own time. The people who dream of "9/12" as a better world, see the spirit surrounding national trauma as amenable to getting their way. Then on the other end, when you hear congressmen discussing regulations on the internet, they get hysterical about the lack of deference people creating new stuff have. I suppose the congressional smugness around how everything would be okay if we didn't have disobedient progress is more an example of what radicals in the 1930s feared, but it does typify the challenges that peacetime societies face.

Anyway, that was a long way to get at the point that I agree with you that _A Brave New World_ is a more plausible scenario than _1984_ right now at least. However, what you described as appealing struck me as pretty specifically what made _A Brave New World_ a dystopia.

Sexual attractiveness is a part of sexual attraction. Furthermore it is a source of pleasure and enjoyment for people, not just a way that they are excluded. In _A Brave New World_ sexual relationships were very low effort—and I think that was the problem. Even if the algorithm were good enough not to just link you up with someone who is similar, but also found traits that are good complements, the unpredictable process of meeting someone who may not be perfect for you and the struggle and effort involved is pretty important.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and construct a well-thought- out reply.

>Sexual attractiveness is a part of sexual attraction. Furthermore it is a source of pleasure and enjoyment for people, not just a way that they are excluded. In A Brave New World sexual relationships were very low effort—and I think that was the problem. Even if the algorithm were good enough not to just link you up with someone who is similar, but also found traits that are good complements, the unpredictable process of meeting someone who may not be perfect for you and the struggle and effort involved is pretty important.

I completely agree and would prefer it to stay this way (although my dating skills could probably use some improvement). While writing my comment I was trying to avoid too many kneejerk value judgements and instead explore the possible outcomes of the described scenario. But yeah, like you said, all that uncomfortable stuff is really important, and sexual attractiveness is generally an indicator of good health and reproductive viability, so disregarding it would seem unwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >The biophysio meter has been gauging the mood in the room, color coding them for convenience. Personally, you've always found that red hot conversations give you a headache while ice blue ones bore you to tears. The computer is able to pick up all the sounds in the room and sift through the conversations. You seek a color combination somewhat in the middle, a group of people not talking about sports or fashion.

Actually, I want this.

<comment><USER7> +1.

I always hate it when I enter a party and the violent cacophony of five or even ten simultaneous conversations hits me at once. And even when I find a group of people I can stand, there's this awful noise all around. It would be pretty awesome if glass could not only find the people for me, but also actively filter everybody else, so I can talk in relative quiet.

<comment><USER8> Why not simply stay home, eat Doritos, drink Mountain Dew, and surf IRC?

Sounds like you want all of the social without the part where you interact with society.

<comment><USER7> Because, insane as it sounds, I'm better at talking face to face, than typing over IRC. I just want it not so loud and obnoxious. Also, Doritos and Mountain Dew taste awful and are bad for you. I'd rather have a salad.

<comment><USER8> What if it was a salad... _made out of Doritos_! :D

<comment><USER7> I like the way you think. We should meet in a quiet place where no-one can hear you scream. I mean, where we can't hear no-one screaming all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How awful.

What exactly is the purpose of being here if all you are doing is somewhat stochastically deciding between a few sterile choices presented to you by a computer? Why bother interacting with people who's life experience is basically just ads and the most agreeable-seeming things they elected to participate in from their preferred social network?

How utterly fucking boring.

It's enough to make me want to live in a cabin in the woods with nothing but a 28.8 and some old Irix box to keep me and my dogs company. >:(

<comment><USER9> What? That's the opposite of what I take from the story (although the author was clearly intending it as dystopian). The Glass in the story is not removing options, it's adding them. It's just layering information over the real world to provide a deeper, not shallower, experience. Why do people feel that the boundaries of their limited un-enhanced experience are somehow desirable?

<comment><USER8> It's layering information which may or may not be correct, and given people's natural laziness of decision it only increases the odds of filter bubbling-- that is not a deeper experience.

All you are doing is being empowered to ignore things which don't match your advertising profile most closely, being empowered to ignore things outside your comfort zone (in 10 years, I'm sure this will be popular with the yuppies in SF who would like to even more easily ignore the homeless refugees of gentrification).

A basic part of the human experience--of being a complete person--is learning how to interact with other people who may or may not be easy to get along with, and exploring new things and perspectives on life. Nowhere in this vignette is there a suggestion that the Glass will help you learn to interact with other people (because it is set to minimize the presentation of those you aren't predisposed to get along with) or encounter new things (that aren't carefully cultivated by the big data engines).

Let's not even go into the privacy concerns here (because clearly nobody gives a chrome-plated fuck about _that_ anymore), or the unfortunate, darker sides to this.

<comment><USER9> Well, all the information we ever use may or not be correct. We use it nevertheless and accept a certain false positive rate. It probably does increase filter bubbling, but that is generally something people accept. One can expose oneself to different viewpoints quite readily, and that's a personal choice people can make.

I think that statement about getting along with difficult people being a basic part of the human experience doesn't have to be true. It just happens to be part of the human experience now. And in any case, while the story didn't offer any glimpse of Glass helping you to encounter new things or learn to interact with other people, there's no reason why it couldn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Suddenly, there are strange things in the hotel bar with you. Cartoon animals, talking monsters. Is that a human-sized preying mantis cuddling with a buxom triceratops girl? And wow, check out that pack of wolf-things. They're flickering with colors and lights, all synchronized to the same beat. They're a walking rave. And none of these strange-looking people have public profiles.

Must be one of those freaky avatar conventions going on in the same hotel.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like a normal day in Second Life to me. Just steer clear of the furries.

<comment><USER10> Too late. I've been one since somewhere in the early nineties.

And I gotta say, they throw the _best damn parties_.

<comment><USER11> This is true. I watched the Great Gatsby the other day and I thought "Baz Luhrman would have a field day if he ever went to a furry shindig".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think that when it comes to "the Google contact lenses dystopia" there is no better comment than a short movie "Sight" <http://vimeo.com/46304267>. (It starts with gamification of cucumber cutting.)

<comment><USER13> Its funny that the game in the opening of "Sight", released 10 months ago, is similar to one they had at Google IO this year. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqOluB4e-q4>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm particularly disturbed by the notion that I'll be a pariah if I don't have some form of profile for people to check.

That sounds _very_ plausible to me, and we're already seeing it on a significantly smaller scale.

</comment><comment><USER15> While it's likely I'd be the person not wearing Glass in 10 years, the scenario in the article shows a world in which people would likely not judge a person by their appearance, but rather what info comes up attached to their profile(s). Good for INTPs who don't care for chit-chat.

<comment><USER16> Are you sure that not having a profile won't make you an NPC?

<comment><USER15> I'm guessing you mean "non-player character" (just looked that up) but I'm not sure what you're asking here...

I assume that one could not wear Glass in the future yet still have online profiles (which others would perhaps still be able to see with facial rec. via their Glass).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is that all for a dystopia? Technologies used to came with a risk incredibly higher. Nuclear warfare, etc. We are now talking about "cyber warfare". I've yet to see the first American killed by a Chinese or North-Korean hacker. And I think the term "cyber warfare" is entirely inappropriate, and does not do justice to the atrocities of a real war. If this is all what can be thought up about the negative impact of Google glasses, we have nothing to worry about.

<comment><USER15> In the film Surrogates, there's a device that, when discharged on 'avatars', kills the real person operating the avatar. I wonder if cyber warfare of the future entails this kind of thing. I would assume that being physically connected to a(n implanted) device would allow for this but, then again, non- implanted technology has been known to cause photosensitive epilepsy (like the Pokeman seizures).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Dystopia? This sounds amazing! I assume that AdBlock will still exist, which optionally removes the one thing I felt even slightly bad about in this scenario.

<comment><USER19> Positives sound great, but how about negatives?

Kind of like modern food is toxic and unhealthy, but hey it's _cheap_ , there's _lots of it_ and well... It doesn't taste that bad! Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to lean meat, fish, seeds and berries even though it costs me twice/thrice the money let alone preparation. And it can't be preserved as well. But whatever, fuck the dystopian future. :)

<comment><USER18> I'm struck, though, that the title indicates the author thought he _was_ presenting the negatives!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is actually a fairly optimistic projection. Consider how difficult it would be for a secret policeman to infiltrate a dissident group in this kind of environment.

The real dystopia comes with privileged groups being able to block recognition.

<comment><USER21> I don't think so. All you need to do is be able to monitor everybody else. Secret policemen not required anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm surprised to see the attitude of this thread as so optimistic about this potential future. Even ignoring the government / police state possibilities, I found this terribly dystopian, and I imagine many others outside of the most optimistic tech bubbles would agree.

While taken individually, many of the technologies presented in the story seem to be useful or even fun, the world they create is inescapably bland. And it's the inescapability of it that makes it so awful. While on the surface these theoretical advances provide value, they also potentially destroy the possibility of serendipitous interaction, of meeting someone incompatible, of having your perspective changed, of connecting with someone intimately.

For me, the "problems" being solved by the tech in this story are much of what makes life worth living. While building technology, I think it's important to consider the effects and side effects of these things, and to focus on technology that improves and enhances our lives, rather than takes them over.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a dream come true. Where do I sign up?

</comment><comment><USER3> >On your left is a woman you don't know, but she's a friend of a friend of your cousin Irving's roommate's niece. Her name is Tina, a physics professor at the local university, and she likes extreme skiing, origami and baking. Tomorrow she'll be giving a presentation. You can view her slides and video now, if you'd like, and scan her bio. You don't. You think it's interesting that her favorite author is Jane Austen and thirty-seven people "liked" a post she penned on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. She's sipping what the computer deduces to be a green apple martini and your Google-powered submicro- computer advertises a selection of snacks to go with it, as well as a choice of vodkas and mixers, which you can order at the blink of an eye. Maybe later.

That sounds amazing! I would probably filter it to give me specific results because I'm not as interested in some of those things than others.

</comment><comment><USER24> This makes a number of assumptions that I think (based on historical trends) will end up proving false.

The first is that the services we use today (Yelp, Facebook, Google, etc.) will continue to be the dominate services of the future. Of course, the author probably just used these names for convenience instead of inventing new companies, but I have a feeling that the apps and services we'll be using 10 years from now don't exist today.

A more pressing false assumption is that all of these services (or whatever services are being used) will harmoniously work together. Though we have pretty strong inter-service collaboration currently (such Yelp telling us which restaurants our Facebook friends like), it is not that often that these platform relationships exist and even less common that everyone will be using the same interconnected services.

Finally, the assumption that is both the most necessary for this reality to be our future yet is also the most dubious is that with the dawn of quantum computing, algorithms will be able to properly interpret and predict human behavior. Thus far, algorithms fail pretty miserably at this (when was the last time you actually wanted to buy something suggested to you by Amazon?) and although the future resources available will have the capacity to interpret human behavior, it will be much farther in the future before we really will be able to utilize these available resources.

I still believe that always-on wearable computers with a constant information stream is where the consumer technology industry is heading (I've been saying this for years, and I don't necessarily think that Google will be the ones to perfect this formula). However, before we reach a society like the one predicted by this article, we (as computer scientists and mathematicians) need to become much better at interpreting and predicting human behavior. I think the first step in this is to understand how the brain works, which is probably going to be the most exciting facit of biomedical research in the coming decades.

</comment><comment><USER25> The article picks a curious line to end on:

 _"You know you have free will, but don't feel like you need it."_

Which is odd, considering that the protagonist of the tale has done nothing but make choices throughout the whole story.

<comment><USER26> When someone controls (and/or biases) the information feed you base your decisions upon, your will is no longer completely free.

We used to call it news media ;-)

<comment><USER9> But it's the protagonist's own past choices that ultimately control what information he is fed. That, the environment, and some algorithms. Just like in the real world, but with a more egocentric concentration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The music from the wall speakers sounds tinny.

Would there even be loudspeakers in such a world? If we all wore computers with earpieces, there would be no need for sound amplification as we know it now. I, for one, would welcome the end of music played over loudspeakers in public places, chosen according to someone else's idea of what music the masses would like.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think he got the "You're constantly logged into Facebook ..." wrong. It will be google plus or something completely different

</comment><comment><USER29> A bit of an offshoot from the article, but is the quantum calculation speed true, or just flowery journalist language?

Simultaneously being 0 and 1 at the same time? Solving problems faster than imaginable?

Is it possible to understand the ideas behind quantum computing without having a physics degree? Is there a good layman introduction somewhere?

<comment><USER30> In laymans terms:

If you have 0 and 1 as inputs you have to try all possible combinations to get all possible results and choose an optimal one.

If you have all possible combinations of 0 and 1 at once you can just use the optimal solution in one step.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This will be the beginning of a world like in the Matrix. Gradually, it's Glass (or Lenses, or whatever) will control what we want to see, to hear and to choose. A world where everything is predictable to the computer and is comfortable to our liking. Well, I don't like that world.

</comment><comment><USER32>
        «For under the firm measure,
        The crude, too, is useful,
        That the pure may know itself.»
        -- Hoelderlin, The Titans

A la Heidegger. Given the sensationalism in tone of this writing, it seems only Heidegger is appropriate as a forthright response.

In a sense, we see two very crude tools: public surveillance via legislation or public surveillance via a device (which some "market") apparently demands. In all of the ways we have come to know and love, these are both problematical departures from a reality alluded to in the Internet Declaration of Independence.

The old ways of thinking are an impasse. You must understand that the old ways of thinking are an impasse. In Heidegger's terms, such an impasse can be described by the fact that [we are the sign that is not read]. Moreover, that we are still not thinking, yet we are underway to thinking.

        «And let not much-current habit force you into this way,
        to let roam sightless eyes and noise-cluttered ear
        and [tongue*], rather discriminate in reflection . . .»

I recently recall a short prose alluding to a fictional possible world, wherein the denizens of its society were allotted so many words per day.

Debord may service as a modulation of Hedeigger's foreboding:

«The self-emancipation of our time is an emancipation from the material bases of inverted truth. This "historic mission of establishing truth in the world" can be carried out neither by the isolated individual nor by atomized and manipulated masses, but only and always by the class that is able to dissolve all classes by reducing all power to the de-alienating form of realized democracy — to councils in which practical theory verifies itself and surveys its own actions. This is possible only when individuals are "directly linked to world history" and [dialogue*] arms itself to impose its own conditions.»

Heidegger is a bit more optimistic, as he essentially must be:

«"What is called thinking?" At the end we return to the question we asked at first when we found out what our word "thinking" originally means. _Thanc_ means memory, thinking that recalls, thanks [interjecting "Likes"!].

But in the meantime we have learned to see that the essential nature of thinking is determined by what there is to be thought about: the presence of what is present, the Being of beings. Thinking is thinking only when it _recalls_ in thought ἐόν, That which this word indicates properly and truly, that is, unspoken, tacitly. And that is the duality of beings and Being. This quality is what properly gives food for thought. And what is so given, is the gift of what is most worthy of question.

Can thinking take this gift into its hands, that is, take it to heart, in order to entrust it in λέγειν, in the telling statement, to the original speech of language?»</comment>


Ask HN: Graduating senior. Resume advice please - <AUTHOR>

I am about to graduate from college and am putting my resume together.<p>I have built a couple of fun things over the last few years. Some were for school (larger school projects), some were not for school. Is it appropriate to basically have a list of projects I have done and a one line description of each on my resume? Or would people rather see a line like "see http://xxxxxx.com for a portfolio of things I have done" to avoid cluttering up 1/3 the page? If the former, how big or how cool should a project be to warrant putting it in the list? If the latter, then what kinds of things would you consider important on a resume for someone still in school? <comment><USER2> I'd look to summarize the projects individually or put them into groups and describe why they are important / show what you can do, then provide a link to the project or portfolio of projects. Sell it first, provide supporting details for a potential employer's further inspection. Regarding what to add and what not to, think about what story you want to tell. If you want to get into a specific year, include projects that pertain to it, even if they are small. If it's a certain technology, then those are the winners.

After you have your resume put together, I'd like to mention my startup, CollegeJobConnect. I apologize if this comes off as a shameless plug, but I think it is very relevant. On-campus recruiting and career service departments limit the true array of companies you could and should be connecting. We are trying to change that. We're an online platform that is dedicated exclusively to helping undergraduates (juniors / seniors) connect with cool companies for internships and full time hires throughout the entire academic year. We're working with a few hundred undergrads right now and over 15 companies. If you think it would be worthwhile, we'd love to get you onboard (takes 2 mins to get up and running). Having your resume summarize what you've done and what you can do is step #1, next is getting it in front of the right opportunities that you'd like to pursue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Post your resume here for more feedback... or e-mail me, happy to offer suggestions.

It's hard to say which projects you should or should not post without having some exposure to the scales you are talking about. What I can say from firsthand experience, though, is that school projects are definitely great if they showcase interesting thinking or ability.

Something isn't bad or worthless just because it was done for a class; plenty of companies, even, developed that way.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's annoying to see resumes more than 1 page long from college students. Please highlight the classes that you consider most important to you. I don't have forever to talk to my buddies from your school about your resume so it's useful to be able to zoom into the stuff that matters. If you did any special projects or stuff outside of class, please label it clearly. Some of us consider that stuff to be as important as classwork.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would suggest that you summarize your projects. Potential employers will research you (my current employer asked me why I'm running an OpenID server on my blog), so you should have links ready if you can. I found one very valuable technique is to create/contribute to an open source project. That way if someone asks you for a code sample you can just point them to it. If you are looking to get hired by a small company, I think having a blog is a plus. Larger companies may or may not care depending on the hiring manager.

In either case you want to underscore your core competency in everything you showcase: resume, portfolio, blog.

Slightly off topic: I have not had good luck with technical recruiters. It may be that there are some great ones out there, but I have always found that the ones that reach out to me based on my resume on dice.com or monster.com have the need for a developer yesterday. It may be a great opportunity, but to me it always feels like the company is a bit disorganized if they don't know that they need someone to start until a week from their start date.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pick your top 2-3 projects that would have relevance to the position you are applying for (i.e. you can probably leave off a low-level C project if you are applying for a Rails gig). Put these in a section called "Selected Technical Projects". Include the general date you worked on them (Summer 2010, Winter 2009, etc) and a link to the code/demo.

Then write a small description for each, ideally 2-3 short sentences. I like to have one sentence be "HR Friendly" and explain the technologies you used ("Built my own blog engine using ASP.NET MVC, MySQL and jQuery") and then one line about what I learned or why the project matters ("I built this project to learn MVC principles and learn about client-side Javascript" or "The code has been used by 50 other people to build their own blogs").

You should be including the link to your portfolio/github anyways as part of your general information. Make sure that the projects you list are easy to find on your personal site and there you can go into more detail, put screenshots, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> I agree, post your resume for more feedback.

That said, if you've got specific companies you're targeting, your best move is to tailor a version of your resume for each company, highlighting the projects most relevant to each company on their specific version of the resume. If you have an unrelated project that is your most significant work (e.g., a senior thesis), put that too.

But I agree with hugh3 that you'll potentially receive undesired judgement for the weakest projects, so listing them all can work against you.

Also of note, projects listed on your resume often become talking points for interviews. So whatever projects you list there, make sure they're fresh enough in your mind, and interesting enough in their implementation (technical challenges), that you can talk about them in a way that reflects your knowledge and mastery of the skills involved.

As for what other things to include on a resume, 'relevant coursework' is always a good one, again tailored for each job.

</comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Project listings are terrific! Extracurricular work in the area you're trying to get hired into is a huge bonus as you apply for jobs.

2\. One line descriptions are awful. If your resume is project heavy and light on school stuff, make your independent projects the focus and frame each in the context of how you accomplished what you did, what you learned during them, and what tech stack you chose for each one.

Going over one page is perfectly acceptable.

3\. Listing your technical skills (programming languages, OS administration experience, DB development/support, etc) on a scale of 1-10 is helpful, too. It won't get you out of tech interviews but if you're honest it will help the interviewer figure out what to talk to you about. There's nothing worse than an interview where your resume and cover letter do zilch to help the interviewer get to know you.

</comment><comment><USER9> _how big or how cool should a project be to warrant putting it in the list?_

Work on the assumption that anyone reading this is not going to actually look at more than one of your projects. Assume by sod's law that whichever one they look at will be the weakest, and they will judge you entirely based on that project. So leave off anything that you wouldn't be comfortable basing your _entire_ reputation on.

Also, leave off school projects.

<comment><USER10> I think ~one school project is fine. I.e. if you had a big, multi-term project. If it was a homework assignment, no way though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I had a great response when I coded my resume in HTML. I posted it to the web, jazzed it up using some colour and jQuery. Employers love seeing creativity.</comment>