MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,518
15,248


Google Photos is getting a new AI-driven feature that can take two similar pictures in your iPhone's camera roll and turn them into a single moving shot, reports The Verge.

google-photos.jpg

Google says the feature achieves this by using machine learning to generate additional frames between the two images, which creates the appearance of movement.

If you've taken several shots in succession, for example, Google Photos can now bring the scene to life by turning it into a moving picture. Think of the result as a sort of synthesized version of a Live Photo.

goog-photos-cinematic-moments.gif

The new feature is called "Cinematic Moments," and is not to be confused with Google's existing Cinematic Photos, which use machine learning to add an animated depth effect to pictures.

The Cinematic Moments option is expected to make its way to both Android and iOS versions of the Google Photos app soon. Google Photos is a free download for iPhone and iPad from the App Store. [Direct Link]

Article Link: Google Photos Will Use Machine Learning to Animate Your Still Shots
 

ian87w

macrumors 68040
Feb 22, 2020
3,627
4,812
Indonesia
Instead of screaming "CREEPY!", I highly advise any of you to read the book "An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R"

Good book for people that are full of it and think ML is creepy or scary!

Good luck 😁
It’s not about the ML for me, it’s about the result of the photos. We humans have a self preservation instinct that we can feel weird/creepy if we see something that’s humanoid but not natural. It’s in our genes.
 

CarpalMac

macrumors 65816
Nov 19, 2012
1,488
3,444
UK
Instead of screaming "CREEPY!", I highly advise any of you to read the book "An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R"

Good book for people that are full of it and think ML is creepy or scary!

Good luck 😁

It's more basic than that, it wasn't Apple who created it therefore it is creepy by default. The Google hate mob are always on standby.

Had it been Apple, it would have been nothing but Magical.
 
Last edited:

NBAasDOGG

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2017
555
1,243
Netherlands
It’s not about the ML for me, it’s about the result of the photos. We humans have a self preservation instinct that we can feel weird/creepy if we see something that’s humanoid but not natural. It’s in our genes.

The end result is supposed to be indistinguishable from natural if a correct "ML model" is applied.
We get there at some point, then people will get used to it.

Like many things that felt unnatural, but it’s part of our lives today.
I have read stories about people back in the days that were scared to watch televisions. It felt weird to them being stared at by the weatherman.
 

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
126
112
Instead of screaming "CREEPY!", I highly advise any of you to read the book "An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R"

Good book for people that are full of it and think ML is creepy or scary!

Good luck 😁
Well, unless the book can prove Google is NOT doing this, I think you might have missed the point. Figuring out 'how' someone did something creepy, does not make it any less, creepy.

We hate Google, for reasons like this. Perhaps those same reasons, made you love Google?
 

MrCrowbar

macrumors 68020
Jan 12, 2006
2,107
302
So... it's essentially a Live Photo with no sound? Just having the ambient sound is incredible in terms of re-living the moment, it's also neat that you can go back and forth a few frames to fix closed eyes, camera shake or a bug flying through the frame.

Creating sub-frames using AI isn't really new, but it's neat to have it so easy to access.
 

Stephen.R

Suspended
Nov 2, 2018
4,356
4,720
Thailand
It's more basic than that, it wasn't Apple who created it therefore it is creepy by default. The Google hate mob are always on standby.

Had it been Apple, it would have been nothing but Magical.
I don't think that's the case, but even if it were.


Scenario one is an advertising company that has a well publicised history of building profiles about all of it's livestock users, manipulating your images.


Scenario two is a personal computer company that has a well publicised history of making users pay for the features they need, manipulating your images.





There's plenty of actual examples of how Apple's approach to ML 'features' provides benefits to the user without being creepy. A few years ago they added keyword tagging: you search your photos for 'dog' and it shows all the pictures of your dog, somehow. Or the facial recognition system, so you can search for "Joe" and see the pictures with Joe in them.

That's all done on-device. Apple never sees that. They don't see that you have four Great Danes and thus are more likely to click on ads for 100kg bags of dog food. Even if they did that stuff in an Apple data center, their business isn't 93% funded by selling advertising spots based on a personal profile of you.


That is why ML/AI from Google are considered "creepy" by-default for a lot of people. It's also why I expect their recent "user privacy" announcement about Android, will come with some pretty hefty caveats.

Trusting Google to treat people's data as private (as in: not use it to further their own profit centres) is like trusting a goat to protect your roses against vandals.
 

recoil80

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,108
2,746
requires you to take two or more photos. Not really that cool at all
The cool thing is that it works on pictures taken years ago, even from a regular camera.
Live photos is different, as multiple frames (and audio) are captured while you're taking the shot but you can't have a live animation from a bunch of pictures taken years ago.
I think I still prefer live pictures I can take on the iPhone as there is audio and that's great especially with kids
 

NBAasDOGG

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2017
555
1,243
Netherlands
Well, unless the book can prove Google is NOT doing this, I think you might have missed the point. Figuring out 'how' someone did something creepy, does not make it any less, creepy.

We hate Google, for reasons like this. Perhaps those same reasons, made you love Google?

"Figuring out 'how' someone did something creepy, does not make it any less, creepy." WUT…?

People are just scared of the unknown, even when it’s NOT creepy. To me, that’s more creepy than creating a mathematical tool that makes something appear creepy to the people that don’t understand it (like application of ML/NN)

Some people are natural caveman (not willing to change), and are scared of things they don’t understand.
 

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
126
112
"Figuring out 'how' someone did something creepy, does not make it any less, creepy." WUT…?

People are just scared of the unknown, even when it’s NOT creepy. To me, that’s more creepy than creating a mathematical tool that makes something appear creepy to the people that understand it (like application of ML/NN)

Some people are natural caveman (not willing to change), and are scared of things they don’t understand.
You don't understand that if you explain how a creep did something creepy, it's still creepy? Think about it one more time, hopefully you agree.

You are now switching from explain the creepy act, in hopes to make it less creepy, to simply stating it's not creepy.
They by all means, go to Google, share your photos with them. No one here is going to stop you I'm sure.

By arguing that people are cavemen unless they accept every change coming their way, are you saying skeptics of any kind, are cavemen?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.