Panasonic Launches Beautifying Camera 163
The new Panasonic LUMIX FX77 camera can take the red out of your eyes and add it to your lips and cheeks. Released last Friday, the camera has a "beauty re-touch" feature that can whiten your teeth, change the size of your eyes, and can apply rouge, lipstick, or eye shadow. From the article: "There has been huge customer demand for such a product, said Akiko Enoki, a Panasonic project manager in charge of developing the camera. 'According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph,' she said. 'So we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.'"
Ah, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it have a "Take image at amazingly tilted angle" feature?
Detection Features (Score:1, Insightful)
Duck face detected. Please retake photo.
Lipstick on a Pig? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong solution.
Most people don't like the way that look in pictures because the picture is poorly taken. Taking photographs is more than just pointing a lens at an object. The brain compensates for a number of things that a camera does not-- the 3D nature of the human face, strange lighting (yellow indoors, strange shadows on the face in the dark, sharp light, etc). When you see the image from the camera it is not "the real image" it is a straight impression of a dumb lens that can only capture a small spectrum of the lighting conditions, and makes no compensations. There is a reason that a good photographer costs money. There is also a reason their camera's cost 10x the amount of a point and shoot and have far less built in helpers.
This is a "lipstick on a pig" solution. If they really wanted people to be happier with their pictures, they would build in some basic rules to the camera to warn people when the contrast is low, when the face is being lit poorly. This would likely result in pretty sterile images, but at least your friends wouldn't look like greased up edward james almos look alikes. (Of course, they could suggest the picture takers realize that the camera is not at fault... but I imagine this may be bad for business)
Re: the world the way I think it was (Score:5, Insightful)
We look at old photos of frozen lakes and giant crowds and consider them accurate. Tho, it turns out people took photos of the lake being frozen or the crowded streets because it was exceptional rather than that being the norm.
This can all be avoided (Score:5, Insightful)
According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph, so we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.
Take it from a professional photographer, 90% of the time, the angle and lighting are all that matter between a good and a bad photo.
8% is mistakes and blemishes that can be corrected in Photoshop/Corel with a bit of cloning (probably going to be bloody hard to do it on a camera, even with a properly sized LCD. The mouse is simply necessary here.), Brightness-Contrast-Intensity modding, gamma, and a few other simple steps.
The last 2% are those who are incredibly ugly, and can't be helped...
Anyway, it's pointless for me: I won't buy a new camera, since my Canon 300D is still in perfect order, this feature will probably be incorporated into amateur units, and I can get Photoshop for free. ;)
Re: the world the way I think it was (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks that "devolution" is a valid concept doesn't actually understand evolution.