Thread 4470520

Took these yesterday with my Galaxy s24, 30 second exposure, ISO 3200. Will post the originals as well.

Have no idea what that shadow could be.

>>4470520 (OP)
As someone who does some astro here and there: What the fuck am I looking at?

>>4470532
I was hoping someone could tell me, even though I didn't ask.

looks like dirt on your sensor m8

>>4470534
I'm moderately convinced your phone is AI inserting shit into the frame to create some kind of faux nebula or some shit. Going off the sensor and lens in your phone, your photos should resemble wide-field nightscapes, but the mass in the center is an unexplainable lump.
in >>4470523 you can see what is probably a comet or high-altitude aircraft coming diagonally from the center left. Other than that no fuckin' idea.

>>4470537
Looking at them long enough it looks like water reflecting.

The phone is attempting to AI-fill-the-gaps in a nonexistent milky way

Phone photos are fake. Get a mirrorless camera. Even a cheap one with flaws like an a6000.

>>4470543
I've deactivated the AI features, but I guess there's still some active, ones that are built in. These were taken with the RAW photo app. Anyone know if AI is still implemented there?

Looks like AI.

>>4470566
>he thinks he can turn off ai
lol. its uses go very far beyond adding a fake milky way. there are some things, mostly specific people, your phones camera can not photograph. all mobile phone manufacturers work closely with five eyes intelligence agencies. this is not an evil plot. it prevents wars from starting.

>>4470782
The first 3 have their exposure/lightness lowered to almost 0 and the saturation and colors cranked. Other than that they are taken by me.

>>4471059
You did not understand what I meant.
There is an upscaler working on photos you take with your phone. It has to guess at what it's looking at. When you give it images without a clearly defined subject, the amount of guessing increases.
This is a layman's explanation.

>>4470789
Then you’re all fucked, because I’m still using an iPhone 6 from a decade ago, and have a 13 sitting here for when that dies, the final model with a removable sim card, and that’ll be my last phone ever. All my pictures will blow up your world. You aspie dorks forget that just because there’s a new model of something, and you & all your little friends run out & buy whatever they tell you to in order to impress each other in school, doesn’t mean the previous 8 billion units of that thing they sold just wink out of existence. …start wars lol… we’re going into war regardless, bc a century of geopolitical fuckups require it, ingeeenious cellphone photo censoring plans bedamned.

>>4471086
Even on the RAW photo app? I'm not an expert so I appreciate the new info.

>>4471304
Yeah. Phone RAWs are rarely actual RAWs.

We are like... star dust dude

>>4471304
Hold on a second, are the first 3 your edited photos and the second three your photos you took in this RAW photo app? What is this RAW photo app? Each app could be doing something different. What did you edit these in as well?
If I've understood the original/edit posts properly, I think what you're actually getting is darkness around the lens from either the camera or the telescope, and then when you edit them for exposure and saturation the dark parts get dropped meaning you have these lit up blobs left in the middle.
I'm guessing that based on the circular vignetting in the originals, and that the light blobs in the edits are the same shape.

>>4471327
the first pics look like the aislop went crazy and turned a large part of the milky way into a globular cluster ? the others look a lot more like real vignetting

>>4471401
If you look at the thumbnails you can see that the density patterns for all of them match up to the unedited ones.
The saturations will be picking peaks in the noise to turn into singular points, and that'll be where we're getting our "stars" from.
OP, post the raws and the edits you made and let me see if I can replicate this with a set up that definitely doesn't involve AI to test this.

>>4471327
The first 3 are the same as the bottom 3, with the brightness, colors, contrast and saturation edited. The RAW photo app let's you manually control the ISO, shutter speed, focus ect. They usually look worse than the standard photo app if you don't fiddle with it correctly, like a regular camera. Here's another I took with it.