“I’m not saying they’re the same, I’m saying all relevant aspects are the same” is pedantic.
It’s not my job to convince you that a mannequin isn’t a relevant tool in testing human face AF. It’s your job, and a really low barrier, to prove to us that a mannequin offers any practical insight into human derived AF and demonstrate that the two track closely. You have only done half a test at best.
Apart from this I find it really strange that you can’t find an actual human to lend 20 minutes of their time to your test, and yet you claim to have proven something useful for the majority of us who photograph… actual people. Nothing you’ve demonstrated on a mannequin is anything I’d count on to inform my workflow or behavior.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
That’s fine, but claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face is also “not very persuasive” I also push back against this idea that a camera detecting faces on a 2D surface proves anything apart from an incidental convenience - it’s presumptuous to say it equates with practical insights into how the AF behaves with actual faces.
If anything we’re both guessing as to how the AF is designed and making some speculative assumptions. I would just never count on photographing a mannequin and think I’ve proven anything definitive. Again, until you’ve demonstrated the same behavior carrying over to an actual face under similar conditions IMO you’ve proven nothing of value (unless your job is taking photos of mannequins).
As an aside I’ve got no trouble getting pupils in focus for maybe 85% of the images I take on the comparatively simple Z6. My hit rate with the Z8/Z9 is even higher 🤷🏻♂️
And in real world practical uses, nobody would notice the difference.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
Would you ever mistake a mannequin face for a real human? Does it seem absurd to think anyone would? So… if the AF is trained on a data set that’s specific to real human faces, why would any of the dozen things that make a mannequin look comparatively fake not impact AF reliability?
Again, prove me wrong and I’ll reverse my position: put a relatively similar skin/eye toned mannequin and human face under the same conditions, run a few trial tests, and then compare hit rate and show there’s little to no deviation. Then I’ll reconsider my position.
But until then my hunch is that basing an AF “test” on a mannequin face is absurd at arm’s length.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
I’m sorry but mannequin “tests” are utter BS IMO. Get a person under the same lighting scenario and show it side by side and if the results are the same, I’ll take my words back, but anything based on a mannequin is silly. Mannequins offer near zero that’s instructive about people photography, even something as base as lighting technique.
What about the mannequins do you believe is different from a human subject that would be significant to a camera in terms of AF?
The fact that cameras happily detect faces and eyes on not just 3D mannequins but also 2D photographs of faces argues against the significance of human's being able to distinguish real faces from mannequins having relevance to how and what cameras detect. Everyone is free to their opinions but to call a test BS based on a hunch or intuition isn't very persuasive.
I'm not claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face. I'm claiming it equates in all the aspects that would be relevant to a camera's AF system. Again, if you can articulate a theory as to why that might not be the case then I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. When thinking that over, give some consideration to how much diversity there is to the human face, and consider how you believe what's different about a mannequin might fit into that spectrum of diversity.
“I’m not saying they’re the same, I’m saying all relevant aspects are the same” is pedantic.
It’s not my job to convince you that a mannequin isn’t a relevant tool in testing human face AF. It’s your job, and a really low barrier, to prove to us that a mannequin offers any practical insight into human derived AF.
Apart from this I find it really strange that you can’t find an actual human to lend 20 minutes of their time to your test, and yet you claim to have proven something useful for the majority of us who photograph… actual people. Nothing you’ve demonstrated on a mannequin is anything I’d count on to inform my workflow or behavior.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
That’s fine, but claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face is also “not very persuasive” I also push back against this idea that a camera detecting faces on a 2D surface proves anything apart from an incidental convenience - it’s presumptuous to say it equates with practical insights into how the AF behaves with actual faces.
If anything we’re both guessing as to how the AF is designed and making some speculative assumptions. I would just never count on photographing a mannequin and think I’ve proven anything definitive. Again, until you’ve demonstrated the same behavior carrying over to an actual face under similar conditions IMO you’ve proven nothing of value (unless your job is taking photos of mannequins).
As an aside I’ve got no trouble getting pupils in focus for maybe 85% of the images I take on the comparatively simple Z6. My hit rate with the Z8/Z9 is even higher 🤷🏻♂️
And in real world practical uses, nobody would notice the difference.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
Would you ever mistake a mannequin face for a real human? Does it seem absurd to think anyone would? So… if the AF is trained on a data set that’s specific to real human faces, why would any of the dozen things that make a mannequin look comparatively fake not impact AF reliability?
Again, prove me wrong and I’ll reverse my position: put a relatively similar skin/eye toned mannequin and human face under the same conditions, run a few trial tests, and then compare hit rate and show there’s little to no deviation. Then I’ll reconsider my position.
But until then my hunch is that basing an AF “test” on a mannequin face is absurd at arm’s length.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
I’m sorry but mannequin “tests” are utter BS IMO. Get a person under the same lighting scenario and show it side by side and if the results are the same, I’ll take my words back, but anything based on a mannequin is silly. Mannequins offer near zero that’s instructive about people photography, even something as base as lighting technique.
What about the mannequins do you believe is different from a human subject that would be significant to a camera in terms of AF?
The fact that cameras happily detect faces and eyes on not just 3D mannequins but also 2D photographs of faces argues against the significance of human's being able to distinguish real faces from mannequins having relevance to how and what cameras detect. Everyone is free to their opinions but to call a test BS based on a hunch or intuition isn't very persuasive.
I'm not claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face. I'm claiming it equates in all the aspects that would be relevant to a camera's AF system. Again, if you can articulate a theory as to why that might not be the case then I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. When thinking that over, give some consideration to how much diversity there is to the human face, and consider how you believe what's different about a mannequin might fit into that spectrum of diversity.
It’s not my job to convince you that a mannequin isn’t a relevant tool in testing human face AF. It’s your job, and a really low barrier, to prove to us that a mannequin offers any practical insight into human derived AF.
Apart from this I find it really strange that you can’t find an actual human to lend 20 minutes of their time to your test, and yet you claim to have proven something useful for the majority of us who photograph… actual people. Nothing you’ve demonstrated on a mannequin is anything I’d count on to inform my workflow or behavior.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
That’s fine, but claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face is also “not very persuasive” I also push back against this idea that a camera detecting faces on a 2D surface proves anything apart from an incidental convenience - it’s presumptuous to say it equates with practical insights into how the AF behaves with actual faces.
If anything we’re both guessing as to how the AF is designed and making some speculative assumptions. I would just never count on photographing a mannequin and think I’ve proven anything definitive. Again, until you’ve demonstrated the same behavior carrying over to an actual face under similar conditions IMO you’ve proven nothing of value (unless your job is taking photos of mannequins).
As an aside I’ve got no trouble getting pupils in focus for maybe 85% of the images I take on the comparatively simple Z6. My hit rate with the Z8/Z9 is even higher 🤷🏻♂️
And in real world practical uses, nobody would notice the difference.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
Would you ever mistake a mannequin face for a real human? Does it seem absurd to think anyone would? So… if the AF is trained on a data set that’s specific to real human faces, why would any of the dozen things that make a mannequin look comparatively fake not impact AF reliability?
Again, prove me wrong and I’ll reverse my position: put a relatively similar skin/eye toned mannequin and human face under the same conditions, run a few trial tests, and then compare hit rate and show there’s little to no deviation. Then I’ll reconsider my position.
But until then my hunch is that basing an AF “test” on a mannequin face is absurd at arm’s length.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
I’m sorry but mannequin “tests” are utter BS IMO. Get a person under the same lighting scenario and show it side by side and if the results are the same, I’ll take my words back, but anything based on a mannequin is silly. Mannequins offer near zero that’s instructive about people photography, even something as base as lighting technique.
What about the mannequins do you believe is different from a human subject that would be significant to a camera in terms of AF?
The fact that cameras happily detect faces and eyes on not just 3D mannequins but also 2D photographs of faces argues against the significance of human's being able to distinguish real faces from mannequins having relevance to how and what cameras detect. Everyone is free to their opinions but to call a test BS based on a hunch or intuition isn't very persuasive.
I'm not claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face. I'm claiming it equates in all the aspects that would be relevant to a camera's AF system. Again, if you can articulate a theory as to why that might not be the case then I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. When thinking that over, give some consideration to how much diversity there is to the human face, and consider how you believe what's different about a mannequin might fit into that spectrum of diversity.
It’s not my job to convince you that a mannequin isn’t a relevant tool in testing human face AF. It’s your job, and a really low barrier, to prove to us that a mannequin offers any practical insight into human derived AF.
Apart from this I find it really strange that you can’t find an actual human to lend 20 minutes of their time to your test and yet you claim to have proven something useful for the majority of us who photograph… actual people. Nothing you’ve demonstrated on a mannequin is anything I’d count on to inform my workflow or behavior.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
That’s fine, but claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face is also “not very persuasive” I also push back against this idea that a camera detecting faces on a 2D surface proves anything apart from an incidental convenience - it’s presumptuous to say it equates with practical insights into how the AF behaves with actual faces.
If anything we’re both guessing as to how the AF is designed and making some speculative assumptions. I would just never count on photographing a mannequin and think I’ve proven anything definitive. Again, until you’ve demonstrated the same behavior carrying over to an actual face under similar conditions IMO you’ve proven nothing of value (unless your job is taking photos of mannequins).
As an aside I’ve got no trouble getting pupils in focus for maybe 85% of the images I take on the comparatively simple Z6. My hit rate with the Z8/Z9 is even higher 🤷🏻♂️
And in real world practical uses, nobody would notice the difference.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
Would you ever mistake a mannequin face for a real human? Does it seem absurd to think anyone would? So… if the AF is trained on a data set that’s specific to real human faces, why would any of the dozen things that make a mannequin look comparatively fake not impact AF reliability?
Again, prove me wrong and I’ll reverse my position: put a relatively similar skin/eye toned mannequin and human face under the same conditions, run a few trial tests, and then compare hit rate and show there’s little to no deviation. Then I’ll reconsider my position.
But until then my hunch is that basing an AF “test” on a mannequin face is absurd at arm’s length.
snapsy wrote: jlafferty wrote:
I’m sorry but mannequin “tests” are utter BS IMO. Get a person under the same lighting scenario and show it side by side and if the results are the same, I’ll take my words back, but anything based on a mannequin is silly. Mannequins offer near zero that’s instructive about people photography, even something as base as lighting technique.
What about the mannequins do you believe is different from a human subject that would be significant to a camera in terms of AF?
The fact that cameras happily detect faces and eyes on not just 3D mannequins but also 2D photographs of faces argues against the significance of human's being able to distinguish real faces from mannequins having relevance to how and what cameras detect. Everyone is free to their opinions but to call a test BS based on a hunch or intuition isn't very persuasive.
I'm not claiming a mannequin equates 1:1 with a human face. I'm claiming it equates in all the aspects that would be relevant to a camera's AF system. Again, if you can articulate a theory as to why that might not be the case then I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. When thinking that over, give some consideration to how much diversity there is to the human face, and consider how you believe what's different about a mannequin might fit into that spectrum of diversity.
Jun 24, 2024 at 06:12 AM
Previous versions of jlafferty's message #16578913 « Official Z6 III Thread - »
I also push back against this idea that a camera detecting faces on a 2D surface proves anything apart from an incidental convenience - it’s presumptuous to say it equates with practical insights into how the AF behaves with actual faces.