Nokia faced the heat of the Internet yesterday after it came to light that a promo video for its new PureView image stabilization technology had been faked. The video, which was supposed to show off the company’s fancy-schmancy new floating lens technology, didn’t actually show real Lumia 920 footage, but rather footage captured using an actual stabilized camera. Nokia responded today in a blog post titled “An apology is due“:
In an effort to demonstrate the benefits of optical image stabilization (which eliminates blurry images and improves pictures shot in low light conditions), we produced a video that simulates what we will be able to deliver with OIS.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but we should have posted a disclaimer stating this was a representation of OIS only. This was not shot with a Lumia 920. At least, not yet. We apologize for the confusion we created.
It also published the video above, which is an actual side-by-side comparison video that it showed at the Lumia 920 press conference. While the stabilization is certainly noticeable, what we’d like to see most is the faked promo reshot using the Lumia 920. It’d be interesting to find out whether it’s even comparable to what we were briefly awe-struck by.
Sorry if you’ve had trouble accessing this site so far today. Our hosting provider, Rackspace, is having issues. Hopefully they can get things together soon. If you haven’t already, subscribing to our RSS feed and/or daily email is another way to receive our posts!
Spanish sports daily AS was forced to publish an apology earlier this week over a soccer match photo in which a player was airbrushed out. The photo was of a controversial no-call in which a Barcelona player might have been slightly offsides before receiving the ball and assisting in a goal. In the photograph published by AS, the last defender was removed, making the Barcelona player look clearly offsides.
The apology posted by the paper had the headline “Pedimos disculpas por un error en la infografía del 1-0,” which translates to “We apologise for the error in the computer graphics in the 1-0 incident”. So it seems that while they were adding in the lines and player names explaining the play, the brilliant Photoshop guru accidentally performed some Content Aware Fill mojo on that last defender. Clearly an understandable mistake, wouldn’t you say?
[The photographs] appeared to show museum visitors viewing the exhibit.
In fact, the people shown were museum staff members, who were asked by museum officials to be present in the galleries to provide scale and context for the photographs. The photographer acknowledged using the same procedure in other cases when an exhibition was not yet opened to the public.
Such staging of news pictures violates The Times’s standards and the photographs should not have been published. (While pictures may show previews or similar situations before an exhibition opens, readers should not be given a misleading impression about the circumstances.)
One of the photographs is shown above. Basically the photos showed museum staffers as visitors without indicating so in the captions. The comments over at PDNPulse are pretty interesting, with some commenters arguing that this isn’t such a big deal, while others claim that this undermines the credibility of photojournalism.