Samsung FAKES more than MOONS! 

I've always thought of my photos as just ok, but this makes me more proud of them now because I can say I made them without AI

Happy you reached out and that you were able to reproduce my results. I've had so many people messaging me that I'm wrong and definitely an engineer for Apple (since they couldn't replicate it), and this will definitely go into a playlist of videos I'll send to them :) to me, the added lines in the text at 11:32 are the weirdest...

For professionals / enthusiasts / purists, of course this is going to be an issue. For everyone else, the result is all that matters. So long as it looks like what they see, they won't care how it does it. AI processing is here to stay and is only going to get more powerful. Trying to keep it out of (especially phones/ compacts) photography is a losing battle. However, for a company to implement something like this and target photo enthusiasts / pros without disclosing it is just another step into anti-consumer practices. Important to make sure companies stay honest. Witch-hunting against AI powered processing wont stop it, we can only hope to foster the features we want and be able to turn off / avoid products which don't suit our needs.

It's called scene optimimizer mode, and you can turn it OFF and you get non enhanced photos 🎉 Fun fact all picture's and video's taken with 8000$ camera's, get EDITED EVEN HEAVIER THAN WHAT AI DOES😅

Hi Tony I just want to point out that, you can easily shoot raw on all 4 rear lenses if you want to see how bad or good the lens/sensor itself can be. I got a pretty amazing moon shot just by taking a raw at 10x and blowing it up in Lightroom. To me I also preferred it to what came out of the Auto mode. Same is with buildings and landscapes. It's really not as cut and dry as "Samsung fakes more than moon shots" the amount of intervening the AI does, depends on how poor the original shot was.

The first version was a little more fun, Tony! That one shows you are quite human! Thanks for all you do in covering the camera scene! I've followed you and Chelsea for many years and truly appreciate your insights.

I especially think its important to look at how the Deep Fusion and Photonic engines work on the iPhones when comparing just the everyday shots, if we're going to call out Samsung for the average photo day time photo. I have found what you're talking about to be the case in my iPhone shots as well!. It's not simply sharpening, it sometimes changes fine lines and shapes, something that isn't happening in the lens obviously.

Glad you weren’t having a stroke, thanks for the sharing the explanation.

Camera's job is to capture reality, photographer's job is to enhance that reality. I think AI cameras are good enough for normies, but won't replace us anytime soon. They can see and read shapes but lack the ability to know context. Like those windows they turned into some viking runes

I was only able to reproduce it as it got dark, but yes that also means it was night time. So yes it could be triggered by time and not ambient light as I first thought. I was also able to reproduce the window fonts by photographing the clean version of the image from my screen (image interpolation 20x or more). Btw. the fonts thing also happens with Scene Optimizer off.

Thanks Tony, I loved your report. However, I think many non-photograhers just want images that look good. For example, I have an OM-5 and I bought an f1.2 45mm portrait lens; the lens is just beautiful -so sharp. I took a photo of my wife and I loved it. My wife said, "Delete it, you can see all my wrinkles!" So, I changed the picture mode to "Soft Focus" which smooths over the wrinkles; but it looks really soft. My wife says, "I love it. That lens is better than the first lens."⁹

The windows turning into letters was really something 😂

You guys are forgetting one important fact. Smartphones have a very very small form factor, as such their lenses and sensors will NEVER match that of DSLRs, as such they'll always rely on AI to mitigate their shortcomings. Besides most average consumers just want a descent pic, they don't care whether it was enhanced by AI or not.

They should add AI enhance switch in the camera app. So you can choose your outcome.

Years ago a friend kept taking photos of herself with some app I don't remember but it included automatic filters. She didn't realize that she doesn't look like the photos. It was kinda creepy.

I have had this issue since my wife got a pixel 2. She had here hair cut and dyed and wanted met to take a picture of her she had already taken a selfie picture with her pixel 2 and when i showed her my picture which was accurate she was really annoyed and acted like my photo was making her look horrible. Then she showed me her selfie she took with the pixel 2 and I was like omg what have they done to the photo it looks airbrushed, out of aspect and probably even more, but ultimately it was totally inaccurate/fake. If you think about how people these days use there selfie camera pretty much as a mirror it makes a worrying situation where people are going to be even more living in an imaginary world detached from reality.

no way my setup could have re-edited, re-rendered, aand reuploaded this quick

You added about a minute and a half to this edit (vs. the *_Bad Upload_* edit).

Everyone who wants "the reality" can use a real camera. It makes me laugh when in 2023 some of you are surprised that a phone use software to optimise the final photo when for many years software makes all the job due to the limitations of the hardware...and noone complains. When I want the moon in my photo, I do not care how the phone can do it.

I’d like to see this tested from different locations. Depending on your position relative to the equator, you’ll view the moon at different angles. The moon will appear inverted when viewed from Australia relative to its appearance when viewed from Canada. I wonder if they’ve thought of that.

I really resonated with the point you made about this advertised quality won’t carry over into other situations. It’s not so much that they’re faking things it recognizes like the moon, it’s that they play at that being the quality of the camera, which I believe people will take as working all the time. Oh, this camera is so good it can take super sharp shots of the moon. Imagine how good it’ll be at X, the thing I want to use it for. Except no, it doesn’t have a model for X so your photos look bad. That’s just plain false advertising. Would be fine if they clearly stated this and tempered expectations.

The question is to what degree can Samsung phone pictures be trusted in a court case. If details are added by AI, then what you see is falsified.

First time I've ever seen Tony so "heated" about an issue. Been subbed for years. BTW, my S22 Ultra is a superb videographic tool for me.

What happen if you take a raw photo of the moon with the 100x zoom and then process with DXO PureRaw and an enlarger like Topaz Gigapixel or ON1 AI Enlarger? How much different would be the final results from the Samsung's own JPG?

This also raises questions about the processing Apple does, because I have always preferred shooting RAW on the iPhone 13 PM for more realistic, natural shots. I especially didn't like how it (along with other flagships) handle fine details.

Yeah, I agree Tony, but these cameras are for people who don't care about professional use, they don't even notice, always thank you for revealing these so photographers eyes remain open.

Yep, the whole reason I went for the 22 Ultra was the promo material and the unit's rapid workflow to uploading, now I understand the whys of it. I had already turned off the optimizer some time ago after I noticed the 'not realistic' effects discrepancies in my own photos, but I had no idea of the story begins it all. Great video, thank you.

Let's not skirt over the fact that the S23U is the funnest phone to shoot RAW with, producing some absolutely amazing results. More than I could get with ProRAW on my 13 Pro Max.

Imagine when these photos start to be used as evidence in law courts.

The fact remains that we NEED more regulations enforcing transparency in the AI space not just because consumers are being decieved like this but because its also a vessel for wanton copyright infringement. Everything from the images an AI is trained on to when an AI has actually been used NEED to be publicly disclosed.

At first I thought that was some shady stuff they were doing. Now I feel they should go all in and add nebulas, rings on Saturn, galaxies etc. Let me see in real time what is added and select what I want in the shot. A nightshot portrait with the milky way in the background would be cool. 😂

Something similar happened to me last year on a Google Pixel. Shot a dolmen (megalithic structure) with the phone camera and where there should just be shadows where you look inside the structure, it added a sort of lighter grey wall with a perfectly circular black hole. It happened on 2 out of the 3 shots I took, and of course it wasn't on the shots I took with my regular camera.

Mrwhosetheboss explained it and it already showed that, samsung is not replacing the photos and its just the AI which is adding details to the moon, and i've noticed this trend that when samsung does something better then Apple, every apple fan just somehow manage to criticize it, like Apple does'nt do these things, like literally the company which was basically made on theft.

I remember the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and how iPhone footage was used and the prosecution tried to use detail from a zoomed-in image. The fact that phone cameras can now NOT be relied on to give an accurate representation of reality may have HUGE knock-on effects when it comes to using cameras for evidence.

AI processing making up detail like this makes me worry about the potential for spurious observations in places where accuracy is really required. I’m a scientist who does a lot of scientific imaging of rocks and rock textures, and (although I use a DSLR) the vast majority of my colleagues just use their smartphones, especially in the field. If their smartphones could be making up detail that isn’t there (E.g. if the AI misinterprets part of the image as something it should “enhance”) then there is a good likelihood it will lead to incorrect observations. I’m unlikely to be able to convince the whole field to give up the convenience of taking photos with their smartphone but I will start teaching my students about the dangers of using AI “enhanced” images for scientific work.

In 1 year, Chat GPT went from passing the bar in the lower 10% to the top 80%. It can now create websites based off a drawing, code classic video games and draft legal contracts. It can even find loopholes in your contracts now. Imagine what it can do for photos in a year.

I just hope Samsung doesn't kill or nerf their AI models due to all this negative publicity. The image processing is nothing short of a stroke of genius and I wouldn't want them to go back on it. After all, what would you rather want, the end product looking how it looks with or without AI? Regarding marketing, Apple has been doing this sort of thing for ages, in fact they are close sourced and make decisions regarding what the user is supposed to like, the how is never transparent. Hell, I don't know how much RAM my iphone has until I tear it down, phone companies are telling users to shut up and accept the end product as it is for ages. In the end, if I'm clicking the moon, I'd want it to look like the moon, but I'm clicking it, so completely replacing it would be quite lame.

I had a suspicion that this would happen, and here you have it. I also suspect that my OnePlus Nord has at least some kind of AI processing because pictures of cats taken in impossibly unfavourable conditions look way too decent compared to pictures of unusual things taken in more favourable conditions. Of course if there's anything they are going to train their AI enhancers on besides human faces, it will be cats and dogs, the things many consumers will take lots of photos of… The sad thing is that the built-in camera app has no way to turn off these things, it does not even let me override when it insists on using HDR, and all the wide-angle shots are overcooked and flattened with local contrast for reasons unknown. Luckily I can install OpenCamera to take honest photos, but then it becomes all too obvious how noisy these tiny sensors are without all the enhancements. Real cameras aren't going away anytime soon.

I don't have a problem with statistical supersampling and image enhancement. There needs to be metadata that indicates if algorithms were used that supplement the actual image from the sensor. It would also be great if the image generated a cryptographic checksum to be used to validate the image, and protect against manipulation and forgeries. Disclosure: I once got $1 for my part in a patent on Image Checksums

This is fascinating. I wonder how long before AI is undetectable and what will happen when Canon and Sony start to incorporate this into their cameras, I just hope they always allow the option to turn them off

I so badly wanted a cut-scene to Chelsea casually sipping tea with her iPhone. Missed opportunity.

It took my 800mm fujifilm CCD to get decent picture of the moon, no way a 10MP with 100x digital zoom can give you a sharp image.

Now my twisted little mind is imagining some situation where smartphones secretly upload all the photos ever taken to a secret AI knowledge base, including any intimate pictures that may have been taken. And then someone happens to take a normal picture of that person and the AI helpfully fills in the gaps.

Samsung cameras slowly turning into Midjourney, hahaha.

You don't buy an s23 ultra to take pictures of the moon. You get one because it's the best smartphone out there. Any photo at 100x isn't very usable, it's more of a fun feature to have. When I'm bored I zoom into things but I've never posted or used any 100x zoom shots for anything.

Remember when Xerox messed up archival scans by replacing characters with numbers that Xerox decided were correct? And they didn't tell anyone, even messed up documents were the original got destroyed after the scan - deleting information that won't ever be recovered.

What many people fail to disclose is that this only works in enhanced mode which does exactly what it's advertised for. It's similar to food mode on other phones which also enhances textures, lighting and colors. People are trying to make this look like a huge scandal while it's not. It's clever software integration. What was a scandal was the court cases that proved that Apple intentionally slowed down iphones through updates to force you to buy a new model. Surprisingly (😉), that wasn't big news.

Did SAMSUNG just taking another levels of ''Fake it untill you make it!''

It’s amazing to think that the idea of the man behind the curtain from the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, more than 120 years after the novel’s release, is becoming a bigger part of our reality. What’s scary is that he is more powerful than ever and it’s growing exponentially every day!

11:25 Sometimes I had similar issues (but maybe less extreme) with the digital zoom of a Pixel 3a (which has about the same digital zoom algorithm as Pixel 3-Pixel 6). The digital zoom of the Pixel 3a is extremely artificial. It actually makes me avoid digital zoom because such artifacts ruin a photo. Sometimes, the digital zoom artifacts were partly even in the HDR+ raw file (that's extremely annoying, though most digital zoom artifacts were only in the jpg).

"This is Chelsea's human knuckle" As opposed to her.....??

How many people with this flagship phone you guys think have time to be taken a bunch of pictures of the moon and care if it is accurate or not? People care about the phone performance and reliability. People care about battery life. We don't really care about if the picture of the moon is fake or not.

“Photography is about the truth.” Richard Avedon stated the first principle of photography years ago: “All photos are accurate. None of them is the truth.” Samsung’s misdeed is not that it’s playing games with the truth. It’s that it’s playing games with accuracy.

When Apple didn’t focus too much on the telephoto nonsense on the iPhone14, I knew Samsung was hiding something.

Your channel convinced me to get a good camera, and now all my friends tag me for space pics. Their phone pics of eclipses and full moons aren't cutting it.

Omg, it is astounding how many people do not know, what AI actually is. This as been the core of phone photography since ages. What do people think Google, Huawei, Samsung, Apple and all the others mean with buzz words like deep fusion, neural engine, scene optimizer etc? Deep fusion says it all - it is fusing the picture taken with something... duh. How do people think intelligent sharpening and smoothing is working? AI is simply comparing a certain area of pixels and judging, if some areas should be sharpened or some areas should be smoothed, and then how much and with which kind of algorithm. It is also changing colors, which could be ranging from "food" setting on your phone, to film stock emulation on Fuji Pro cameras. Why is your phone suddenly able to take photos, which seemingly can go on par with much more expensive SLR camera setups, despite having tiny lenses with tiny sensors? Obviously there is no amount of progress that can be physically made to break real physical barriers and limits. It is either completely dumb or disingenuous to be "surprised" about theses facts, and in the case of Tony and Chelsea I am quite a bit surprised at the drift of this video: Tony says, the phone companies should be more honest - but has Fuji or Kodak ever said, even 30 years ago, that our Velvia or Kodachrome stock, honestly does not look like what you eyes see? Has everyone really thought that Kodachrome, Extachrome and Velvia look exaktly the same ("like reality") because the companies did not mention specifically in mass marketing that the colors will be different? They have been more than honest in promoting their AI features - enhancing the scenes left and right, HDR, Night shots, food modes, film emulation, etc. Everything is heavily enhanced and edited. For people to be "discovering" this in spite of the incessant marketing is really, really weird.

You`re the first one that indicated that ai enhancements are optional and can be disabled on the S23, good point most others missed. S23 is a phenomenal phone, we now take 90% of photos with it, as social media does not require pro camera shooting these days, some exceptions.

Unfortunately, most cell phones are so heavily processed with programming to compensate for tiny little fisheye lenses and small censors that they rarely capture reality. It’s why people like selfie’s too much; they’re programmed to smooth skin, contrast the eyes, and make someone appear taller and skinnier. It’s very strange.

The average person does not care as long as they get a nice picture

Did you shoot and test the same results in pro mode and aquire the raw images ? We need raw images of the same 😊

As long as the picture you get it's close or similar to what you see, it's fine... Using analog or digital tricks it's the same. That's not a DSLR, it's a mobile phone... Results are all that matter.

That’s the problem with AI enhanced photos: it will have extra texture, but it won’t be the texture. It was there when you took the photo. You’re not getting an image of what was actually there.

I really thought this was going to be some hilarious click bate, but no straight up serious. Great reporting and fascinating! I'll be showing this to my engineering team tomorrow.

Thank you for this video. I find it quite disturbing. Reality is under attack. As you stated, the whole purpose of a camera is to capture visual reality, not to fabricate an artificial rendition of it.

More great information from Tony as usual. Having been an Android user for over a decade I have to say each iteration of phone I get is better I have the S23 ultra, the battery life is the best I've ever had, really fast processo, the best screen in the industry. I do enjoy using the s23 ultra for photography, I often shoot in raw but I experiment with all of the different camera modes in both the expert RAW app and the camera app. I also kind of feel like I'm just a long for the ride with technology. I adopt and try new technologies it's obvious when you're using the camera that the phone is doing more to your photos than say my Lumix S5 is going to do, that said the capability that I'm able to carry around in my pocket still amazes me on a daily basis I would like it if Samsung could at least take the post-processing that it's doing to raw photos in the expert RAW app off. otherwise I'm not too worried about it but I really want to take a picture of the moon I'll use my 600 mm lens. People that watch this channel understand things like sensor size The only way they're going to increase the capabilities of these devices is with computational trickery and they've gotten very good at it but there's no way the cameras would be as good without all of that stuff.

Adding AI to photos is rather disturbing. It's like having stock photos replacing the photo you think you're taking.

Great essay Tony! I am wondering about popular photography, especially travel photography, whether there will be a place for a camera at all. If "your A.I." can generate the best possible rendition of you in any pose, and can generate the best possible image of any landmark - why bring a camera at all? Just say, "Give me an image of me at the Eiffel Tower at noon on a sunny day." And you get the best possible photo for memories and social media. Perhaps prompt expertise will replace photographic expertise.

This is why I always go for a non-main brand smartphone with the flagship processor for the year and a good screen. With the savings, you can buy a proper compact camera with 1ich, m4/3 or even APSC sensor and have something that can do proper photography rather than just gimmicky overprocessed photos.

Let's be honest here, Samsung and other phone companies are targeting clients, who want to take pictures like a pro, but without investing money in pro/enthusiast gear and time to learn using it. They target people that do not want to start learning photo editting softwear. So they replace all that with AI with the hope that clients won't notice the difference between professionally taken shots and phone ones. And indeed, most people using the social media for posting pictures, will never get into the details. They see an overall beautiful photo, and that is enough. For the record, i use Samsung NX line cameras and lenses, as well as adapted ones, and i am pretty happy with the results. Not a professional, just hobbyist.

why are we saying that the other image looks "better" than the print? Why does more detail always equal "better." The print graininess and texture shouldn't just be labelled "worse."

Great detective work, Tony. This is one of the things I love about the Tony and Chelsea channel. This ranks up there with your ISO information and with your Afghan Girl videos. Cudos also to ibreakphotos for the original work.

Taking a picture of the moon is like reinventing the wheel, unless you're doing something new. Check out the images presented January 10th this year during a press conference from the American Astronomical Society. A radio telescope (the GBT in West Virginia) used a radar beam less powerful than a microwave oven to produce the highest resolution images of the moon ever taken from Earth. The GBT "illuminated" the moon with those radio waves, and an array of radio telescopes in Hawaii captured the images. Forget about affording the radio telescopes to do it yourself, you can't afford their "tripods" (support structures). At 12:20 Tony told us, "I don't feel relaxed." Did he think we didn't know that?

I wonder if they're using techniques used by Astro photographers that specialize in the planets -- they often shoot in video and then the software goes over all the images(frames) collected, chooses the ones with most detail, then breaks each image into many tiles that can be compared to tiles in other frames and to then choose the best tiles to construct the single image.

Honesty in marketing a cameras capabilities is important, though a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted at all times. High on my wish list for astrophotography in-body processing is stacking … the main object like a comet, planet, etc, and the background stars… along with automated bias and dark frames. These all seem to be within AI capabilities but currently are all separate time-consuming processes.

I've been wondering about this recently. Seeing all these pictures of the Milky Way, that people are uploading, made me think that the camera could have just pasted an archive photo over the image, unknown to the photographer. I don't want my camera to mess with my photos. That said, as long as the ability to turn off the feature exists, I'm okay with it.

A single camera update can completely change the landscape of observed camera behaviours.

Galaxy S23 ultra : does not faithfully reproduce reality Digital photography : does not faithfully reproduce reality Analog photography : does not faithfully reproduce reality Mk1 eyeball : does not faithfully reproduce reality (Quantum Physicist) Reality : does not faithfully reproduce reality

Tony, you and Chelsea promote some great content. Happy to see varying opinions. I have two points I'd like to put forward regarding Phone cameras with Ai. First it's a phone with ai, not a camera. Second, since media outlets and news broadcasters are relying more and more on the general public to capture events, where does the honesty line get crossed when the subject has been ai processed? Who can believe anything from an ai phone/camera as evidence to an event?

This is a huge issue for law enforcement both prior to '23 and going forward. This may be the best real world examples yet if this type of modification.

Not the first time mobile photos are fake. Remember the Nokia Lumia 1020 video? Was shot with a pro DSLR. When I saw the Samsung 100x zooms I knew immediately that it's only advertising that bites on young phone fans.

Pretty damn sure Samsung adds stars as well. The sky was pretty bright because we just had a full moon a couple of days ago, so you really had to look for a few seconds to see maybe a handful of stars. Saturn was really prominent though and I zoomed in. My ISO was at 320 and shutter speed at 1/20 and when I zoomed in I saw the typical image noise you get from the ISO being too high for the scene. It wasn't much but noticeable. So I turned the iso down until I saw only Saturn (or more like a light dot) on a black background and when I came to a specific threshold... Suddenly stars popped up that didn't move like Saturn did, whenever I tilted the phone. It was DEFINITELY not image noise but fake stars. I took a photo and when you zoom in on them, they all have the same dotted lines, like they where painted in with a brush from PS.

So what these phone cameras are seemingly doing is creating AR (altered reality). Maybe not to an extreme degree, but still modifying reality. It sort-of reminds me of a cartoon where a boss takes work from two of his employees and asks "You did this?", and they answer "Yes." Then he takes their work to a board meeting and tells the board "I did this." Not knowing exactly how the work was done, the board gives their appreciation to the boss since he was the one presenting it. Having AI fix your photos makes you that boss and those you show the photos to are like the board members. You get "credit" for some AI enhanced photo that really is a version of what you took a shot of, not the actual person, place or thing. To me, it's like autotune being used to fix a singer's bad notes. It's cheating the observer. The issue I have is like Tony says. Be honest about it. It's bad enough many of us are using AI to reduce noise in our photos now, but do we need AI to add things that weren't there?

I have an S23 Ultra and love it for what it does. I am a photographer and use D800 and D7200 for 'work'. Recently I shot a wedding where I took some photos of the venu using the phone and the rest with the cameras. Those shot with the phone couldn't be improved using Photo Ai which means the phone and its Ai did all the processing instantly. Most of the other photos I processed in LIghtroom but used Photoshop Generative Fill to remove unwanted heads, background distractions etc. Without using the Ai available in Photoshop and the Ai available to improve images in Photo Ai, I would have delivered a significantly inferior product, and by now I would have invested in new equipment. With Ai available, I don't need new equipment, which, due to being semi-retired, I would never recoup the cost of. So overall I, like many other photographers, am transitioning to a blend of real and Ai enhanced photography. Why? Because we can, and by doing so we can improve our end results. Samsung just got there a little ahead of the generative Ai that is almost universally available now. I think we just have to roll with it Tony. It is as inevitable as moonrise.

If you're not selling "Enhance" merch yet, you're missing out on a gold mine.

I don't see why adding texture to the moon would be an issue. Phone companies have been doing this AI moon thing for many years. It is just a moon picture, which in my opinion is pretty pointless for most people since it's the same anyway.

Oh the irony, a video criticizing Samsung AI smartphones is full of ads for Samsung AI smartphones.

Ive been staying away from phone pictures since they started 'enhancing' them with watercolor effects,...now that you take a picture and the phone shows you something else...

I was watching an astrophotography video the other day and was thinking: how long before digital "AI" editing software is essentially replacing the source image with a computer generated image.

Tony looks younger, must be shot on a Samsung camera!

Its hard to ignore the processed photo done by these phone maker as artificial/fake, when you are a photographer enthusiast and ai programmer professional. I feel shame going through the photos ive taken with these phones. But its a guilty pleasure i need sometimes.

Definitely not Korean characters @ 9:00. Some look Chinese. Some look like Hebrew. Some look like... random nonsense. FWIW, I've studied all three languages at some point.

Over a year ago I took lots of similar pictures of the moon with my S21 Ultra. I was very impressed by it, but I had no idea it was AI at work.

Its not fake actually it uses AI for 100x zoom shots and Samsung has already told us about this. Actually this is a technology that enhances pictures.

Oh, and by the end of your video, I was "pitchforks sharpened and touches lit." Never going with Samsung again. This comment was tied on an S22 Ultra and with 512gb of hard drive, so I'll probably forget in the next three years or so.

This could potentially have issues for legal proceedings. As we saw with the AH/JD case, Photoshopped images are inadmissible in court so, unless these phones also save an unmodified version, the same could be true of everything you take with such a phone.

IMHO this tech is SUPER fun. As long as your not expecting realism or even 100% accuracy it has its place as a novelty

Smartphone cameras shouldn't be called cameras if they're just producing artificial imagery...

Enhancing real content is one thing. We do it with Lr and Ps all the time. We create pictures we didn't take, but the content is real. Creating content that's not there is a different idea. That's not photography.

Well simply put, its a phone with a camera which automatically processes the photo/video instantly with in-built ai enhancing software. Technically its machine learning phase but commercially they called it ai.

One good reason for not completely replacing the moon in the photo is clouds. They can change the view.