Rendered at 23:46:42 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
tantalor 2 minutes ago [-]
Leading with a concert photo example is cringe. Camera phones are a scourge on the concert experience. It should not be encouraged.
billylo 2 hours ago [-]
Somewhat related... I made an indie app called TwinCam which combines front-and-back camera images to create a combined selfie. Free. No strings attached. Cheers!
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple isn't already doing this and just doesn't say so explicitly. There is a crazy amount of image processing going on behind the scenes in each smartphone photo. Would be interesting to compare a photo taken with the native camera app and photosynthesis to compare. I'm assuming your demo images on your site are the raw and processed images from your app that don't go through Apple's "secret sauce" processing pipeline.
101008 3 hours ago [-]
Hijacking this comment because of this line that reminded me of something:
"There is a crazy amount of image processing going on behind the scenes in each smartphone"
I bought the Pixel 10 because it said it had great zooming capabilities. After 5X (that means 10X), it's completely stupid. Basically it takes a very blurred photo and then tries to reconstruct it with AI. The final results are completely awful and really distant from reality.
Any advice in how to improve that?
som 47 minutes ago [-]
Also have a 10 pro .. but the AI-enhanced zoom goes up to 100x and is actually pretty handy for working out what tiny things in the distance actually are ... even if it's only a representation of that thing. Often use it for identifying birds, boats, etc.
spijdar 36 minutes ago [-]
I think my p10p's 100x zoom is neat, but I'd strongly caution against using it for ID in any sense, or necessarily even treating it as a photograph. It will "straight up hallucinate" objects into existence, more of a creative interpretation of 100x digital zoom than an oracle into the identity of something far off.
Makes for a fine image if "looking good" is the objective (which it often is), but I wouldn't trust it to disambiguate anything uncertain.
One solution is to buy a more expensive Pro version that has optical 5x zoom (or, rather, a third camera that start at 5x).
dgacmu 3 hours ago [-]
In photos after you can toggle between the AI modified and original. The original isn't as blurry as the preview shown - there's still a lot of image stacking happening and it's often very decent in my experience.
Edited to add: I have a pixel 10 pro which has a better zoom lens, so I could be having a different experience than you...
cromka 2 hours ago [-]
> Basically it takes a very blurred photo and then tries to reconstruct it with AI
So the ENHANCE is no longer just some lazy movie writing!
johnvanommen 2 hours ago [-]
Even funnier:
The biggest of the "sharpening with AI" models, if you let 'em go, they'll turn you into a celebrity on accident.
If you go to the Topaz AI forums on Facebook, you'll see examples of where the AI sharpening tool went off the rails and turned a blurry photo of someone (typically the user who bought the software, who is trying to clean up their own photos) into whichever celebrity that is in the AI model who resembles them.
IE, it might turn a photo of YOU into a photo of Robert Downey Jr.
cromka 1 hours ago [-]
That's hilarious!
Also wonder how how long until photos are no longer court-admissible evidence because they get overwhelmed with the burden of the amount (and the cost) of the "non-AI" certification?
shye 1 hours ago [-]
Can't wait for the first use of such images as evidence in court.
RamblingCTO 3 hours ago [-]
Wasn't that the same manufacturer that got caught with the moon AI stuff? Lol
Yes exactly, the site shows photos all taken from within the app. I have done A/B tests against photos taken in Camera.app and the Photosynthesis composite does significantly beat the detail central area covered by the second lens in Photosynthesis.
Because of the limitations of capturing multiple lenses at once through isVirtualDeviceConstituentPhotoDeliveryEnabled, there is a second capture mode in the app for 'Quality' which takes a simultaneous capture then takes sequential shots from each lens which do benefit from Deep Fusion, then uses those for the stitch (as long as the Deep Fusion images outperform the simultaneous capture results). That's also what I do for our Night mode.
00kevn 26 minutes ago [-]
One time I took a photo of a snake in the road with my iphone in low light. When I looked at the photo afterwards the snake was removed by the AI enhancement
callc 6 minutes ago [-]
Similar story but my low-light snake photo turned out much less “scary” than in real life.
I’m guessing it has to do with how intensely focused / scared my brain was with the little guy
kndidneid 8 minutes ago [-]
It is part of Apple’s “secret sauce”, yes.
walrus01 4 hours ago [-]
Phones have been doing this for a LONG time, if you had a oneplus 7 pro (released may 2019) and took it into an extremely dark area, like where your eyes can't see anything at all, and take a 'night mode' photo, it asks you to hold it steady for about 4-5 seconds and is clearly taking a series of photos with long exposure time. Then it stacks them and uses data from the sensor of hand movement jitter to deblur.
The result when done outdoors (like, standing in a dark forest at midnight) will be a photo where you can actually see what's around you, and details show up as if it was a brightly full moon lit night.
hbn 4 hours ago [-]
That's a bunch of photos from the same camera, not 2 lenses at the same time
walrus01 3 hours ago [-]
I know, I just don't think it's a huge jump from "take multiple photos over a 2s period from one camera and stack them" to "take several photos from discrete physical cameras and stack them". As a subscription of paid app I am not the target market for the person who made this, I agree with another person commenting in here that said they should be working for a phone manufacturer.
omneity 54 minutes ago [-]
I’d argue the opposite. The geometry involved in reconciling photos from two separate lenses with different focal lengths is quite challenging. If you pay close attention you will see some differences in the before/after samples in the site (for example the ear in that kitchen selfie).
The math is surely more complex than aligning same-lens photography even when you consider the change in angle and perspective between two shots from the same lens.
xyzzy_plugh 2 hours ago [-]
The Amazon Fire Phone did this in 2014. I'm not aware of any prior art in mainstream devices aside from gimmicks like 3D (stereoscopic) photos. I can't remember if the Fire Phone had any relevant gimmicks but it certainly used multiple lenses to produce a single image.
walrus01 2 hours ago [-]
UAV sensor people made a thing that uses 300+ phone size sensors in a single pod, and software workflow to fuse the output together. It's been around quite a few years now.
Ah yes, how could I forget the ARGUS-IS, a household staple of the early 21st century. Those were the days...
somehnguy 4 hours ago [-]
I think it's interesting that the same functionality appeared on iPhone in 2019 as well. Google tells me it was the iPhone 11 and iOS 13.
marmarama 3 hours ago [-]
Night Sight appeared on the Google Pixel camera app in 2018. I think Nokia was doing it first on phones before Microsoft destroyed the remains of their phone business.
The reborn Nokia/HMD was also doing multi-sensor image stacking back in 2019 on the Nokia 9 Pureview.
It's different from just stacking exposures, it's a paid app that does progressive animation of exposures for creative effect and says it's "AI-powered" whatever that means.
LoganDark 2 hours ago [-]
It's a paid app that I literally have, and all it does is take multiple photos and composite them together. It can either naïvely average them together in-place like a traditional long exposure, or align them using machine learning. I'm actually appalled they use the term "AI" considering who they are but that doesn't matter, it's ML. I don't use any of the animation crap, but the aligned long exposures can be useful for ultrawide takes since that camera is so noisy.
Edit: actually I can't seem to find the setting that aligns them. I seem to remember it being able to do that but maybe it doesn't... which would be disappointing...
walrus01 1 hours ago [-]
People are slapping "AI" on anything these days to try to sell more units of whatever it is.
selectodude 4 hours ago [-]
I think this is just Deep Fusion.
2 hours ago [-]
stavros 4 hours ago [-]
This should be easy to check. In these photos, the center of the image has higher detail than the edges.
kndidneid 7 minutes ago [-]
Maybe on this guy’s app, but not the way Apple does it.
anigbrowl 6 hours ago [-]
Neat work, but the free tier lets you export 3 images a month and the alternative is a subscription? No thanks.
sajomes 5 hours ago [-]
Thank you! I'm quite a new dev so honestly I don't know where to pitch the free tier, and I'm not above changing it. Do you have any suggestions for the free tier?
cush 4 hours ago [-]
Charge some number of dollars once. There's no service here, so why would we need a subscription?
hbn 4 hours ago [-]
Maintaining an app isn't free. You let it sit stale for a year or 2 and you'll get kicked from the App Store for non-compliance.
Not to mention the developer account subscription is $99/year
cush 4 hours ago [-]
This is hardly convincing. A $99/yr fee and a once every 2 years update doesn't warrant a monthly subscription fee from every user. Eg a $9.99 app could cover those costs with a few dozen downloads
anigbrowl 3 hours ago [-]
OK? That's just the reality of business. You launch something and then need to do marketing to keep getting it in front of people until word spreads around that your app is a must-have thing for whatever it does and you get a decent number of sales every month.
In general, when I buy something I want to pay for it once and then have it. I don't want to rent or lease it, even if it's consumable. When I eat a restaurant I I pay for the meal when it's over; if it was delicious I might come back again. Even if I like it so much that I eat there every week, that doesn't mean I want a weekly subscription.
xp84 37 minutes ago [-]
A restaurant can do just fine by making you a good meal every week, knowing you'll come back and pay them for each meal.
An engineer with an app can come to work 365 days a year, fix bugs, add nice new features, unbreak the app every time iOS updates, and, though you use the app every day, they can't count on you to give them another $5 every year - or ever again - unless you enter into a subscription.
This isn't to say you have some obligation to do a subscription to any app you don't think is worth it, but for apps from non-scam developers, they're usually like $20 or less a year - about a nickel a day. A nickel is 3¢ in year-2000 dollars btw.
It's on the developer to prove to you that the app is worth paying a nickel a day to have! But ruling it out just because we wish it didn't have to be, well, that just rewards the developers who monetize exclusively with ads or sell their 'free' apps to sketchy operators.
I'd like it if Uber was free or just cost a buck a ride flat rate, but I know that anyone willing to give me a ride on terms like that is probably looking to rob me.
hbn 3 hours ago [-]
You're using a device with an ever-evolving OS that constantly breaks compatibility.
If you paid for it once and only got to keep the version of it as of when you paid for it, in a couple years the platform would remove your ability to use it.
shibapuppie 2 hours ago [-]
That's their problem, not yours.
dudu24 2 hours ago [-]
Even when you paid for software in the Good Old Days it was guaranteed to be compatible with ONE version of your OS, e.g. Windows 95. When you upgraded Windows, you'd often need to buy a new edition.
xp84 30 minutes ago [-]
Even that's not really true. Most software that ran on Windows 95 could be run without modification or even a single update on both Windows 98 and Windows ME. Even XP preserved compatibility for most programs, adding explicit compatibility modes you could enable for an application that wouldn't work out of the box.
So, in the old days, you paid often $50-500 for a piece of software and the developer would usually have zero burden to update the software for you. By the time the OS completely broke it, it would have been 5+ years later. All that time, the developer was freed up to build and sell whole other applications, or, to innovate new and compelling features to get you to pay the upgrade price to get a new version.
Today that developer would have to do 5 major updates with breaking API changes, and probably at least 1 full visual refresh just to keep up with Apple's changing design whims, just for that one app to not be bricked. They have less bandwidth then to build more apps, since each app carries its own annual burden of churn.
ashdksnndck 2 hours ago [-]
If charging for a subscription causes the business to fail it’s their problem. Alternatively it could be what allows them to make a living.
joenot443 1 hours ago [-]
I’ve been at it over a decade now and still found the only reliable way to make money from offline App Store apps is good old fashioned paid apps, $2.99 being a nice sweet-spot.
If you had customers buying last year, it’s likely you’ll have even more customers buying next year. If you stop maintaining your app, that stream of new sales almost immediately dries up.
Offline mobile apps which charge a subscription are a very silly fad to me. The few that get away with it are being steadily edged out by someone else who wants to eat their lunch.
I love the OP’s idea and absolutely see the use case. I also think it’s very promptable. My unsolicited advice is to strike while the iron’s hot at $0.99, because I’d be very skeptical if they’ll attract enough subscribers before getting starved out by copycats.
bryceacc 1 hours ago [-]
demonstrably incorrect, it is very easy to find apps with "last updated" dates 2+ years ago. Paid example:
users don't need the app to be maintained, just installed once.
hbn 3 hours ago [-]
Yes they do need it to be maintained because they update their phone and any apps that don't keep up can no longer be used unless the dev does more work.
artisinal 23 minutes ago [-]
I’ll buy the new version then
dawnerd 2 hours ago [-]
What’s their LLM sub cost? That’s the ongoing cost plus App Store fee. Some expensive sub to save photos is just dumb.
xp84 46 minutes ago [-]
In 1995 or even 2001, this was a completely reasonable line. Most software was written for Windows, and Microsoft clearly considered it taboo to break old software, whether their own or third-party. You could install Office 95 on Windows XP if you really wanted to, which didn't seem unreasonable, as you spent $300+ on the suite.
Giving this advice to developers today is frankly absurd career advice.
1. Few apps can achieve the scale needed for a one-time fee to be sustaining for the app - most apps appeal to a finite set of people, and eventually most who are in your target market (and who are willing to spend actual upfront money), have bought the app.
2. An entire generation has grown up that has never paid more than maybe 99 cents for software, and most refuse to even pay that - they're used to adware. You can't price an "app" at $75 and expect it to be bought by essentially anyone. While adware can actually be a very financially viable route, many developers hate ads and want nothing to do with this model.
3. Unlike the multiple years of stability of old desktop operating systems, platform owners today think nothing of breaking even a plurality of apps with any major OS version - and for some insane reason they also think a new "major version" ought to come out annually.
If you want apps that cease getting updates after a few months and age very poorly, or just to have no choices out there besides adware, keep boycotting every developer who uses a subscription, regardless of how cheap it is.
If you want apps that are diligently maintained and which keep working forever, reward developers who produce apps with reasonable subscriptions. I have a password manager that's $19 a year and covers my whole family, and a podcast player that's $15. That password manager comes out to a nickel a day.
artisinal 26 minutes ago [-]
So if you have thirty apps installed that comes to $600 a year in subscriptions or $50 a month.
I pay exactly zero a month in subscriptions.
vcanales 4 hours ago [-]
I think the less frowned upon way to charge is to just do it once.
If the Apple store supports this, free trial + one time payment sounds like a good way. Don't optimize for freeloaders, as someone else said.
If the app relies only on iPhone hardware and/or is not a live service, an account/subscription should not be required. Even non-devs might justifiably ask "why do I need a subscription for a camera app".
spockz 3 hours ago [-]
Halide asks for a subscription. Not entirely sure why yet. Yes, it is more advanced than the normal app. Also slower and I haven’t noticed any changes or improvements in the last two years. Maybe support for new features in newer iPhones.
ValentineC 29 minutes ago [-]
Halide's subscription system seems to have broken since late 2024/early 2025 — my v1 purchase with a different Apple ID from the one I'm usually logged in with (different country/region) wasn't being recognised.
When I emailed in, they blamed it on how the App Store mechanism changed.
Halide somehow is the only app that has this issue.
wyan 52 minutes ago [-]
They offer both a subscription model and a lifetime purchase. Or that used to be the case, at least. But I agree that it feels like it's getting behind.
ebbi 3 hours ago [-]
They just released a major update, but it's not something I would pay a subscription for. I paid the lifetime fee in it's early days, but that doesn't unlock the new updates sadly.
I use Analogue for day to day capture, and NoFusion and Moment apps for things I will want to edit later. All with one-time purchase. I don't mind paying for quality apps, but I do have subscription fatigue now.
LoganDark 3 hours ago [-]
There is still a lifetime purchase for the new version, IIRC. I can see it in the App Store IAP section. (Which is so useful! Lets me filter for apps that have a lifetime option at all.)
ebbi 2 hours ago [-]
Did not know that!
Might check it out. Thanks for letting me know. But really been enjoying Analogue lately.
LoganDark 2 hours ago [-]
Also, I just checked, I purchased Mark II lifetime and got Mark III for free. It's only Mark I users that didn't get it.
Unfortunately it looks like lifetime users don't get access to the beta program for whatever reason. I guess they don't want feedback from those users.
I tried Analogue too, but I stopped using third-party camera apps altogether because they all seem to suffer from an issue where if you lock the phone too quickly after taking a photo, the photo is lost forever. I lost so many photos to this that I knew I took.
anigbrowl 4 hours ago [-]
I don't think there's anything wrong with charging, even if you vibe coded it. You clearly put a lot of effort into the design and concept.
As I said in more detail below, on a free tier I expect to be able to at least try it out in a normal way. a monthly limit of exporting 3 pictures (eg to look at on my computer or TV) seems like something a normal person would hit in the first 30 minutes of just exploring what it does. Now, I noticed you run it this way for 14 days, but I gotta say that on first view this was massively outweighed by the 3/month limit.
subscription-wise, I just don't like them. If you are doing a ton of server-side processing, I'd rather pay on an as-needed basis. If not, I'd rather just Pay $19.99 (or whatever price you determine to be competitive in the market for photo apps). I see why subscription income would be nice to have for you, but for me it's a financial leaky faucet. In that case, I'd prefer to just go without because the app is a fun thing to have rather than a professional need.
It also bothered me that it was described as a 'reasonably priced' subscription. If I don't see a $ sign and a number, I reflexively classify it as a scam even though rationally I know you're just testing the waters. I close or dismiss 10 or 20 things a day after a cursory glance into whether they're worth my time or money: fear of being ripped off (FOBRO) outweighs the fear of missing out (FOMO).
basisword 1 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't worry - there are some customers you don't want (and that's fine). Apps require a fair bit of upkeep and I imagine a camera app will need testing/modifying to ensure it works with the camera in every annual phone release. If you want to capture people who don't want a subscription add a lifetime plan 2-3x the annual price. Almost nobody will buy it. People complain about subscriptions but back in the day the number of people that complained when an app with 99¢ and not free was also staggering.
newbie578 4 hours ago [-]
Don’t listen to him, people like that will always complain, yet will never upgrade or pay for your product. He does not have a problem with your price but the mere fact that you are trying to sell something. Devs are like that.
Just differentiate signal from noise. Listen to your target audience not random internet comments
Angostura 4 hours ago [-]
I quite happily pay quite a lot for apps. The number I subscribe to is tiny
anigbrowl 4 hours ago [-]
Wrong. I would definitely pay for this and was interested in it precisely because I just bought n iPhone. I spend $500-1000/year on software.
But if there's a free tier I want to try out normal use patterns over the course of a week or a month, and I prefer one-time payments or token purchases to subscriptions. I do the latter only for my IDEs, and still don't like it that much.
My objection was to the free tier only allowing one to export 3 images a month. That seems bizarre to me, since in course of trying something for the first time you might make 5, 10, or 20 images in an hour. If I'm running into a monthly limit in the first few minutes of using a tool, my immediate reaction is that it's something I can live without.
sajomes 3 hours ago [-]
Nothing in the app is gated from day 1, you get 14 days of unlimited use before the choice of free vs paid is even presented, with no need to sign up for an official "free trial", so you have a good amount of time to make your mind up.
I am also considering a lifetime unlock option.
imadwork 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
Thank you, I think I've seen that from reviews for every paid app I've come across - still, happy to take feedback!
cush 4 hours ago [-]
No way. Subscriptions make sense for services. This is just a regular app.
Forgeties79 3 hours ago [-]
Nah man I’m not paying a subscription for a camera app that runs locally with zero need for cloud/servers/etc. beyond hosting their core product. I have paid as much as $50 for an app before (Artemis).
After I buy it I am zero burden to them beyond occasional updates, which I have very modest expectations of. They are far more likely to get my money if it’s one time. I can’t imagine paying a subscription for a physical camera, let alone a camera app on hardware I already paid a lot for
ajkjk 4 hours ago [-]
My suggestion is be generous and make a bit less money as the cost of making the world a kinder and more pleasant place. There's no rule that says you have to play ruthless capitalist.
groundzeros2015 4 hours ago [-]
We’re talking about an optional phone app.
ajkjk 3 hours ago [-]
and everyone is suggested milking it for every dollar. it's gross. this attitude is why so many things suck.
groundzeros2015 2 hours ago [-]
I would select products and services which are aligned with your values rather than moralizing.
ajkjk 30 minutes ago [-]
I don't care what you suggest. If a person asks what they should do I'm gonna give them what I think is the most moral answer.
groundzeros2015 21 minutes ago [-]
It’s immoral not to get a free phone photos app? Come on bro. You’re moralizing, not dealing with wrongdoing or mistreatment.
IncreasePosts 4 hours ago [-]
So what you're saying is that you prompted Claude to produce the app for you and now you're charging for it? A bold move, but I wouldn't expect much returns before there's completely free apps doing the same thing
beachy 5 hours ago [-]
Make it permissive enough that 80% of potential users don't need to pay for subscription. 20% of a heck of a lot of people is still a lot.
4 hours ago [-]
bdangubic 4 hours ago [-]
do not do this please. if you have a good product, people will pay for it. if you don’t, you don’t. don’t optimize for free-loaders
iAMkenough 4 hours ago [-]
correct. never optimize your product, just wait to see if it's a success or not.
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
Thank you - this has been my plan
stavros 4 hours ago [-]
I feel like the GP was being sarcastic.
p1necone 3 hours ago [-]
I just assumed this was what all phones with multiple rear cameras were doing, is it not? What are the multiple cameras for other than that?
hackingonempty 3 hours ago [-]
Each camera has a different optical system with a different focal length range. This lets the camera cover everything from ultra wide angle to telescopic magnification while remaining thin enough to fit in a phone.
cromka 2 hours ago [-]
That's clearly not a problem, which the very app here demonstrates
acomjean 6 hours ago [-]
It’s weird, because the center of the image will be more detailed, so how are they dealing with the “grid of pixels” that is on the display. Are they doubling up the wide angle.
“Easy-to-understand framing
The brackets over the viewfinder indicate the area covered by the more detailed lens. Frame your subject inside them to capture the best detail.“
Reminds me of the old 3d cameras that took two photos at once through 2 lenses (on film)
I'm scaling the wider 'outer' image using Core Graphics 'CGInterpolationQuality' to avoid blocky pixellation, then feathering the seam between the two lens outputs so the transition isn't jarring.
I didn't know about those Nishika stereo cameras, that looks incredible!
tambourine_man 1 hours ago [-]
Nice idea.
On my phone, at least, I had to pintch-to-zoom to 2-3X to see the difference.
And at that size, the “synthesized” version looks much sharper.
You might need more cropping for the mobile version. At 1X I couldn’t tell them apart.
Haven’t checked the desktop version yet
swah 6 hours ago [-]
If it works, Apple copies it soon enough...
woadwarrior01 5 hours ago [-]
There's nothing to copy. Apple's iOS Camera app already uses multi-camera image fusion in many cases. This app builds on the Multi-Camera AVCapture feature that Apple opened up in iOS 13.
IIUC, it's the ability to export layered PSD files with images from multiple sensors.
CharlesW 5 hours ago [-]
Apple has done this (multi-camera/spatial fusion) since 2016, in addition to multi-frame/temporal fusion. The OS decides whether these techniques are worthwhile for any given shot based on context.
If a user gets value from an app month after month it makes sense for the user to pay for the value month after month.
alistairSH 4 hours ago [-]
By that logic, I should be paying Audi and Mazda a subscription for finding utility in the cars that sit in my driveway.
And Nike for the shoes on my feet.
whynotmaybe 2 hours ago [-]
You can rent a car without buying it
backscratches 3 hours ago [-]
Shoes and shirts and hats and bars of soap all should have a monthly subscription as well.
charcircuit 1 hours ago [-]
There are fashion subscriptions. Some people do not value being able to continually rewear clothes and would prefer to constantly having new clothes to show off.
cush 4 hours ago [-]
By that logic they should charge per photo
charcircuit 1 hours ago [-]
That's what film cameras did once upon a time and the business model worked then.
copper-float 2 hours ago [-]
That's absurd. I've gotten value from my toilet plunger for years. Let me start charging you a toilet plunger subscription just for privilege of using it when you please. That's your logic.
charcircuit 1 hours ago [-]
My logic is that toilet plunger manufacturers will race to the bottom resulting in a subscriptionless plunger being the cheapest one.
trashcan2137 6 hours ago [-]
subscription camera app seems like peak comedy to me
furyofantares 6 hours ago [-]
Definitely not peak, my kid asked for a Rubik's Cube solver app which turned out to be subscription based, then wanted to tune her Ukelele with an app which turned out to be subscription based.
This is why some hardware is still supreme. I've had the same Korg chromatic tuner for 20 years and would not be in the least bit surprised if it goes for another 40.
ChrisMarshallNY 5 hours ago [-]
That's what makes me sad about the current Tetris game, on iOS.
One of my favorite games ever, and I'd gladly pay for an ad-free version, but they don't have it. I assume there's much more money to be made with ads, over subscriptions.
cloudfudge 3 hours ago [-]
I think there's money to be made with both, but there's more money to be made by not maintaining two separate models, so ads win.
smugma 57 minutes ago [-]
It's not that rare for games to offer a "remove ads" option for a few bucks. That model doesn't require a lot of extra "maintenance".
I think a few bucks for ad-free brings in more money for most developers, but that still pales in comparison to a recurring subscription model (or models where people keep spending in-app on consumables).
furyofantares 4 hours ago [-]
Oh, the Rubik's Cube app has both actually - the subscription gets rid of the ads you have to watch to get more solves.
bookofjoe 4 hours ago [-]
A penetrating observation that feels true. Too bad.
pastor_williams 5 hours ago [-]
This sort of nonsense is what I think will drive adoption of AI for personal apps. Tell it to create a ukulele tuning app and you get one without ads without subscription that you can make work exactly how you want. I wonder whether this is something that only privacy and tech oriented folk will do and care about our whether it will be adopted generally.
ironman1478 4 hours ago [-]
Metronome apps are paid now or have an 'ad' tier. I took my money and spent it on a real metronome.
da02 5 hours ago [-]
Did you buy it or show them a better way of doing it?
VladVladikoff 5 hours ago [-]
There was some video on reddit that I saw the other day where a man struggled to take a photo with his camera app because it kept popping full screen ads in front of everything else.
hoppp 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah, at that point it's better to buy an external lens for the Iphone. Single purchase and better pictures.
PaulHoule 6 hours ago [-]
There is Halide which I find completely uninteresting because I have a Sony A7iv. (Funny my latest piece of “gear” I am learning to use is a selfie stick because I can do stuff like https://mastodon.social/@UP8/tagged/selfie and I don’t see third party apps really improve on the official camera)
p1necone 3 hours ago [-]
Apple customers are just built different.
roflmaostc 5 hours ago [-]
The principle is similar to foveated imaging [1].
Recently, Samsung introduced the ISOCELL platform which allows to select the area which will be recorded at higher resolution compared to other regions.
There can be all sorts of different applications build around such as extracting higher resolution of text regions, etc [2].
Of course, the lens needs to support this resolution but I think that will be default in the mid-term future.
I'm confused. So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?
Of course the extra detail in the middle is nicer, but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting? Like when you zoom into satellite view on Maps and it's clear that there's a blurry area and a sharp area?
I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image. I can understand why you'd want to snap photos with both lenses simultaneously as save them as separate photos, but I don't understand why you'd combine them.
n2d4 3 hours ago [-]
> I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image.
An image with the FOV of the wide-angle camera but the quality of the main one in the center? Assuming the border interpolation works well (which tbf is probably hard for close objects), why would anyone not want this?
DonHopkins 2 hours ago [-]
>but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting?
Your own eyes work that way, so you tell me.
shmeeed 2 hours ago [-]
My eyes are also always focused at the center of what I'm seeing, as opposed to a picture that you can pan.
ebbi 3 hours ago [-]
> So this is just producing a single photo that is clearer in a middle rectangle and blurrier outside that rectangle?
Yeah that looks to be the case. Not sure what use case this solves with that 'limitation'. I don't think photographers would particularly like this.
megraf 6 hours ago [-]
Pretty cool -- I built see ya' an app which allows you to connect N number of phones locally, and use one phone as the view finder + shutter, and the other(s) as the dedicated camera. I'm just using Apples native API, so it'll connect over bluetooth, wifi, direct, whatever pretty seamlessly. I don't collect any data, and it's 100% free.
That's super handy, thanks! I've been using one of those selfie monitoring screens and opening the camera to record video + turning on the flash, this app seems like a better way of accomplishing this
boaztheostrich 6 hours ago [-]
What API are you using if you don’t mind me asking?
That seems super cool! You could almost strap an iPhone to the back of your phone and see yourself for recordings.
megraf 6 hours ago [-]
Apple’s MultipeerConnectivity framework -- phones discover and talk over local wifi / bluetooth via MCSession, MCNearbyServiceAdvertiser, and MCNearbyServiceBrowser in PeerSessionManager.
gregoriol 5 hours ago [-]
Apple has deprecated all of that now
megraf 5 hours ago [-]
You're right - I have to move them to Network Framework when I have time :)
woadwarrior01 5 hours ago [-]
When you get around to doing that, you might find the Github repo and its accompanying medium article useful.
Please post your own Show HN, or comment in “what are you working on” threads, or pick some other approach.
I also have an app that uses device camera and I don’t write about it in mostly unrelated submissions.
walrus01 4 hours ago [-]
I think this is actually how oneplus phones have taken 'night' mode photos for a very long time in their default camera app, it takes multiple exposures and uses the movement sensor in the phone to pick several which were taken with the least hand jitter, and then stacks them into the final result.
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
I believe that's true for most/all night capture, but they take sequential frames from the same lens rather than combining multiple lenses.
eigenspace 3 days ago [-]
Very cool stuff, I've long thought there must be some fancy ways to get extra information for better image resolution by taking advantage of the other cameras.
That said, I must also say that most of the side-by-side comparison photos shown here are somewhat impressive, and in some cases, the photosynthesis one just looks worse to my untrained eye.
_______________
I'll choose to take this as evidence of the fact that you're tacking a very difficult problem, and you're also being honest in your comparisons and not cherry-picking too aggressively.
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
As dole alluded to below, I have been going back and forth in balancing the quality of the example pictures with the data load. I've pushed an update to the site now that weighs much more towards quality for this exact reason! But you're right, I don't want to hide the fact that not all results are perfect.
dole 7 hours ago [-]
Some of the photosynthesis zoom-ins have overlays take a bit longer to load at higher resolution.
PaulHoule 6 hours ago [-]
Left side and the right side look the same to me except some subtle differences in the color of shadows…. And another waitlist? Nein Danke.
copper-float 4 hours ago [-]
How can you in good conscience charge a subscription for this? It would be one thing if the app relied on infrastructure, but it's a one and done algorithm that's entirely local on device!
Subscriptions are charged because the developer needs to maintain the upkeep and cost of running the service, but that's not applicable here. It's capable of taking a million photographs fully offline, without any reliance on an online service.
Essentially you're saying your product is so superb that people should pay you indefinitely for the privilege of using it. Even though it costs you nothing to maintain, you somehow need people to perpetually pay you for a local, offline algorithm that you wrote one time. How gross, that's the definition of pointless greed.
Shame on you, honestly. This is exactly what's wrong with modern software nowadays. Just like Adobe and all these other companies, taking advantage of people to milk them dry forever. You'll lease a product, you won't have the right to own anything, and you'll be happy about it.
gurjeet 3 hours ago [-]
I believe this is something similar to what Lytro aimed to bring to market.
Lytro, Inc. was an American company founded in 2006 by Ren Ng which developed some of the first commercially available light-field cameras.
I am co fused, 50% of photos look better in standard zoom and 50% of them look better woth photosynthesis. This is like an anti campaign for the app hinting "in the end it doesn't really matter"
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
I think this may be due to an issue I've had with loading the full res zoom images on the website, I've been going back and forth trying to balance the loading times and stress on the browser with clarity of the images. Working on a new idea now, so hopefully it'll give better demonstrations soon.
How is parallax error solved? The two cameras don't share the same optics center.
anthonyskipper 3 hours ago [-]
Parallax error decreases significantly when lens are close enough and these are mm apart. They are close enough that you can probably just play a perspective trick and hide any artifacts.
swiftcoder 4 hours ago [-]
This might be a personal preference thing, but in every single example photo on that page, I significantly prefer the colours in the "standard zoom" version of the photo. I wonder if they can figure out how to do this fusion without losing that beautiful contrast the zoom lens brings to the table?
sajomes 4 hours ago [-]
That's really interesting - the colour match attempts to find the best match between the two lens outputs, which frequently results in them 'meeting in the middle'. You can then manually adjust the output of each lens within the app's editing interface. I'll have a think about the weighting of the colour match.
gepeake 6 hours ago [-]
This was actually a purported feature of the Pixel 3 camera. Google said it would be constantly taking photos and the different information captured as your hand moved slightly could be used to create higher information density photos. It didn't work very well at that point but the idea was cool!
ipsum2 6 hours ago [-]
That's not what's being described here. It's just combining the telephoto and wide angle photos.
sajomes 3 hours ago [-]
I believe that's a similar idea to Apple's Deep Fusion which also takes multiple frames from the same lens then intelligently combines them for higher detail. As ipsum2 said below, that's different to Photosynthesis, which captures from different lenses simultaneously.
hnthrowawayacct 6 hours ago [-]
very cool app, a few questions: why does the color "temp" of the image change between traditional iphone photography vs your app? it appears to both warm and cool the images. Also why is the contrast decreased, specifically in the library/book store example?
joe-dakroub 6 hours ago [-]
I like the idea of this app and the website is well done. Subscription isn't for me, but for folks who take a lot of photos and need this sort of thing, I can see it. Free tier could offer a few more photos per month.
zellyn 5 hours ago [-]
Anyone know if they’re using the native camera resolution for the zoomed part or doing sensor fusion to get better quality than either alone?
bigwheels 6 hours ago [-]
That demo looks like Minority Report level enhancement. Amazing if it really works, but I'll be damned if I'm paying for a SaaS camera app.
alansaber 6 hours ago [-]
Isn't quite a lot of modern smartphone photography post-processing? Yes camera SAAS is extremely funny but I can kinda see it maybe
jnsie 4 hours ago [-]
Interesting. I wonder if this could be extended to take MPO 3D photos.
sajomes 3 hours ago [-]
That is something I want to look at post-1.0-launch.
niek_pas 3 hours ago [-]
That is a fantastic name.
sajomes 3 hours ago [-]
Thank you! I was very happy when I came up with it
iAMkenough 4 hours ago [-]
My hesitations on this are it stores data in a proprietary format that I may not be able to export to another common format if the product disappears in a few years.
For something personal like photos and the memories they capture, that's not ideal for me.
While the app is still with us, I'm not sure how much it will cost me to export to my photos to my photo library each month.
sajomes 3 hours ago [-]
There is zero lock-in with the files being saved - you can export from the app in HEIC/PNG/JPEG as well as PSD and spatial/SBS 3D. The format the website calls the 'Photosynthesis' file is an HEIC so even if you export that you can still access the data outside of the app.
Unlimited exports of the composite images are part of the subscription (with an option to automatically export to Photos.app and/or a folder of your choosing), but the free tier still offers unlimited saving of the constituent images e.g. the wide & tele shots, just not the composite.
LoganDark 3 hours ago [-]
This appears to use a naïve masking approach (using ML to find the edges of the mask) which seems to suffer from slight uncorrected differences in lens distortion. There's a fairly obvious feathering around the edges of the detailed area, objects shift quite dramatically, and overall I feel like I'd do a better job of this manually. It is a cool idea, but flawed execution. I would prefer something like using ML to generate a displacement map between the wide angle and the narrow angle parts. That way you can map the higher details down faithfully without having to feather the edges nearly as much or compute any mask. That would also solve parallax which I see also looks unaccounted for.
BugsJustFindMe 5 hours ago [-]
"This site was paused as it reached its usage limits. Please contact the site owner for more information."
sajomes 5 hours ago [-]
It's back now!
BugsJustFindMe 5 hours ago [-]
FYI you're serving multi-megabyte images on your landing page that could effectively be thumbnails.
5 hours ago [-]
AtheistOfFail 3 hours ago [-]
Weird issue: The iPhone dropdown doesn't include the iPhone XR.
It's not like I expect it to work, I'm just curious what the app does.
teaearlgraycold 4 hours ago [-]
This whole thing feels wrong. OP should be working for a phone manufacturer, not trying to sell this as a subscription. How much is it worth to be able to squeeze a little more visual clarity out of my phone? Maybe $20 maximum? And I feel like I’m on the generous side of the population here. Most people will say $0. But if you’re inside of Apple and you can tell them you can add an average of $1 of perceived value to each of their millions of phones sold each year they’ll be over the moon and you can get a fat salary.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/twincam/id6448645623 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.evergreenl...
"There is a crazy amount of image processing going on behind the scenes in each smartphone"
I bought the Pixel 10 because it said it had great zooming capabilities. After 5X (that means 10X), it's completely stupid. Basically it takes a very blurred photo and then tries to reconstruct it with AI. The final results are completely awful and really distant from reality.
Any advice in how to improve that?
Makes for a fine image if "looking good" is the objective (which it often is), but I wouldn't trust it to disambiguate anything uncertain.
Edited to add: I have a pixel 10 pro which has a better zoom lens, so I could be having a different experience than you...
So the ENHANCE is no longer just some lazy movie writing!
The biggest of the "sharpening with AI" models, if you let 'em go, they'll turn you into a celebrity on accident.
If you go to the Topaz AI forums on Facebook, you'll see examples of where the AI sharpening tool went off the rails and turned a blurry photo of someone (typically the user who bought the software, who is trying to clean up their own photos) into whichever celebrity that is in the AI model who resembles them.
IE, it might turn a photo of YOU into a photo of Robert Downey Jr.
Also wonder how how long until photos are no longer court-admissible evidence because they get overwhelmed with the burden of the amount (and the cost) of the "non-AI" certification?
Because of the limitations of capturing multiple lenses at once through isVirtualDeviceConstituentPhotoDeliveryEnabled, there is a second capture mode in the app for 'Quality' which takes a simultaneous capture then takes sequential shots from each lens which do benefit from Deep Fusion, then uses those for the stitch (as long as the Deep Fusion images outperform the simultaneous capture results). That's also what I do for our Night mode.
I’m guessing it has to do with how intensely focused / scared my brain was with the little guy
The result when done outdoors (like, standing in a dark forest at midnight) will be a photo where you can actually see what's around you, and details show up as if it was a brightly full moon lit night.
The math is surely more complex than aligning same-lens photography even when you consider the change in angle and perspective between two shots from the same lens.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ARGUS+pho...
The reborn Nokia/HMD was also doing multi-sensor image stacking back in 2019 on the Nokia 9 Pureview.
Google has some great blogs about their camera technology https://research.google/blog/night-sight-seeing-in-the-dark-...
From the authors of Halide.
Edit: actually I can't seem to find the setting that aligns them. I seem to remember it being able to do that but maybe it doesn't... which would be disappointing...
Not to mention the developer account subscription is $99/year
In general, when I buy something I want to pay for it once and then have it. I don't want to rent or lease it, even if it's consumable. When I eat a restaurant I I pay for the meal when it's over; if it was delicious I might come back again. Even if I like it so much that I eat there every week, that doesn't mean I want a weekly subscription.
An engineer with an app can come to work 365 days a year, fix bugs, add nice new features, unbreak the app every time iOS updates, and, though you use the app every day, they can't count on you to give them another $5 every year - or ever again - unless you enter into a subscription.
This isn't to say you have some obligation to do a subscription to any app you don't think is worth it, but for apps from non-scam developers, they're usually like $20 or less a year - about a nickel a day. A nickel is 3¢ in year-2000 dollars btw.
It's on the developer to prove to you that the app is worth paying a nickel a day to have! But ruling it out just because we wish it didn't have to be, well, that just rewards the developers who monetize exclusively with ads or sell their 'free' apps to sketchy operators.
I'd like it if Uber was free or just cost a buck a ride flat rate, but I know that anyone willing to give me a ride on terms like that is probably looking to rob me.
If you paid for it once and only got to keep the version of it as of when you paid for it, in a couple years the platform would remove your ability to use it.
So, in the old days, you paid often $50-500 for a piece of software and the developer would usually have zero burden to update the software for you. By the time the OS completely broke it, it would have been 5+ years later. All that time, the developer was freed up to build and sell whole other applications, or, to innovate new and compelling features to get you to pay the upgrade price to get a new version.
Today that developer would have to do 5 major updates with breaking API changes, and probably at least 1 full visual refresh just to keep up with Apple's changing design whims, just for that one app to not be bricked. They have less bandwidth then to build more apps, since each app carries its own annual burden of churn.
If you had customers buying last year, it’s likely you’ll have even more customers buying next year. If you stop maintaining your app, that stream of new sales almost immediately dries up.
Offline mobile apps which charge a subscription are a very silly fad to me. The few that get away with it are being steadily edged out by someone else who wants to eat their lunch.
I love the OP’s idea and absolutely see the use case. I also think it’s very promptable. My unsolicited advice is to strike while the iron’s hot at $0.99, because I’d be very skeptical if they’ll attract enough subscribers before getting starved out by copycats.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-dark-room/id736683061
Giving this advice to developers today is frankly absurd career advice.
1. Few apps can achieve the scale needed for a one-time fee to be sustaining for the app - most apps appeal to a finite set of people, and eventually most who are in your target market (and who are willing to spend actual upfront money), have bought the app.
2. An entire generation has grown up that has never paid more than maybe 99 cents for software, and most refuse to even pay that - they're used to adware. You can't price an "app" at $75 and expect it to be bought by essentially anyone. While adware can actually be a very financially viable route, many developers hate ads and want nothing to do with this model.
3. Unlike the multiple years of stability of old desktop operating systems, platform owners today think nothing of breaking even a plurality of apps with any major OS version - and for some insane reason they also think a new "major version" ought to come out annually.
If you want apps that cease getting updates after a few months and age very poorly, or just to have no choices out there besides adware, keep boycotting every developer who uses a subscription, regardless of how cheap it is.
If you want apps that are diligently maintained and which keep working forever, reward developers who produce apps with reasonable subscriptions. I have a password manager that's $19 a year and covers my whole family, and a podcast player that's $15. That password manager comes out to a nickel a day.
I pay exactly zero a month in subscriptions.
If the Apple store supports this, free trial + one time payment sounds like a good way. Don't optimize for freeloaders, as someone else said.
If the app relies only on iPhone hardware and/or is not a live service, an account/subscription should not be required. Even non-devs might justifiably ask "why do I need a subscription for a camera app".
When I emailed in, they blamed it on how the App Store mechanism changed.
Halide somehow is the only app that has this issue.
I use Analogue for day to day capture, and NoFusion and Moment apps for things I will want to edit later. All with one-time purchase. I don't mind paying for quality apps, but I do have subscription fatigue now.
Might check it out. Thanks for letting me know. But really been enjoying Analogue lately.
Unfortunately it looks like lifetime users don't get access to the beta program for whatever reason. I guess they don't want feedback from those users.
I tried Analogue too, but I stopped using third-party camera apps altogether because they all seem to suffer from an issue where if you lock the phone too quickly after taking a photo, the photo is lost forever. I lost so many photos to this that I knew I took.
As I said in more detail below, on a free tier I expect to be able to at least try it out in a normal way. a monthly limit of exporting 3 pictures (eg to look at on my computer or TV) seems like something a normal person would hit in the first 30 minutes of just exploring what it does. Now, I noticed you run it this way for 14 days, but I gotta say that on first view this was massively outweighed by the 3/month limit.
subscription-wise, I just don't like them. If you are doing a ton of server-side processing, I'd rather pay on an as-needed basis. If not, I'd rather just Pay $19.99 (or whatever price you determine to be competitive in the market for photo apps). I see why subscription income would be nice to have for you, but for me it's a financial leaky faucet. In that case, I'd prefer to just go without because the app is a fun thing to have rather than a professional need.
It also bothered me that it was described as a 'reasonably priced' subscription. If I don't see a $ sign and a number, I reflexively classify it as a scam even though rationally I know you're just testing the waters. I close or dismiss 10 or 20 things a day after a cursory glance into whether they're worth my time or money: fear of being ripped off (FOBRO) outweighs the fear of missing out (FOMO).
Just differentiate signal from noise. Listen to your target audience not random internet comments
But if there's a free tier I want to try out normal use patterns over the course of a week or a month, and I prefer one-time payments or token purchases to subscriptions. I do the latter only for my IDEs, and still don't like it that much.
My objection was to the free tier only allowing one to export 3 images a month. That seems bizarre to me, since in course of trying something for the first time you might make 5, 10, or 20 images in an hour. If I'm running into a monthly limit in the first few minutes of using a tool, my immediate reaction is that it's something I can live without.
I am also considering a lifetime unlock option.
After I buy it I am zero burden to them beyond occasional updates, which I have very modest expectations of. They are far more likely to get my money if it’s one time. I can’t imagine paying a subscription for a physical camera, let alone a camera app on hardware I already paid a lot for
“Easy-to-understand framing The brackets over the viewfinder indicate the area covered by the more detailed lens. Frame your subject inside them to capture the best detail.“
Reminds me of the old 3d cameras that took two photos at once through 2 lenses (on film)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/206409326865?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%...
I didn't know about those Nishika stereo cameras, that looks incredible!
On my phone, at least, I had to pintch-to-zoom to 2-3X to see the difference.
And at that size, the “synthesized” version looks much sharper.
You might need more cropping for the mobile version. At 1X I couldn’t tell them apart.
Haven’t checked the desktop version yet
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/249/
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avcap...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/06/apple-buy...
And Nike for the shoes on my feet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch
One of my favorite games ever, and I'd gladly pay for an ad-free version, but they don't have it. I assume there's much more money to be made with ads, over subscriptions.
I think a few bucks for ad-free brings in more money for most developers, but that still pales in comparison to a recurring subscription model (or models where people keep spending in-app on consumables).
Recently, Samsung introduced the ISOCELL platform which allows to select the area which will be recorded at higher resolution compared to other regions.
There can be all sorts of different applications build around such as extracting higher resolution of text regions, etc [2].
Of course, the lens needs to support this resolution but I think that will be default in the mid-term future.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging
[2]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3799902.3811218
Of course the extra detail in the middle is nicer, but won't the edge of the "detail rectangle" be extremely obvious and distracting? Like when you zoom into satellite view on Maps and it's clear that there's a blurry area and a sharp area?
I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image. I can understand why you'd want to snap photos with both lenses simultaneously as save them as separate photos, but I don't understand why you'd combine them.
An image with the FOV of the wide-angle camera but the quality of the main one in the center? Assuming the border interpolation works well (which tbf is probably hard for close objects), why would anyone not want this?
Your own eyes work that way, so you tell me.
Yeah that looks to be the case. Not sure what use case this solves with that 'limitation'. I don't think photographers would particularly like this.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/see-ya/id6792367530
That seems super cool! You could almost strap an iPhone to the back of your phone and see yourself for recordings.
https://github.com/0Itsuki0/SwiftUI_P2PWithNetwork
I also have an app that uses device camera and I don’t write about it in mostly unrelated submissions.
That said, I must also say that most of the side-by-side comparison photos shown here are somewhat impressive, and in some cases, the photosynthesis one just looks worse to my untrained eye.
_______________
I'll choose to take this as evidence of the fact that you're tacking a very difficult problem, and you're also being honest in your comparisons and not cherry-picking too aggressively.
Subscriptions are charged because the developer needs to maintain the upkeep and cost of running the service, but that's not applicable here. It's capable of taking a million photographs fully offline, without any reliance on an online service.
Essentially you're saying your product is so superb that people should pay you indefinitely for the privilege of using it. Even though it costs you nothing to maintain, you somehow need people to perpetually pay you for a local, offline algorithm that you wrote one time. How gross, that's the definition of pointless greed.
Shame on you, honestly. This is exactly what's wrong with modern software nowadays. Just like Adobe and all these other companies, taking advantage of people to milk them dry forever. You'll lease a product, you won't have the right to own anything, and you'll be happy about it.
Lytro, Inc. was an American company founded in 2006 by Ren Ng which developed some of the first commercially available light-field cameras.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro
For something personal like photos and the memories they capture, that's not ideal for me.
While the app is still with us, I'm not sure how much it will cost me to export to my photos to my photo library each month.
Unlimited exports of the composite images are part of the subscription (with an option to automatically export to Photos.app and/or a folder of your choosing), but the free tier still offers unlimited saving of the constituent images e.g. the wide & tele shots, just not the composite.
What do the multiple lenses do then, if not this? Like,I presumed that was the point.
Are they LITERALLY just decoration for me to make fun of?
Many phones already use information from both cameras, too.
Android phones have multiple cameras too.
I immediately signed up. (And offered to help bring users to this thing.)