Maybe adding a depth sensor/lidar might fix this?

Probably look for display artifacts (pixel borders)?

But a fixture that takes a good enough screen + enough distance to make the photographed pixels imperceptible is likely just a medium hurdle for a motivated person.

You probably can't fully avoid it but adding more sensors (depth) will make such a fixture quite a bit more expensive.

I love my medium format film cameras. I think everyone interested in photography should try it. Yashicas (just as an example of a company that made good medium format film cameras) are surprisingly affordable on eBay. I've had good luck buying from Japan, FWIW.

What proof is there that the photo scanner is scanning a genuine photo and not something AI generated that looks like a Polaroid?

> A zero knowledge proof to say it isn’t AI

Seems like it.

> a photo scanner that makes the zero knowledge proofs

Presumably at some point the intention is to add other sensors to the camera e.g. for depth information.

I knew that Leica is generally expensive, but the model on the review is insanely expensive (over 10K USD?). It is not even comparable.

Canon gave users the option to sign their photographs with "add original decision data". It got cracked.

* https://petapixel.com/2010/12/01/russian-software-firm-break...

* https://www.elcomsoft.com/presentations/Forging_Canon_Origin...

It wouldn't work at all as open source since you could just modify the source to sign your AI generated pictures.

> This is rather expensive for what looks like a home 3D printed toy with some cute software.

This attitude really rubs me the wrong way, especially on a site called Hacker News.

I think we absolutely should be supporting projects like this (if you think they're worth supporting), else all we're left with is giant corporation monoculture. Hardware startups are incredibly difficult, and by their nature new hardware products from small companies will always cost more than products produced by huge companies that have economies of scale and can afford billions of losses on new products.

So yes, I'm all for people taking risks with new hardware, and even if it doesn't have the most polished design, if it's doing something new and interesting I think it's kinda shitty to just dismiss it as looking like "a 3D printed toy with some cute software".

I'm pretty sure forensic cameras already exist for this purpose. And as far as I can tell, there isn't really any bulletproof way to do this other than embed a signing key in the camera and hope no one manages to extract it, rendering the whole thing pointless.

I guess you could have a unique signing key per camera and blacklist known leaked keys.

This is probably one of those scenarios where if someone wants to fake it they're going to fake it (or at least it will be a never ending arms race, and I expect AI to keep close chase), while a basic security solution will suffice for 99% of use cases, including standard journalism. After all, skilled photoshop+computational tools can already do expert fakery in journalism. (Just look at the last Abroadinjapan video earlier today for a good callout of Photoshop editing to increase engagement).

I wrote this about 7 years ago: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific...

Mine isn't journalism, it's the court system.

Before long, it might be somewhat "easy" to prove anything.

pictorialists used the darkroom to distort reality more than a century ago!

I don't think reputation gets you that far alone, we already live in a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire through follower counts and page ranks.

The problem is quality takes time, and therefore loses relevance.

We need a way to break people out of their own human nature and reward delayed gratification by teaching critical thinking skills and promoting thoughtfulness.

I sadly don't see an exciting technological solution here. If anything it's tweaks to the funding models that control the interests of businesses like Instagram, Reddit, etc.

> camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the software or hardware on the device you supposedly own

Attestation systems are not inherently in conflict with repurposeability. If they let you install user firmware, then it simply won’t produce attestations linked to their signed builds, assuming you retain any of that functionality at all. If you want attestations to their key instead of yours, you just reinstall their signed OS, the HSM boot attests to whoever’s OS signature it finds using its unique hardware key, and everything works fine (even in a dual boot scenario).

What this does do is prevent you from altering their integrity-attested operating system to misrepresent that photos were taken by their operating system. You can, technically, mod it all you want — you just won’t have their signature on the attestation, because you had to sign it with some sort of key to boot it, and certainly that won’t be theirs.

They could even release their source code under BSD, GPL, or AGPL and it would make no difference to any of this; no open source license compels producing the crypto private keys you signed your build with, and any such argument for that applying to a license would be radioactive for it. Can you imagine trying to explain to your Legal team that you can’t extract a private key from an HSM to comply with the license? So it’s never going to happen: open source is about releasing code, not about letting you pass off your own work as someone else’s.

> must be based on reputation

But it is already. By example:

Is this vendor trusted in a court of law? Probably, I would imagine, it would stand up to the court’s inspection; given their motivations they no doubt have an excellent paper trail.

Are your personal attestations, those generated by your modded camera, trusted by a court of law? Well, that’s an interesting question: Did you create a fully reproducible build pipeline so that the court can inspect your customizations and decide whether to trust them? Did you keep record of your changes and the signatures of your build? Are you willing to provide your source code and build process to the court?

So, your desire for reputation is already satisfied, assuming that they allow OS modding. If they do not, that’s a voluntary-business decision, not a mandatory-technical one! There is nothing justifiable by cryptography or reputation in any theoretical plans that lock users out of repurposing their device.

See that's what I'm saying.

Can't find slide printing services easily put AI images onto slide film for you?

I think the point of this movement toward cryptographically signing image sensors is so people can confidently prove images are real on the internet in a momentary click, without having to get hold of the physical original and hiring a forensic lab to analyze it.

There is a movement to cryptographically sign images in order to prove that they are real raw photographs, by selling hardware in which the cryptographic key is placed close to the camera sensor to prevent tampering.

This is one attempt.