Thread

Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

539 points · 352 comments · imwally

tristanj · 1789527436 · focus · HN ↗
Apple doesn't address the modified photo replay situation, where you take a picture of an already edited image.
Photoshop / AI-gen an image -> display on a high-resolution monitor -> photograph the monitor with iPhone 18 Pro -> valid Apple Reference image.
To get valid reference photos, you can go to the actual physical location, put the iPhone/monitor in a cardboard box to block external light, then photograph the monitor. Paint the inside of the box using Vantablack (stopping reflections) and cover the LiDAR projector with tape.
I can't wait to see Apple Verified™ photos of UFOs flying over the Golden Gate Bridge.
1. pveierland · 1789528538 · focus · HN ↗
  Claim 7 in this patent application describes how depth sensors are used as part of an image authentication process, which would make such a workaround more difficult:
  <a href="https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20260268025" rel="nofollow">https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
  The Apple Reference Image feature is here launched on iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max that both have built-in LiDAR sensors that could be used for this process.
  1. BugsJustFindMe · 1789528800 · focus · HN ↗
    iPhone lidar only works up to like 16 feet in the easiest lighting conditions (indoors) and may be functionally ineffective outdoors.
    gruez · 1789529358 · focus · HN ↗
    So you need a big enough screen to cover the entire field of view at 16 ft? Sounds expensive
    BugsJustFindMe · 1789529818 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, first, that's only expensive if you're poor. The world is absolutely full of people who can easily piss away your entire annual income throwing a house party.
    But I really mean that if the lidar barely works outdoors anyway then actually you don't need to be 16 feet away at all.
    Anyway, one may presume that they've thought about this.
    brookst · 1789531241 · focus · HN ↗
    Thought about it and also are bright enough not to fall for the “if a single person dies wearing a seat belt, we should abandon seat belts because they do no good at all” fallacy.
    It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect. But maybe it’s better than nothing?
    alwillis · 1789536497 · focus · HN ↗
    > It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect.
    Knowing Apple, they've been working on and testing Apple Reference Image for years.
    It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
    archagon · 1789542173 · focus · HN ↗
    If they thought about it, then why isn't this very obvious failure point even mentioned in the technical breakdown?
    ben_w · 1789542189 · focus · HN ↗
    > It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
    Given how many bugs there are in macOS and how long they have remained there, I (who have been writing iOS apps from the release of the first retina iPod touch until AI got good) functionally agree with such people; at best, I think Apple's engineers haven't actually solved everything (and more) mentioned in this thread, even if every one of these things may have come up in discussions and even reached an official backlog or task list or similar.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.