It certainly sounds good on paper, but I feel like this has unintended consequences: Evidence captured with phone cameras is quite literally null and void. Invalid. Phones use a metric ton of AI enhancements to get anywhere near the quality of what dedicated cameras could do 15 years ago.
AI to enhance faces.
AI to denoise the insufferably noisy phone camera.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get better low light performance.
AI to replace the difficult to capture moon with moon pictures taken by good cameras in your area.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get better dynamic range.
AI to convert higher dynamic range into normal dynamic range.
AI to upscale digitally zoomed in pictures to get a consistent resolution.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get more resolution.
This is what your phone does on the fly. Everything your phone captures is AI-enhanced. A small sensor physically can't capture anywhere near the quality of dedicated cameras. So they use software to bridge the gap. Again, AI-enhanced, invalid evidence.
AI to enhance faces.
AI to denoise the insufferably noisy phone camera.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get better low light performance.
AI to replace the difficult to capture moon with moon pictures taken by good cameras in your area.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get better dynamic range.
AI to convert higher dynamic range into normal dynamic range.
AI to upscale digitally zoomed in pictures to get a consistent resolution.
AI to align and stack multiple pictures to get more resolution.
This is what your phone does on the fly. Everything your phone captures is AI-enhanced. A small sensor physically can't capture anywhere near the quality of dedicated cameras. So they use software to bridge the gap. Again, AI-enhanced, invalid evidence.