Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some Eye-Popping Research From Siggraph

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the let's-face-it dept.

Graphics 135

jamie found links to a discriminating selection of Siggraph papers at waxy.org. Among the more captivating: automatically improving the attractiveness of faces in portraits; automatic substitution of similar faces into photographs (with potential applications such as a privacy-enhanced Google Street View); and using still photographs to enhance video of a static scene.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ye have a butt like a sheep, (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629155)

I like sheep.

Uncanny Valley (1, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629163)

Those altered faces are somewhere between Bunraku puppet and a prosthetic hand

Re:Uncanny Valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629917)

Actually, I think the experiment only worked (with limited success) on male faces. And I am male. Something is wrong with the spacing of the female eyebrows and foreheads. Check the pics out. This is interesting because a few years ago I heard about a scoring algorithm for attractiveness of faces (Tom Cruise got all 10s of course) and this seems to be the next "logical" step in the science of it all.

Re:Uncanny Valley (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630919)

No it's nothing wrong with the software, women just look weird. That's why I like guys.

Re:Uncanny Valley (1)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632803)

Actually, I think the experiment only worked (with limited success) on male faces. And I am male. Something is wrong with the spacing of the female eyebrows and foreheads. Check the pics out.

I dunno -- I find the altered girls' faces more attractive, personally. Which probably implies that I'm closer to the mean than you are in my subjective tastes.

You can't please all the cooks all of the time. And the authors of this paper implicitly acknowledge that, as they use a statistical consensus to get an indication of what appeals to the majority of viewers. There's always going to be outliers.

Re:Uncanny Valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630473)

The sad thing is that for many people they're Good Enough. Otherwise nobody would watch that Pixar shit.

Re:Uncanny Valley (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631225)

I've never really gotten a clear explanation on that Uncanny Valley chart wikipedia hosts...

What do the + and - mean, exactly? How you'd treat it as being "good" or "bad", in terms of intention?

FX Show Nip/Tuck said it best (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629185)

"Beauty is Symmetry, and you have none"

One of the main characters in the plastic surgery show Nip/Tuck made that comment. It seems as if TFA applies said comment.

Re:FX Show Nip/Tuck said it best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629725)

*phew!* If it weren't for Nip/Tuck, we'd never have known what makes beautiful people so beautiful!

Re:FX Show Nip/Tuck said it best (1, Insightful)

debuglife (806973) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630113)

This is a typical slashdot comment. Uninformed, belittles others work. Symmetry might work in some pictures. It might not work in others. Besides, the feature extraction needed to establish symmetry is non trivial (its the same as what the author of the paper does). If this was so trivial, why didn't you build a system like this. The world belongs to the doers, not the "Ah, I told you so" crowd.

Re:FX Show Nip/Tuck said it best (1, Informative)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630873)

"Beauty is Symmetry, and you have none"

One of the main characters in the plastic surgery show Nip/Tuck made that comment. It seems as if TFA applies said comment.

I found the beautification piece interesting, and yes, symmetry and proportion are very important. Bigger girls that are still in the right wast-hip ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio) are perceived as attractive, and the same goes for other body parts. The research in the article focuses on face symmetry, and some of the subtle before/after pictures are pretty amazing. I'll expect to see this marketed to the booming cosmetic surgery industry very quicklike.

on the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24632689)

A woman once said, while referring to the writing of Chinese characters, "symmetry is not beautiful." Incidentally, she had crooked teeth and was very cute.

I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up (4, Funny)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629191)

All I got back was an email that read "ROTFLMAO!"

Re:I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up (5, Funny)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630157)

I tried it, and I got floating point error.
:O

Re:I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up (1)

skeptikos (220748) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630927)

Maybe you are a denormal :-P

So in summary (5, Insightful)

mrbah (844007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629199)

Just add symmetry and make thinner.

Re:So in summary (4, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629221)

that was exactly what I was going to write :) But the first guy sort of defeats that rule, he's actually a little broader in the face than the source image.

A simpler rule would be 'add symmetry', mirror the left half of the face (or the right half, flip a coin).

Adding a smile also goes a long way towards making people prettier, in fact a smile really is the best make-up.

Re:So in summary (5, Interesting)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629367)

I can see this tool becoming very popular with the Myspace crowd once they realize the limitations of the current "hold camera above head level" method [officialda...source.com] .

Re:So in summary (0, Troll)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630331)

I know the girl in the first picture. She actually suffers from the myspace angle effect even though she tries to avoid it. She's very comfortable with her body (she gets paid to show it off, actually: plumpprincess.com). She'll often end up surprising dates even when she explicitly tells them she's big -- they just don't believe it. She's a catch, for the right man.

Re:So in summary (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631475)

Well I'm not overweight and I don't think I'm ugly. But I have tried some shots with the camera up higher than me because I wanted to give the viewer (hopefully a man) the sensation of being taller than me and looking down at me. I figured guys like that. And I have a friend who did a high camera angle specifically to give a view of what's in her shirt. So there are at least two reasons for experimenting with high camera angles that have nothing to do with trying to deceive the person viewing the photo. And both of looked basically the same regardless of the angles.

For the people who look radically better or worse with these weird camera angles, I personally don't think the angle is the problem. I think trying to take the picture while holding the camera in their hand is the problem. It keeps the subject too close to the camera.

Re:So in summary (1)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632605)

I don't think steep angle is the problem. It's that we edit out things. Even when we meet people we do it. If someone is eating a steak, we don't scrutinize every strange and ugly contortion their faces make.

We do the same thing with pictures we've taken for the internet, we even advise our friends what photo or outfit they look best in. So, obviously when people finally meet you in person, there's going to be multiple angles, and a higher frame rate, so the problem is really that the internet isn't the equivalent of meeting someone in the real world.

But unfortunately, people are still vulnerable to falling for someone via this, mostly text-based medium, as evidenced by impersonators that cause people to empty their bank accounts, or teens to hang themselves. The chances they'd feel the same emotions in non-virtual person are slim.

One possible solution to reduce this 'deception' is to have a variety of pictures, in different lightings and settings. And to avoid being (self) deceived, look for photo variety, avoid online dating, and constantly remind yourself of this ugly paradox.

Re:So in summary (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632709)

But I have tried some shots with the camera up higher than me because I wanted to give the viewer (hopefully a man) the sensation of being taller than me and looking down at me. I figured guys like that.

NO! There are three billion of us, you can't say "guy's" like that. Is this just trite pedantry? Not really - why try to disguise what you are for the sake of one proportion when there's another proportion who will go for exactly what you are? I'm 6'1" (hopefully a man) and I go for girls who are tall (as a rule I'm not stuck on this). I've had a conversation with a mate on this, who said that he liked little girls who'd gaze up at him adoringly, but what he really wants is a girl he feels is dependent on him. But I'd say he had a few issues. Me - I've always been very confident and out-going and I think that's why I tend to go for taller girls - ones who, all other things considered, therefore appear more alpha female themselves.

People are complicated, want different things and maybe you're doing what's right for you. I'm just observing that knowing nothing else about you, trying to alter your photo impressions to make yourself appear shorter might be doing you a disservice in not helping you find one of the guys who does go for what you are.

Re:So in summary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629369)

Or even better, if it's a woman, make them naked. I've found this makes them so pretty you don't even notice their face.

Re:So in summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629709)

Or even better, if it's a woman, make them naked. I've found this makes them so pretty you don't even notice their face.

So why is it that a naked face doesn't excite you? It's naked, after all.

Re:So in summary (5, Interesting)

grantek (979387) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629441)

Also notice the eyes dropped in most of the touched-up photos, and were rotated to sit horizontally - interesting to look at, I'd like to see what 'designer' plastic surgeons would have to say about that

Re:So in summary (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632415)

I think that plastic surgery is pretty horrible, I think if you think you need a plastic surgeon you really probably need to see a shrink or watch less TV (because that seems to be pretty much coded to give people low self esteem).

Sawing out your eye sockets and gluing them back in at slightly different angle causing all kinds of optical trouble does not seem to be reason enough to fix a minor perceived defect. What's so bad about diverity ? Celebrate the fact that you are uniquely you, and leave the plastic surgery for accident victims.

Re:So in summary (2, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629459)

Careful inspection reveals that the woman's lips have been broadened, also.

Re:So in summary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629479)

Naw, pshaw, she was jussa nigga. foo'-ass white boy.

Re:So in summary (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629553)

My body does this automatically.

For instance, if I notice a pimple on the left part of my face, almost 90% of the time, I will have one on the same spot on the right!!

Re:So in summary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630923)

The algorithm seems to be highly dependant on gender. For example women aren't allowed to have a broad chin, men aren't allowed to have a narrow chin. So what it does is enforce gender stereotypes, which is probably what the majority base their perception of beauty upon. Sad but true.

Re:So in summary (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629223)

Well something like that, if you made it too thin it would also be ugly, there is some median symmetry, which if you deviate from (too large/too small) you get ugly. There is some statistical ideal each part of the face can have before it deviates too much.

Just like too fat vs too thin (i.e. starving kid in africa vs a fat person).

Re:So in summary (1)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629685)

Just add symmetry and make thinner.

It will take more than that to improve the attractiveness of the average slashdotter.

Re:So in summary (2, Insightful)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631233)

Not add symmetry.

Follow the golden rule.

Re:So in summary (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632313)

Do you mean the golden ratio?

Although using your own willingness to have your photo modified could be an important prerequisite for doing it to others, to be polite.

Re:So in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24632343)

id like to see this used on supermodels and celebrities who we already deem 'perfect' and 'hot' to see how it affects them.

dating sites will love this (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629209)

I wonder how soon they will be offering the "attractiveness improvement" service to the photos of their subscribers. I don't think they have enough CPU power to improve mine, though.

Re:dating sites will love this (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629355)

Why the hell would I need their services at all? I always just send a picture of Fabio like normal people do.

Re:dating sites will love this (2, Funny)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630051)

I'm holding out for the portable version but I suppose that won't arrive without some serious improvements in holographic projection tech.
For the reverse process (to make other people look more attractive), I've developed my own tech. I call it Beneficial Ephemeral Eye Reticulation googles. Basically, a pair of B.E.E.R. Googles make even the attendees of a Linux kernel hacking conference look aesthetically acceptable. If only I could make the effect a lasting one...

Re:dating sites will love this (2, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630557)

Who would want it? Surely, even butt-ugly people realize that eventually they'll have to meet their dates in person, and not being recognized is not going to be a desirable outcome. All those "more attractive" results look nothing like the original person. If I wanted to lie about my appearance, I'd sent a picture of Jean Claude Van Damme or something.

Re:dating sites will love this (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630889)

If it's a subtle tweak to Look Better it could be quite important. First impressions and all that. When they meet you in person, okay, maybe you don't look *quite* as good, but the chance that they'll realize it's due to digital manipulation is basically zero - and, honestly, getting the other party to meet you in person is half the battle.

Re:dating sites will love this (2, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631215)

Apparently CGI is already being used to do exactly that for a lot of the latest movies. Making the actors look better and creating more active facial expressions to make up for all the drug abuse, botox overdoses and plastic surgery, all of which really shows up in high definition. The 'beautiful' people turn out to be pretty dang ugly in person, where true personalities and appearance combine to create quite a different picture from the on screen illusion.

With this kind of technology you will never want to leave home or look in a mirror lest you be exposed the ugly shock of reality ;).

Re:dating sites will love this (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631793)

Reminds me of the earlier Sci-Fi series from the 1980's (Dr. Who, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Battlestar Galactica). They didn't have the prosthetics effects available that are available now, so they choose actors with distinctive features and costume design.

Re:dating sites will love this (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632153)

Or in X-Men 3 where they made the two lead actors look about 20 years younger.

Strange 3D photo pairs (3, Interesting)

gznork26 (1195943) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629243)

I rotated the pairs of adjusted faces so they were left to right (and the faces were on their sides), and defocused my eyes as if I was looking at a 3D stereo pair of pictures to see what would happen. The slight differences made the portraits appear to me as if they had been photographed in 3D. The places that had been changed were subtly evident as a misalignment -- in the eyes of some, for example. I realize this is a fudged 3D effect, but might there be some use for it?

---
I write pointed political and business short stories at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

Re:Strange 3D photo pairs (2, Interesting)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629589)

Well, any two similar pictures can get that effect if you focus on them as though they are one. I occasionally use it to cheat on "Find the 10 differences" puzzles, but I don't really see much more use for it. :)

Re:Strange 3D photo pairs (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630795)

Back when I was having problems with epilepsy, my doctor sent me to an eye clinic to train my eyes to work together better. This training involved numerous exercises working with those magic 3D pictures and polarized glasses. There was one thing on the computer where you could see a bird with one eye on the screen, and a box with the other eye. You then had to get the box around the bird (It would chirp at you when you got it.)

Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (3, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629255)

The first two are meh-worthy, but the last one approaches magic-grade technology. Wow!

Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (5, Insightful)

mrbah (844007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629585)

Microsoft spends billions of dollars researching things like that [microsoft.com] , but never brings any of them to market. Look at the "Image Deblurring with Blurred/Noisy Image Pairs" paper -- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized. Contrary to popular opinion Microsoft does innovate, it's just that all the good stuff gets killed by some committee full of assistant senior project project team manager manager mangers.

Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630855)

Thanks for posting that. I try to pay very close attention to Siggraph, I'm not sure how I missed that paper. Fascinating stuff.

Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (2, Insightful)

zalas (682627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632137)

-- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized.

I've noticed that a lot of SIGGRAPH papers will either only work for a small subset of inputs you would want to feed it or need a properly controlled environment to work and might need a lot of tweaking to get looking correctly. In my opinion, SIGGRAPH papers depend on demonstrating excellent best cases while mainstream consumer products require that the worst case be also acceptable.

Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (2, Insightful)

jagdish (981925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629959)

Now if they integrated all this tech with a camcorder, everyone could have a device with video recording capabilities several times that of current HD recorders.

Wow. No, really, wow! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629269)

I'll never trust an image or video ever again. Never. Ever. Make sure you watch the "enhance video of a static scene" clip.

Re:Wow. No, really, wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630073)

The enhanced video demo is beyond a doubt the coolest video editing piece I've ever seen in my entire life.

Re:Wow. No, really, wow! (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631091)

You can say that again, the first two seemed like little more then an image warper combined with a facial recognition system. But that enhanced video one just about had me shitting myself with the things they managed to pull off.

Re:Wow. No, really, wow! (1)

LowTolerance (301722) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631755)

truly amazing stuff, isn't it? i can't wait for the after effects plugin.

Woz-inator (1, Offtopic)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629283)

Decidedly a step up from the software their rivals wrote to make people look more like Steve Wozniak. *shiver*

He's Ugly!... UGLY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629315)

Somebody should send Dr. Steinman over there, I hear he's been having symmetry issues.

Enhanced video (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629325)

The video enhanced by photographs was pretty amazing. NBC will probably be interested in getting their hands on this to "enhance" the next Olympic games.

real footage? (3, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629329)

the question is in twenty years time will you trust the news you see on TV?

when cheap, easy, video editing allows this then supposedly real footage: news, family videos, wedding snaps will lose all veracity.

after every girl wants to look good for her wedding...

and before somebody says "it will never happen" this is only a logical extension of red-eye removal.

Re:real footage? (5, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629451)

I get the feeling from you that you trust it now. I find this confusing myself. Considering that an apparently large portion of Slashdotters very much consider themselves rationalist who do not believe things without proper evidence, it seems weird to me that many simply believe what they see in the news. These past week (maybe 2) there were at least two cases circulating around the internet where it had been observed that CNN has used footage from one event, trying to pass it off as that of another event. And that's pretty low tech.

News reports should be only be as trusted as logic can be applied to the report.

Take for instance the recent story of a Russian sipper shooting at a reporter. A few questions came to my mind:

  • What kind of sniper takes such a shot and misses?
  • What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?
  • How does one tell the affiliation of a sniper? Do they sign their bullets or something?

News stories should be treated as untested pieces of evidence -- in most cases at least. The advancement of technology will only make it more difficult to tell truth from fiction.

Re:real footage? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629737)

What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?

The good kind (would you stay put if you just gave your position away?).

Aside from that, you make an excellent point about the trustworthiness of "news" "footage."

Ever seen "Wag The Dog?"

Re:real footage? (1)

nasch (598556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632217)

What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?

The good kind (would you stay put if you just gave your position away?).

Not really. I saw a show about UK special forces snipers, and as part of their testing, they try to get off as many shots as possible from one location. First they just get in position and fire. If the (expert veteran sniper) trainers can't see them using binoculars from a sniper-range sort of position (200 meters or some such), another trainer moves toward the area and they fire again. If they're still not spotted, the trainer stands right behind them and they take another shot. If the shooter is still not seen, the trainer actually touches his head. Sometimes they're so good the trainers still cannot see them, which is the goal. Now these are really elite snipers, but my point is that a trained sniper absolutely might take multiple shots from one position. Of course if they're good, as the other guy said they would hit with the first shot anyway, so maybe my point is moot. :-)

Re:real footage? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630089)

What kind of sniper takes a shot and misses?

The kind that isn't a formal and TV depicted sniper. The kind that isn't a sniper at all.

Rather just some goon soldier or citizen with any old rifle from a fair distance away. Just becouse the media calls it a sniper, doesn't make it so.

Re:real footage? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630191)

What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?

Umm, the kind that had only one bullet? :)

Re:real footage? (3, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630333)

> What kind of sniper takes such a shot and misses?

No one is perfect. Long distance and wind variations can cause a miss.

> What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?

The smart sniper. There was no way a second shot would have hit. Everyone was moving around too much.

> How does one tell the affiliation of a sniper?

If they shoot at you, you can be sure it's the enemy. The sniper would have easily figured out which side the potential target was on.

> Do they sign their bullets or something?

Signing the bullet would have screwed up the ballistics. Snipers are extremely anal retentive when it comes to their rounds. They usually use hand loads and they buff the round to remove any imperfections.

FYI, a close friend was a sniper for SpecOps.

Let's hope there's a statute of limitations on it (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631889)

If they shoot at you, you can be sure it's the enemy.

True, but as we saw recently with the anthrax researcher, your "enemy" doesn't necessary work for the other guys.

FYI, a close friend was a sniper for SpecOps.

And you're still alive? Whatever happened to "I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you"?

Re:real footage? (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632299)

"What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?"

The kind who uses a bolt-action rifle for accuracy and is careful not to give away his position by firing a second, less-likely-to-hit shot?

Re:real footage? (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629463)

Are you kidding? I don't trust the [nytimes.com] news [theregister.co.uk] now!

With the right tech, in 20 years I'll be able to pick and choose whose face I want to deliver the "news", or star in my favorite shows/movies for that matter. Altered wedding photos will be the least of our worries. ;)

Re:real footage? (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629693)

the question is in twenty years time will you trust the news you see on TV?

You trust it now? Are you new here?

Re:real footage? (1)

plehmuffin (846742) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630633)

and before somebody says "it will never happen" this is only a logical extension of red-eye removal.

No it isn't. This tech makes the scene different from what it would look like to someone who was there. Red-eye removal makes the picture look like it would to someone there. Unless your eyes do actually glow red ...

Re:real footage? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631963)

I may remember incorrectly, but didn't it come out that some US news stations had been showing prefabricated news given to them by the government, a few years ago?

Trust is foolish anyway. People lie all the time, unintentionally get things wrong, get deluded. The press are only human.

Paging Dr. Stienman (0)

SpiritMaster (869780) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629331)

Their Ugly!... Ugly!! UUUGGLY!!!!

Lists of Siggraph (and other) papers (5, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629343)

I'd call this karmawhoring, but seeing as the editors didn't even bother linking to claimed list at 'waxy.org'... lists of Siggraph papers have been kept by Tim Rowley and Ke-Sen Huang for years. You can find this year's list at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html [googlepages.com]

And an overview of all years at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/ [googlepages.com]

This also includes lists of papers presented at other events such as Eurographics.

For even more fun, visit the papers' authors sites; they often also publish papers at seemingly unrelated events that contain some interesting computer graphics gems.

TLA definition, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629607)

dove into that link, 10Q berry much:-)

but i've not been able (ok, only 2 googlesworth;-) to decode this 3 letter acronym: NPR, as in NPR & deformations?

Re:TLA definition, please? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629647)

but i've not been able (ok, only 2 googlesworth;-) to decode this 3 letter acronym: NPR

NPR stands for Non-Photorealistic Rendering

whoa (1)

VirtBlue (1233488) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629385)

The video enhancement was rather impressive, i wonder how cpu cycle intensive it is. I needses to get me handses on its

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629389)

weel-known God, let's fucking Niggers ever1ywhere There are only Off the play area same worthless

One Possible Use (2, Funny)

HeavensBlade23 (946140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629469)

This will save porn companies a bundle...

Re:One Possible Use (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629721)

This will save porn companies a bundle...

Actually, no. Or at least not yet... The skills etc involved in making the image manips look good are still far more expensive than the skills of porn performers. (well, most anyway)

Re:One Possible Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630537)

Correction.
  This will save Scottish porn companies a bundle

Beauty (2, Interesting)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629573)

It's all about the smile. The red-haired girl suddenly looks so much better when she's smiling.

Which leaves me to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629767)

...if Captain Janeway was a true redhead.

The revolution will not be televised (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629583)

... was digitally removed from the video.

In fact, it managed to get so different that got titled Clone Wars.Now you know why the president is so different in real life from what you see in TV.

wow (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629591)

that last link with the video was amazing. I hope it makes it into a commercial (or open source) product and isn't just some research that gets abandoned. Hopefully canon or adobe or someone will buy the technology.
I'm still waiting to be able to buy a plenoptic camera [slashdot.org]

Interesting stuff... (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629595)

Seems to me they could take this a step further and implement a sort of convolution matrix, but instead of modifying neighboring pixels, they'd be making subtle modifications to facial features.

seen some of those before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629681)

the blond and redhead - didnt they feature in a large set of "posture" images I came across once (ok bad pun there lol)

look familiar and the background matches IIRC

Pure genius (1, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629689)

We took this spectacularly attractive blonde chick and wrote software that "automatically" turned her neutral facial expression (or slight scowl) into a smile. While we were at it we improved the symmetry of her face. Now she's gorgeous! We're brilliant!

But that's not all. We also took this African American guy and automatically plugged in a different African American guy's face that had the exact same pose. We're Gods I tell you!

Now do you still trust those Bin Laden videos? (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629771)

n/t

It rather looks like an uglyfication. (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630363)

I could not decide, which versions looked better. I only recognized that they ere mostly non that good looking on both fotos.

Then I looked closer, because I know a bit about the methods behind it. And they did some big errors, like copying the one side of a face to the other, when the face did not look perfectly straight into the camera. This gave some weird results. Some faces even looked quite unnatural (especially, but not solely the focus on huge foreheads.

P.S.: I'm happy that I now since the last months know trough experience, that my opinion that looks matter, were wrong.

Re:It rather looks like an uglyfication. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24633005)

My theory is that unless someone is really deformed you will get used to their face/body very quickly. You will have to "live with someone's personality", but their appearance will grow on you.

meh then wow (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630425)

The first two with the faces...none of them looked right after being touched up. That's probably because our brains are really really good at processing faces. They looked wrong, and creepy in some way to me. Not impressed with the results at all.

The static scene improvements with photo's though. Wow. Fooled my eyes everytime. It always looked better and when they started swapping out elements, hiding posts so you could see the flowers behind, fixing the shaky video was the only thing that looked at little off.

Easy. (4, Informative)

NerveGas (168686) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630439)

Making faces more attractive is easy. All you have to do to get a reasonable increase is to make them more symmetrical.

If you want yet another increase, there is a set of ratios for distances between features that uncannily applies to pretty much everyone who is widely considered attractive. Shift everything closer to those ratios, and you'll get a big improvement.

Want more? Fix skin blemishes.

Between the three of those, you can make incredible strides. I would highly encourage any interested to watch "The Human Face".

It's not about making faces more attractive (1)

xswl0931 (562013) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631323)

It's about making faces more attractive automatically. Doing it manually is easier than writing a program that will do it for you

Digital beer goggles. (3, Funny)

Rufty (37223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630449)

Now she can look as good the morning after as she did the night before!

Improvements... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24630515)

automatically improving the attractiveness of faces

Beer does that already, why do we need an algorithm?

Found the female more "real" (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24630607)

as the subject says, I found the female face more attractive but since I may own that probably doesn't mean anything. Now I know there aren't any females on Slashdot, but are there any fat geeks pretending to be girls that can say whether or not they found the male faces more attractive simply because they were "female".

does anyone realize the implications of this tech? (2, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631513)

Video does lie now.

Can video ever be trusted again where evidence is concerned?

FINALLY! (0, Offtopic)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24631601)

slashdot can add avatars!

Complicated Software (4, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632603)

Once again someone's trying to write a bloated piece of software to overcharge for something our systems already do.

See the following example for how I was able to increase the attractiveness of an already attractive Hooters girl using only Microsoft Paint. (exported via Fireworks for filesize optimization)

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9474/hooters4si8.jpg [imageshack.us]

Re:Complicated Software (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#24632847)

Thanks for the laugh.

Complicated Software (Score:4, Informative)

Moderators, thanks for the bigger laugh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?