×

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!

Algorithms Can Make You Pretty

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the too-late-for-me dept.

Software 288

caffeinemessiah writes "The New York Times has an interesting story on a new algorithm by researchers from Tel Aviv University that modifies a facial picture of a person to conform to standards of attractiveness. Based on a digital library of pictures of people who have been judged 'attractive,' the algorithm finds the nearest match and modifies an input picture so it conforms to the 'attractive' person's proportions. The trick, however, is that the resultant pictures are still recognizable as the original person. Here's a quick link to a representative picture of the process. Note that this is a machine-learning approach to picture modification, not a characterization of beauty, and could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive." Note: As reader Trent Waddington points out, the underlying research was mentioned in an earlier story as well.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

288 comments

Fuck Israel (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321767)

Do they have an algorithm that shows what they'd look like without those hooked noses?

I'm Already Pretty (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322177)

Seriously. Like, Chris Isaak, with Liz Taylor's eyes. But, without my overbite, I'd look dull.

So, there's software to make faces bland and uninteresting - go figure. I like the "before" picture girl - with the giant eyes, and super-sized mouth. Sensual, and sensitive. Those are attributes the "beautifying" stripped away...

Re:I'm Already Pretty (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322275)

Agreed, not all of us want our women to look like bobbleheaded dolls.

I find uniqueness to be very cute and sexy on women. Big noses and glasses in particular ;)

Re:I'm Already Pretty (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322363)

Algorithms can model the lowest-common denominator of attractiveness, as determined by our sample respondents.

or

Beauty by committee.

Re:I'm Already Pretty (5, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322577)

"Agreed, not all of us want our women to look like bobbleheaded dolls."

Performance, OTOH...

Re:I'm Already Pretty (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322441)

I'd prefer to look like the after picture rather than the before. I also noticed it did not remove the spot on the side of her face. I wonder why "beautification" software wouldn't include skin smoothing.

Re:I'm Already Pretty (5, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322521)

yea, this research is completely useless. the only potential application i can see for this is to sell software to insecure individuals with low self-esteem so that they can hide behind altered photos of themselves online, further reinforcing their negative self image.

honestly, this program embodies what is most wrong with modern western culture--superficiality, vanity, and an abhorrence of eccentricity or individuality.

penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321769)

penis

See what happens when you put Hillary Clinton's (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321773)

Picture into the machine

--

I bet it crashes !

Re:See what happens when you put Hillary Clinton's (2, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321971)

I am not sure about Hillary (you could've provided a link), but if i have to go by the two pictures at the top of TFA, i'd say the algorithm isn't working very well for me. I find the original face more attractive than the result.

Maybe the algorithm works to tune an image to _someone's_ preferences, but those are different than mine. That is, beauty is still in the eye of the beholder.

What else is new?

links as requested (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322191)

I am not sure about Hillary (you could've provided a link)

Hillary Clinton was a candidate in the U.S. Presidential election; here is some information about her [wikipedia.org] and here is her website [hillaryclinton.com]. She was also married to a former president of the U.S. Let me know if you need links or information about him too.

Re:See what happens when you put Hillary Clinton's (1)

netruner (588721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322195)

I looked through their slideshow - there were a few where I didn't see any difference in the before and after pics. The one in their article was just the one where the difference was most noticable. The thing I noticed is that the algorithm seemed to do little more than make the face shorter, the eyes smaller and lower.

Re:See what happens when you put Hillary Clinton's (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322479)

I think it would be interesting to see what the algorithm does to somebody like Halle Berry or Jessica Alba. What happens when you try to beautify somebody who might already be considered perfect-looking? What happens if you try the algorithm on somebody who is actually in the algorithm's database?

I wonder... (4, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321779)

..how this would handle a goatse pic.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321927)

It would probably grow a few things, shrink a couple of places, and move everything around to make the pic symmetrical.

The question is... (0, Offtopic)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322051)

..how this would handle a goatse pic.

Which of them? [www.exet.nu]

Re:The question is... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322211)

Intresting, I hadn't seen them all. I'm amazed and disgusted at the same time and in some weird way as always question my sexuality due to the anxiety such images put in my brain.

Re:The question is... (1, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322295)

in some weird way as always question my sexuality due to the anxiety such images put in my brain

Then take a look at the female version of Goatse [amazingty.com] and see if it causes the same anxiety.

Re:The question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322541)

Engineering 101: If it shouldn't move, you need duct tape. If it should move, you need WD-40

... which explains goatse "mechanics"

Ok, I'm sold (4, Funny)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321797)

Now, which port on this computer do I stuff my wife in?

Re:Ok, I'm sold (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321917)

Better yet, how do I get this algorithm installed in other people's brains? Though then everyone would look prettier, meaning no one would look prettier...

Re:Ok, I'm sold (5, Funny)

_ivy_ivy_ (1081273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322587)

The algorithms is installed using a liquid sold in cans and bottles, usually labeled as "beer."

USB (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322049)

Now, which port on this computer do I stuff my wife in?

Most digital cameras connect to a PC using USB, presenting themselves as either Picture Transfer Protocol [wikipedia.org]) devices or mass storage devices. So make her look as pretty as you can with tasteful makeup, photograph her, and let the computer do the rest.

Re:USB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322369)

@tepples: that woosh you just heard was the worlds most obvious joke going right over your head

Re:USB (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322619)

woosh

My point is that on MySpace and the like, nobody knows your spouse is ugly as long as you use a program like this. So making your spouse attractive through photo manipulation is almost as effective as making your spouse attractive through more drastic measures.

Re:Ok, I'm sold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322319)

obviously the parallel port, if you know what I mean winkwink.

Oh great, just what the world needs. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321815)

A way for people to fake their online photos in a way that when you finally meet them IRL you go ... AAAGH! What ... happened.. .to you... Car accident?

Making pictures more attractive (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321821)

Apparently one of the biggest things you can do to make someone's face more attractive is to mirror one side onto the other.

From the same picture, it looks like their algorithm decided not to do much mirroring. Looks like it made her eyes smaller and her face a little rounder. Plus wrinkle smoothing and adding some skin glow.

It didn't fix some asymmetries, like her nose.

Re:Making pictures more attractive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322157)

that's because mirrored faces look abnormal and aren't better looking in most cases

the manipulated images are improving symmetry but beyond a certain point it doesn't look like the person anymore

Umm...no... (2, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322569)

Human faces are not symmetric, and our brains know that even if we don't.

Mirrored faces often seem grotesque. Or at least plastic-robotic.

Well... (5, Funny)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321837)

The one on the right was hotter, so I guess it works.

I put my picture in and nothing changed.

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322533)

I put my picture in and nothing changed.

Don't worry, it's just that it's still working on it.

Cultural bias? (4, Insightful)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321839)

They are never going to get away from the cultural influence.

I suspect that's why they used two different countries for their data. It's funny just how horrified some people are by the idea of hardcoded behavior in humans. It's a fight that's pretty much over at this point, and the nature and nurture camps both had a lot right and wrong.

Golden Ratio? (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321863)

I seem to remember a Discovery channel special with John Cleese that discussed the math behind good looks. I understand this is a learning algorithm but I wonder how much easily this could be accomplished just by enforcing the golden ratio [intmath.com] on a face. I think science has come up with a more exact ratio for faces. Honestly, the sample picture looks like they made her face shorter and easily more attractive that way.

Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and when you get old looks fade and all those cliched adages.

Precious Moments (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322107)

I wonder how much easily this could be accomplished just by enforcing the golden ratio on a face.

If you enforce the golden ratio too far, you get Precious Moments [about.com], where the eyes are a golden ratio down the face (resulting in a huge forehead) and the neck is a golden ratio up the body (resulting in difficulty putting on clothes).

Re:Golden Ratio? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322507)

this was popularized by Marquardt who didn't publish his work in peer reviewed journals

see

Marquardt's Phi Mask: Pitfalls of Relying on Fashion Models and the Golden Ratio to Describe a Beautiful Face
Aesth Plast Surg (2008)

that isn't to say that facial proportions don't have a strong affect on attractiveness. In fact I think future research will show that there's an underlying preference for faces that conform to shapes that establish more ideal function, however the golden ratio just confuses this and gives it a mystical chain of being quality that doesn't really follow.

Re:Golden Ratio? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322631)

It is "simply" morphing : they define a harmonious layout for the face, presumably by averaging the layout of several "beautiful" faces, then run an algorithm on the face to be corrected in order to find the contours of eyes, eyebrows, mouth, the whole face itself, then morph it into the "beautiful" layout.

The golden ratio is a fraud. You can use 5/3 for all intent or purpose as your personal golden ratio. The golden ratio only has one interesting property : If (a+b)/a = a/b, then a/b is the golden ratio. That is all. No hidden meanings of aesthetics, order of the universe, mystical property, etc... Just that : (a+b) /a = a/b. We are used to this ratio because it is the format of A3, A4, A5, A6... paper sheets. They all have the same ratio and if you cut one in half, you get the smaller size but still at the same ratio. It is the only ratio that allows that. It looks a bit magic if you think about it, but it is just a friggin' mathematical property that has nothing to do with beauty !

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321867)

that photo just shows it didn't work

Re:hmmm (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322551)

That was my thought, too. In the original, she has large, pretty eyes - in the new one, she has tiny, beady eyes swimming in a huge forehead. And that's supposed to be more attractive?

Then again, my husband and I often disagree on which women are prettiest, and he claims that it's because men and women have different standards, so maybe I'm just looking at her with the wrong set of chromosomes.

It's inherantly flawed (1, Interesting)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321885)

Someone had to have judged the pictures of those who were deemed to be attractive, and that person's opinion may not match that of the person who is getting the surgery, and both their opinions may not match that of others who will interact with the person electing to have the modification.

Fox news already does this (5, Interesting)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321889)

and could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive.

Fox "News" already does this [mediamatters.org] when they're running stories about reporters from other news outlets.

--MarkusQ

Re:Fox news already does this (3, Insightful)

Guppy (12314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322055)

and could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive.

Mod this guy up -- "dirty tricks" campaigning groups, foreign/domestic propaganda agencies, and disgruntled ex's will love to have something like this.

It allows the unskilled to dispense with the airbrush and photoshop skills, makes it easier and faster, and if the program is easily available publically, more deniable (for those who previously had the means to employ artists to do the job).

Re:Fox news already does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322397)

very observant. The first think which came to mind for me was that this would be use to manipulate people's opinions, not just a to use cheaper models for commercial advertising.

If you are working on this type of research, it is probably not with good intentions.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25321935)

Conforms to standards of attractiveness....

Hmm let me see that sounds like a blatent social heard mentality.
Beauty is the person shining from within.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322407)

attractiveness standards are objective to the extent that they are strongly shared preferences. preferences relating to facial attractiveness are very similar between random individuals, groups, and across time. It isn't an absolute ordering, it's a partial ordering affected by individual preferences such as experience or self similarity; it's modified by overall attractiveness, not only body attractiveness, but by personality, compatibility etc

Studies do overlook differences within individuals to look past looks, however statistically it has a very high correlation with mate choice, due to pre programmed unconscious responses that to some extent reveal a likelihood of "good" genes or rather "bad" genes (this hasn't been adequately teased apart in terms of predictive power regarding signs of health, fitness, or reproductive success to determine what preferences capture "good" genes or exclude "bad" genes - for example there's more evidence of the effect of unattractiveness on health than attractiveness as a sign of good health)

I actually think (4, Interesting)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321947)

That the 'before' picture is much more appealing. She has nice eyes and an interesting, engaging face. She looks like someone who would be worth talking to.

The 'after' picture looks like a generic pretty-but-not-beautiful girl. She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles. The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that.

Re:I actually think (1)

Underfoot (1344699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322013)

That was my response... kind of... ... I looked at the pictures before I looked at TFA, and thought "alright, but which is which?".

Re:I actually think (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322193)

Initially the original picture looked altered to me, her eyes are huge. The altered picture is over-saturated, although I admit I know women who (usually due to makeup) look less natural in real life.

If you had to ask me which picture I found most attractive (in that photogenic sense) I'd say the altered one, which (apologies for crudeness) I wanted sucking my cock? The first, without a doubt!

Re:I actually think (5, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322229)

I actually think... that the girl on the right is better looking. But the girl on the left would be more likely to hook up with most slashdotters. Therefore to most slashdotters, she will be more attractive.

Re:I actually think (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322243)

She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles. The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that.

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!

Re:I actually think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322255)

they overdid it, the after picture has too small eyes

Re:I actually think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322393)

"She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles."

"The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that."

But if everybody looked attractive, then you wouldn't be able to tell the people who are probably interesting to talk to from those who are probably shallow and self-centered. Your two points counter each other.

Re:I actually think (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322431)

"That the 'before' picture is much more appealing. She has nice eyes and an interesting, engaging face. She looks like someone who would be worth talking to."

Yeah, I'd hit it too.

"The 'after' picture looks like a generic pretty-but-not-beautiful girl. She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles. The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that."

Too hawt, must therefore be superficial hence unlikely to throw sensitive me a shot of leg. Clearly her loss.

Re:I actually think (1)

wwwgregcom (313240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322509)

Seriously?

How can you judge someone just by her appearance like that?

That the 'before' picture is much more appealing. She has nice eyes and an interesting, engaging face. She looks like someone who would be worth talking to.

The 'after' picture looks like a generic pretty-but-not-beautiful girl. She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles. The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that.

I'm not here to argue which picture is prettier but I know for sure that you can't make conclusions about her personality just by the way she looks. That's sexism, plain and simple. It's that type of attitude that keeps women in the workplace down.

Re:I actually think (5, Insightful)

svnt (697929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322629)

I'm not here to argue which picture is prettier but I know for sure that you can't make conclusions about her personality just by the way she looks. That's sexism, plain and simple.

While I agree that making guesses at someone's interests based on a headshot is superficial, we disagree on the definition of sexism. The poster was comparing two women, and not contemplating offering a job to either one (as far as I can tell).

Either that, or we disagree on the definition of women.

Re:I actually think (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322545)

There was a music video by the Yin Yang Twins. I noticed the girls in this video and asked, "How in the world could they find these people attractive?" But then I thought about where they came from, and the type of girls that would probably give them the time of day. I came to the conclusion, what people find attractive is more about what they're used to getting, rather than those magazine cover girls. So maybe the less mainstream-looking girl would appeal to somebody on a site like Slashdot, just because the girls they interact with are less mainstream.

Re:I actually think (1)

svnt (697929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322575)

Personally I think their major problem is they didn't nail the eyes. The new eyes in every example look porcine.

It works for the developer's picture, but not for women whose eyes are already beautiful. Hmm, I wonder whose image he based his algorithm tweaks on?

I don't recognize her (2, Insightful)

HerrEkberg (971000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321955)

It doesn't look like the same person anymore, but a completely different person with a different face while keeping the same hair and clothes.

Just as easy, huh? (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321965)

Note that this is a machine-learning approach to picture modification, not a characterization of beauty, and could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive.

Pfft, obviously this thing hasn't had to chew on my picture. It'd be a damn good algorithm that could find it's way out of this local attractiveness minimum.

Hulk not ugly! Hulk rugged! (5, Funny)

Bwana Geek (1033040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321989)

From TFA: "Irregular beauty is the real beauty," said Dr. Banner, adding that such attempts to measure beauty are driven culturally by sameness, making everyone look alike.

I agree with Dr. Banner, and not just because I don't want to make him angry.

By who's standard (2, Insightful)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25321999)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder blah blah blah..... I say beauty is cultural. The parameters by which program works are based on a elitist 'Hollywood' culture, the fact that a 'scientist' would prescribe to such unfair generalizations is offensive to me. Yea Yea demonstrating a concept blah blah blah.

Re:By who's standard (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322095)

Feel free to hold whatever philosophy makes you the most comfortable and ignore the science.

I liked the woman on the left (original) better, but I am a statistical anomaly. That doesn't mean my opinion of beauty is any less valid, it just means my opinions aren't shared with the majority of human beings. The person's culture has less of an effect on a person's opinion of beauty than you claim is the point that the science is trying to prove.

Ditto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322549)

>>I liked the woman on the left (original) better,

Ditto. Or as my inner-voice whispered, "The one on the left looks real, the one on the right looks like she'd be a bitch."

Re:By who's standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322635)

Feel free to hold whatever philosophy makes you the most comfortable and ignore the science.

Actually, the science is pretty much with him. The only proven non-cultural aspect of beauty is symmetry. We like symmetry. However, everything else is entirely culturally based, right up to fat being attractive in the old days because fat==wealthy. These days, thanks to fast food being cheap, fat==poor, so it's the other way around.

The person's culture has less of an effect on a person's opinion of beauty than you claim is the point that the science is trying to prove.

Don't pull things out of your ass like that. The article says the software "learned" beauty by polling people belonging to the same culture. Even the fucking researchers said that the result of the software is due to cultural bias.

Maybe I'm just weird... (3, Interesting)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322011)

I couldn't sense any difference between the two pictures for most of the guys, but the pictures of the women seemed significantly different. Maybe I'm just weird, or maybe, as a guy, I recognize the subtleties of women's faces better, or maybe I recognize the differences more readily because I look at a lot more women than men.

Anyone else notice the same thing? As well, did any women notice the differences in the men a lot easier than in the women?

Re:Maybe I'm just weird... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322075)

Particularly with the women it seemed to make the eyes a lot smaller - much more so than the men. I notice it also straightened the mouth out, so that a slight up-turn of a faint smile came out looking rather dour and hard. I don't know about anyone else, but I think pretty much everyone shown looked better in the "before" pics...

Re:Maybe I'm just weird... (2, Informative)

kryptobiotic (451986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322323)

There really was a lot more difference in most of the women's faces as compared to the men so it isn't just that you are more sensitive to women's faces. If you subtract the 2 images in GIMP you can more easily see what changed. Naomi Weinstein and Martina Eckstut had large changes to the size and location of their eyes. Alison Bruce who I found very pretty was basically unchanged. James Franco was also untouched and the only real change to Woody Allen was the frames on his glasses. Micheal Cera's eyes moved and although his pictures were smaller I thought the change was quite noticeable. The programmer Tommer Leyvand probably had the biggest change for the men. His eyes were moved to be on a more horizontal line and his face got noticeably thinner.

Re:Maybe I'm just weird... (1)

evilsofa (947078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322473)

Generally speaking, much less is scientifically understood about what makes a man's face attractive than what makes a woman's face attractive. Could it be because scientists are mostly men?

Political ad applications abound (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322083)

If you can go both positive and negative, and in a subtle way, you might see this applied to still photos (or perhaps video eventually) of the various candidates - a little bump up for yours, a little bump down for theirs. It already happens; this would just push the envelope a little farther. Most people will never see the candidates up close an personal, so it's likely to go mostly unnoticed if done well.

I am not impressed (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322085)

In the sample picture, we see what I would consider to be an average "horse-faced" woman. In the other picture, we see what looks like the star actress of Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles.

The second is most certainly NOT recognizable as the first. They share the same coloring, but that's about it. While I have found that beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, I also find that facial recognition methods are in the mind of the beholder as well. Whether consciously or not, people vary from person to person what they look at in terms of facial recognition in people. I go straight for the jaw line, then cheek bones, then the bones surrounding the eye, then the nose or whatever "stands out" as a feature or defect... and that is just to start with.

You may do your own self-analysis to determine what you actually look at on people, but unless this adjustment algorithm matches your method of perception and recognition, you will not likely agree that the after is recognizable as the before.

can you trust him? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322149)

obama says he's not going to raise taxes but he wants to pay for everyone's health care, education and just about everything else. he's a fucking bitch trick liar.

There is a Unix program for this. (1)

bionicpill (970942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322209)

I've always found that "cp" works just fine for me.

Re:There is a Unix program for this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322339)

There ya go folks, he admitted it. Bionicpill likes cp.

Lame (2, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322273)

The brown-eyed girl looks plain now. Not ugly, just plain. The before picture had a more expressing face.

The pictures on this page (http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification2008/) are absolutely lame. The "before" pics had people in a neutral to a tiny bit of sad face(look at the lips). The new pics simple lift the corners of the lips and tada, better results. That's not better, that's cheap. Since the days of tell-sell I have realised that the before/after contruct was purely based on non-smiling/smiling people because it's that much of a change. This algorithm fails and should not be touted as the best thing since sliced bread.

Also, it makes Woody Allen look like someone who is 90.

I have a better algorythm, (3, Funny)

GrpA (691294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322317)

It does much the same, but leaves the face alone and photoshops it onto an image taken from a fashion magazine.

It's still recognizable as the same person, but they look a lot better.

This technique is so powerful, that if you choose the right magazine (eg, Playboy, Hustler etc) that the test subjects don't even notice if you cut the original face out badly.

Three out of Four test subjects said "What Face" when asked about this irregularity and two left the test early with the new pictures, no doubt impressed by the quality of my algorythm.

GrpA

Re:I have a better algorythm, (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322417)

Three out of Four test subjects said "What Face" when asked about this irregularity

Ahh, the scientific "no-blind" study.

Smiling (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322377)

Did anyone else notice that in nearly all the exemplars, the algorithm tweaked the mouth so that it was smiling more?

What does that tell you about attractiveness?

Aikon-

Machine learning... (2, Funny)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322385)

"...could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive.
Obviously that's not needed around here.

Not meaning to be blasphemous, but... (1)

DrPeper (249585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322449)

It might be interesting to see what this algorithm would do with Mount Rushmore, The Statue of Liberty, or the Mona Lisa? Granted these things are already beautiful, I'm just interested in what the output would be.

What About the Traditional Way? (2, Funny)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322489)

Just gather massive amounts of wealth, and you're *always* attractive.

Except for the "gathering" part, it's so simple!

My head just exploded. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25322559)

"Before and after of Alison Bruce. The software program is based on the responses of 68 men and women, age 25 to 40, from Israel and Germany, who viewed photographs of white male and female faces and picked the most attractive ones."

So a bunch of Germans and Jews got together and sorted through a bunch of people to determine which ones were better?

Wow. Just wow.

How to look better *without* a computer (4, Insightful)

Trevin (570491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25322571)

I've seen the full video and looked at the article from the SIGGRAPH materials. All of the "after" pictures except one did look more or less better than the "before" picture, but there was one consistent change I noticed -- many of the subjects, especially among the female photos, appeared to be frowning or pouting in the original picture, and the modified picture turned up the corners of the mouth into more of a smile.

This tells me that simply smiling can enhance one's attractiveness a great deal!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...