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!

Scientists Create Easier Way To Embed Objects Into Video

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the advertising-agency-wet-dream dept.

Media 236

Ashutosh Saxena writes "Stanford artificial intelligence researchers have developed software that makes it easy to reach inside an existing video and place a photo on the wall so realistically that it looks like it was there from the beginning. The photo is not pasted on top of the existing video, but embedded in it. It works for videos as well — you can play a video on a wall inside your video. The technology can cheaply do some of the tricks normally performed by expensive commercial editing systems. The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online."

cancel ×

236 comments

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

1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764411)

yeah.

Youtube (3, Insightful)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764439)

I thought there was more than enough advertisement on YouTube as it was already.

Re:Youtube (3, Insightful)

DarthJohn (1160097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765081)

I thought there was more than enough advertisement on YouTube as it was already.

But not in our dreams! Nosiree!

Yeah, that'll work (4, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764455)

The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online.

Just like web surfers no longer even glance at banner ads anymore, people will learn to ignore any corporate logos in videos (even if they really ARE there in real life!).

It will, and does (5, Insightful)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764595)

Modern advertising/branding isn't about actively convincing you anymore. It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure in which you become familiar with a brand/product/logo whatever. In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.

Nobody pays much attention to TV commercials anymore, and haven't for some time. Have advertisers markedly decreased their buying of TV commercial time? No, because you don't have to pay attention for it to work.

Re:It will, and does (4, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764813)

It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure

Also an effective way to brainwash a person too.

Re:It will, and does (2, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764935)

It's the exact same principle. The only difference is the magnitude of the effect.

Re:It will, and does (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764933)

It also enables the game of 'spot the sponsor' on films. Some of the product placement is hillariously bad.

I won't say I'm not influenced by advertising, but in the generics case I can't recall a time I haven't bought the generic where it's available. I always look at ingredients.. if the cheaper one is the same, I save my money.

Re:It will, and does (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764943)

I've noticed that ads are being chained to increase effectiveness.

For example, The SNL episode featuring the fake Sarah Palin had a later skit which showcased the MS Surface technology, then showed the Microsoft ads during the commercial breaks. Another show featured a very distinctive necklace worn by some lade ghost in a mirror on some chick show, and coincidentally the exact same necklace was featured in a commercial which sold them for some kind of real-life charity.

Re:It will, and does (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764947)

In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.

I guess once again I'm outside the bell curve, as I use generics almost exclusively. Tylenol? Doesn't work. Advil? Hell no, generic Naproxin Sodium is 1/3 the price. Tide? Yeah, becasue I haven't found anything that works as good. Listerine? Yes, that brand was shown to reduce incidence of gum disease which I suffer from, and the generics are watered down, you can tell because they don't burn as bad (yes, I did try them and found them wanting).

However, NEGATIVE ads work well on me. Sony's rootkit bit me when my daughter trusted BMG and I'll never buy another Sony product again. I spent so much time under the hood of my Mustang in 1970 that I never again bought another Ford. Tyson Foods burned two dozen Mexicans alive in Georgia in the 1980s because they chained the fire exits shut to keep them from stealing chicken parts (a manager spent 2 years in prison for twenty five horrible deaths) and I'll pay MORE for generic meat than buy Tyson.

And some ads are so annoying that I deliberatly avoid the products.

You would think that the corporates would learn. It's an old adage that if you're happy with a product you MIGHT tell a friend, but if you feel like you've been ripped off you'll tell everybody.

Re:It will, and does (2, Insightful)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765127)

Advil? Hell no, generic Naproxin Sodium is 1/3 the price.

Well you may want to price it against ibuprofen since that's the active ingredient. Just sayin'

Re:It will, and does (2, Insightful)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765233)

Probably meant to say Aleve.

Re:It will, and does (1)

Boinger69 (673392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765363)

Parent probably confused Advil with Aleve, hence the "Tylenol? Doesn't work."

Re:It will, and does (3, Insightful)

undertow3886 (605537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765419)

Interesting, you admit you're outside the bell curve and then expect corporations to learn from your example? I think it'd be more worth it to them to pay attention to the middle of that bell curve. :-)

You know well why they'll keep doing stuff like the rootkit thing. Most people don't care, and the ones who do aren't present in large enough numbers for them to change their strategy.

Re:It will, and does (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765555)

Nobody pays much attention to TV commercials anymore, and haven't for some time. Have advertisers markedly decreased their buying of TV commercial time? No, because you don't have to pay attention for it to work.

And yet online advertising is all about click-throughs. Thanks for poisoning the well, Doubleclick.

Re:Yeah, that'll work (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764703)

I don't think so. Your mind will always subconsciously pick up what is going on around you. That subconscious spotting is enough to build brand-recognition, which is enough to translate into real profit for the one doing the advertising.

This smells like the answer to "how is google going to monetize youtube" to me.

Re:Yeah, that'll work (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765057)

Near the last season of BattleBots the logos they started inserting on the Lexan panels of the arena were really annoying me. Especially when they'd animate their reveal every time the camera angle changed.

Or was it Robot Wars? Whichever one had rows of Lexan panels instead of whole tall sheets of it.

At least in football(US) the ads inserted into the field have some benefit to the viewer in marking the scrimmage and first-down lines. (And hitting the 30-second skip between plays skips past the ads there too.)

Re:Yeah, that'll work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765301)

shhhhhh

Re:Yeah, that'll work (1)

SuseLover (996311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765311)

Those damn TV logos on every channel are so annoying and have been bugging me for a long time. They have even blocked important parts of a scene before. I'm sure they do it as a sort of watermark to protect the video.

The death of advertising (4, Insightful)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764469)

Does anyone notice that the more pervasive advertising is, the less effective it is?

In other words, people build filters for it. I know within younger generations, advertising is almost invisible.

I recall older people at work asking me "did you notice that new ad on the webpage?"

To which I responded "uhm... our webpage has ads?"

Because I spend enough time on the web to have almost totally filtered them out (yeah, adblock does a bunch of that for me, but even without it....)

I don't think I could tell you after a TV show, who the sponsors were. Commercial time is just blank in my mind because I tune it out.

I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage. I don't know for sure, but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.

So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?

Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?

Re:The death of advertising (5, Interesting)

nysus (162232) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764635)

You think you are immune, but you are not. Perhaps you are not interested in 99.9% of the products out there. But when an ad for that that product or service you are interested in, you will pay attention.

Re:The death of advertising (3, Insightful)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764875)

Probably.

I saw ads for the new Nikon camera, which reminded me I had meant to drop by the local camera shop because It was something I'd been wanting to do (upgrade my camera)

I ended up doing some research and bought a Canon from an online discount shop.

Yay for Nikon ads.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765053)

And here you are talking about the ad that you distinctly remember.

That apparently was an effective ad. Effective ads don't have to make you want to buy the product, simply remember the ad. Like those damn "Head On" ads that everyone hates, yet can't ignore.

In this case, the point of the ad doesn't seem to much to promote the product so much as make it seem commonplace. So, like your initial comment, I don't know how effective that is - might have to check some studies.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765229)

That's interesting.

The most memorable ads, if I recall, were actually remembered with very few people actually remembering what the product was.

I recall the Larry Bird vs Michael Jordan ads of the late 80s were some of the most popular ads of all time. In surveys, like 95% of people chose them as the best ads of the superbowl. But only 5% of those people could remember any products being pitched in the ad.

Most ads remind me of Family Guy.

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!

heh

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765293)

I'm not familiar with the "head on" ads, btw.

Not enough TV in my diet. :-D

Re:The death of advertising (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764647)

I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage.

I sometimes click on ads on one webpage. Just so it doesn't die. Nonetheless I filter most of them, I even have greasemonkey to remove one ugly green ad looking almost like other content.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

IcyHando'Death (239387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764721)

Modern advertising is a very different creature from what you seem to think it is. It operates quite well, perhaps even at its best, when (you think) you are not aware of it. When you are not paying attention, you have no chance to rationally evaluate the message it is delivering. It just slips past all your conscious filters right into your subconscious.

Show a pretty girl beside a Lexus logo often enough and you'll start getting a hard-on for one even if you can't say just why.

Co--stan-za!

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764945)

I have a hard on for the new Subaru wagon.

But have you ever seen a Subaru commercial? (unless you live in the mountains, the answer is likely no).

But I like it because on a feature-for-feature comparison, it's one of the more economical and reliable (and safe) vehicles for the price.

But uhm ok.

I'm looking around my house for brands that I might have seen advertised somewhere.

I guess I use Colgate toothpaste... But that was mainly because I was using Tom's of Maine and it gave me bad breath.

I shopped around and Colgate had a variety of flavors I wanted to try.

Dude, I just don't see it.

I've bought just about every generic out there and only resort to the brands when the generic's quality is noticeably lower.

Hmmm you know what...

One time I bought a Molson beer because they sponsor my favorite hockey team... So there you go.. there's one instance.

But I didn't like it, so I didn't buy it again. Still buy micro-brews. The more beer ads I see with gigantic trains throwing snow on a city street make me roll my eyes. The funny thing is as much as I HATE that commercial, I can't remember what company it's for....

meh... advertising...

Re:The death of advertising (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765091)

The point of advertising is awareness... you bought that beer, so did a lot of other people. A certain %age decided they liked it and kept buying... kerching.

No advert will persuade 100% of people to buy the product, but it might persuade 10% to try it, and maybe 1% to switch brands. If you're advertising to a million people that's a lot of sales.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764733)

How do you know what Pepsi is?

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764819)

Because I've tried the other 8 or 10 competitors and I prefer the taste.

I credit their distribution channel for getting the product into every convenience store in the world. Maybe that has something to do with TV ads, but generally when I order a drink, I say "uhm I'll have a Coke or Pepsi or whatever". I guess if I were from the northeast it might be a "soda" but that also means bubbly water in some places...

Regardless, if I found something that tasted different, I'd get that. I really like Jones soda, though I've never seen an advertisment for them, sometimes I ask for them by name because they have very unique flavors.

I also like Blue Sky soda - they also have some interesting takes on some flavors.

*shrugs*

Re:The death of advertising (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764905)

Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray
Sosyo
Crodino
Sanbitter

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764981)

The other problem is, for me, soda purchases are frequently a last-minute gas station purchase, where the selection is grossly limited.

That usually pisses me off, but meh... I don't really *care* that much what's on the label as long as it has a little caffeine and a decent flavor.

Re:The death of advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765429)

You're foolish. Pepsi pay good money to have their product where you'll notice it. That of itself ensures that you drink it more often than you would otherwise. The fact that you might choose between the ten products which were brought to your attention does not mean that advertising has had no effect on your choice.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764739)

Ah, but all the subliminal messages still work on you. Hence your inexplicable urge to go drive a Lexus to McDonalds and pay with your Capital One credit card. ;-)

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764845)

Well... no

I use a credit union because they give me better rates.

And I drive a 10 year old station wagon, because it's more practical.

I am fast-food agnostic and will eat anyplace that has a "drive-thru" window if I'm in a pinch for time.

Though mcdonalds does have decent fries. I tend to avoid it during these stupid "Monopoly" games because it seems to be twice as crowded. (obviously, advertising works there)

Re:The death of advertising (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764941)

Well... no

Sorry, I was kidding. :-)

I guess there is a real point lurking beneath my irony though. Advertisers don't actually need your attention. They believe that if they bombard you with their brand name and logo often enough, for long enough, they can bias your purchasing decisions toward their product. I'm skeptical of the value of this whole "brand recognition" idea, myself.

Oh, look at the time! I have to run down to the Lexus dealer and then go to McDonalds! ;-)

Time distortion through visual deception (1)

Ginsu2000 (556427) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764743)

It has massive implications for the advertising industry but amounts to visual deception. It takes the old saying 'you can't believe what you see' on TV to a whole new level. You could make something appear to have happened later than it actually did, or some time earlier, much much more easily. Spooky, and probably been around for years!

Re:The death of advertising (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765071)

So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?

A lot more than you realize.

Advertisement is one of the most heavily researched areas of our lives. A good fraction of psychology research is, directly or indirectly, related to the effects and effectiveness of advertisement. While it is almost impossible to correctly estimate any specific ad or campaign, the general effects of advertisement are extremely well researched.

So you don't consciously register the ads anymore. Do you think the advertisers care? No, not in the least. They were never targeting your consciousness anyways. Advertisement is about embedding stuff into your subconscious mind - desires for a specific product, good feelings about a specific brand, that kind of stuff.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765165)

look at what PEPSI did for the band Suicidal Tendencies!

Re:The death of advertising (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765189)

I am one of the generation that ACTIVELY builds REAL filters against advertising. I stop watching shows when they get obnoxious with "banner ads" after the real commercial breaks. My MythTV box hits the delete button on commercials, adblock removes banners from the web. My day to day life is fairly marketing free and I try to read real reviews and tests of products to seek advice in my buying decisions.

Its not perfect but I try to avoid walking around in a marketing induced daze like many of the sheeple I encounter on a day to day basis. It makes me chuckle sometimes.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765281)

I've been thinking and I've decided, at least for me, that big purchases are rarely affected by advertising because I consciously go out of my way to be educated on features and make an informed decision.

But with small stupid trivial stuff, maybe the ads do something.

However, I still lean toward the fact that price and availability are far more important.

I was thinking of buying Mentos. Which I've done.

But I realized that I'd probably not have bought them if they weren't within arms reach of the cash register at the store....

*shrugs*

meh. Advertising still seems like a colossal waste of money to me, but I'm glad others disagree.

Re:The death of advertising (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765303)

Stop being dim. You don't notice it but it fills your thoughts. Try to list as many brands as you can and then try to list some adverts which were associated with those brands. You'll be surprised just how much space in your head is filled with their messages without you even realising.

Me too. We're all susceptible. Better to know it that to be unaware of it.

Re:The death of advertising (2, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765349)

but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.

It's probable that some advertising DOES affect you, even if you don't realize it. Do you buy generic drugs, or name brand, for example? (I know I occasionally buy Alleve, despite knowing that it's the same thing as the generic naproxin right next to it. Why?? It's not logical.)

If you had to find car insurance, where would you go? The first thing that pops in my mind is Geico, Allstate, etc -- [i]despite[/i] my knowledge that there is the internet with which to compare services and the like.

Re:The death of advertising (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765589)

Look, these guys probably figure that ads are the only profitable use for their tech right now - and they want jobs after they get their degrees. Nice high paying jobs. For an Ad firm I would suspect. Probably adding Product Placement into all your classic movies and television shows. Certainly when there are adds for Viagra all over the walls of the enterprise when you are watching star trek off some bit torrent, you will notice the adds.

Oh, great (1)

inputdev (1252080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764475)

unobtrusive corporate logos (emphasis mine)

let me see if I understand this correctly (0, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764479)

You mean McCain will no longer have to be standing in front of a green screen for us to make him exciting?

Re:let me see if I understand this correctly (0, Offtopic)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764751)

You mean McCain will no longer have to be standing in front of a green screen for us to make him exciting?

Yeah, you can mark me flamebait all you want, but that shit was funny.

McCain Voguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G9jA-FGGd8 [youtube.com]

Oh, thank goodness! (2)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764483)

Because if there's one thing we all need in our lives, it's more inane advertising plastered over every square inch of vertical surfaces.

Re:Oh, thank goodness! (2, Funny)

drexlor (1314419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764729)

Maybe someday it will be like in Futurama:

Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!

Last night I dreamed about The Office cast in a Seinfield episode. Maybe NBC is already working on the technology.

Re:Oh, thank goodness! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764957)

Their current era technology appears to be working just fine.

Re:Oh, thank goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764861)

Is it true, have we have neglected our share holders interests? We need advertising plastered on both vertical and non-vertical surfaces! It will be novel, new and people will love it.

Re:Oh, thank goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764983)

just wait till they get to the horizontal space!

I Downloaded This Software And Started Using It .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764515)

... but no matter what I try to insert into a video, it just overlays the video with "This technology invented by Shampoo."

Aww I wanted real poo.. (2, Funny)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764909)

ummmm.... It sucks when all my wit is spent in the subject line of my response.

which reminds me (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764519)

of the woman in the movie 'the corporation' that thought it was a great idea to get children to 'nag their parents more effective'. I just love the advertising business. not.

John Holmes move over... (2, Funny)

TheNecromancer (179644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764581)

Yes! Now you too can star in your very own pr0n movie!

Ah, the wonders of software!

Great (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764583)

Now we will see an even greater number of bogus science experiments on Youtube.

remove advertising? (2, Insightful)

mevets (322601) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764613)

Couldn't I use this to remove the objects/logos/animations just as effectively? I would likely pay for that!

Re:remove advertising? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765415)

Don't worry. They're already lobbying for the creation of a Digital Millennium Advertising Act to allowing them to sue you for all the money you and your descendants to ten generations will make for the unthinkable crime of removing, or heaven forbid, ignoring their advertisements, as doing so is purely unAmerican, undermines our glorious freedom, and above all, aids terrorists!

I was afraid this might happen (2, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764661)

When American football television broadcasts started featuring real-time "underlays" of such play-by-play landmarks as line of scrimmage and first down mark, a worried little voice at the back of my head wondered if someone would use this technology to underlay advertising. I think I've seen just such things (i.e., digitally-projected advertising hoardings in the video background, even logos "projected" into the playing field). Now this kind of stuff will be easy and ubiquitous.

As little as we can trust digital visual media now, it'll be even less trustworthy.

Re:I was afraid this might happen (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764993)

No media has ever been more reliable than the person presenting it to you.

These tricks make the visualization slicker and more interesting, but they don't really change how trustworthy it is.

Re:I was afraid this might happen (3, Interesting)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765015)

They already do - those advertising boards on the side? They're electronically generated - have been for years. That's why when you see something played in another country all the adverts are in english.

Re:I was afraid this might happen (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765231)

I did mention that....

(i.e., digitally-projected advertising hoardings in the video background,

I guess my point is that now this'll be accessible to anyone with a video and any motive whatsoever to alter it.

I guess I was naive to think that digital video was ever trustworthy.

Does anyone remember the huge critical attention and praise garnered by Woody Allen inserting his moving image into historical film footage in Zelig [imdb.com] ? I understand that the movie post-processing was painstaking and expensive, and notable for that reason and quality of its execution. Now any schmuck will be able to do pretty much the same thing, and it will take a critical eye to see it. The bar on deceptive video is lowering.

Re:I was afraid this might happen (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765193)

In Latin American soccer games, they use this technology during time-outs to project ads onto the field.

The US market is just a bit more resistant to such pervasive iickyness. :-)

Stanford sold out (2, Funny)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764677)

It is nice to see top universities working on better advertising. You know, I was thinking to myself just yesterday, "There is just not enough product placement in society. I hope someone makes it easier to put advertising in digital media."

Re:Stanford sold out (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764881)

I dunno, it seems that this knowledge is directly applicable to all kinds of serious real-world problems involving computer vision, particularly automated car driving (the Stanford [wikipedia.org] connection might just be a coincidence, but there's a lot of overlap).

Re:Stanford sold out (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765279)

Yes, Of course it's progress, if only to help me get this technology as a GNU-IMP plugin.

I'm not sure whether you meant computer assisted vision (computers helping us) or vision for computers, but as far as automated cars:
    That work seems to be all incremental improvements and people are already pretty good at it (http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/). The current problems are getting it fast enough to react in "real-time," and getting it accurate enough at the same time. If Stanford's algorithm fails with its current application then someone's home video needs some retouching. If it is used in autonomous vehicles, then a pedestrian who was thought to be part of the background, gets hit by a car...Ooops!

Somebody tell the BertIsEvil guy. (3, Funny)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764719)

Somebody tell the BertIsEvil guy.

Inserting video into video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764747)

Pretty soon we'll see things like reporters being inserted into a Wolf Blitzer video.
Or yellow-lines being inserted into the video feed of football games
or wall board advertising being inserted into the video feed of hockey & baseball games.
or ... well, the possibilities are endless
at least they WERE endless... back in 1990
What is this, Slashdot-retro?

The real reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764775)

Great, an easier way to put black boxes over boobies.

Conteplate the New Video Spam Era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764781)

  Imagine a bewulf cluster of those systems at youtube putting anounces everywhere every second.

A few points of note: (4, Insightful)

xquark (649804) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764817)

1. Initially from a computer forensics pov, it would be trivial to detect if a video has been altered, however i think with further improvements in the embedding technology where the actual advert piece is better rendered to take into account surrounding lighting conditions it might become more difficult, however not impossible to detect intentional modifications

2. Just as with current browser ad-blockers, the these ads can also be blocked out, in-fact the technology proves that complex camera conditions such as rotational pan(the heros examples) and occlusion (fat chick on couch) can be easily determined, so creating a blank out mask of a texture that is close to the surrounding surface would also be quiet doable, perhaps not real-time at the moment, but doable nonetheless, and most definitely live sometime in the future perhaps.

Re:A few points of note: (1)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764979)

"1. Initially from a computer forensics pov, it would be trivial to detect if a video has been altered, however i think with further improvements in the embedding technology where the actual advert piece is better rendered to take into account surrounding lighting conditions it might become more difficult, however not impossible to detect intentional modifications"

If I'd points, I'd mod you insightful - and I appreciate the understated tone of the statement. One implied (er, embedded) concern here is the legal standing of video evidence, say from ATM or other security surveillance cameras. A new and probably more intense layer of forensics will have to be added to validate such evidence. I foresee a mess (but I hope I'm wrong).

Help Please (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764827)

I can't seem to understand how this is any different than applying a video\image overlay with opacity to an existing video? Can someone help me out?

Re:Help Please (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765291)

Because simply overlaying an image with opacity wouldn't allow foreground objects to move in front of the image, or for the image to change dynamically with the motion of the camera or the background object. Follow the link in the story and watch the video. The cool stuff starts about 1:40 minutes in.

Re:Help Please (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765471)

Ahh, cool. Thank you =)

oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764869)

"pervasive ads are less effective"

"i just use ad block"

"no one clicks on ads anymore"

blah blah blah

hey assholes: what do you think PAYS for all of the shiny fun websites you like? what do you think pays for slashdot? the hot air in your comments? your sense of self-regard?

not that you have to click on ads you don't like and never will, but maybe you can show the slightest sense of humility and simply shut up: SOMEONE is clicking them, and that someone is paying for the site you like. you think they are morons? your enjoyment of the websites you like is due to the "morons" who click on the ads you hate

in other words, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. all you have to do so that what pays for your websites continues paying for your websites is to learn to shut up when you are smart enough to know you should shut up

some of you apparently are not smart enough to know when to shut up

Re:oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765087)

Hmm... i thought you only posted on you tube defending spears...

Re:oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765093)

Who do you think pays for the advertisements I have do block? Who do you think pays those that pay the advertisements? So in the end those ad sponsored web sites are in fact payed by everyone, instead to only those that use it. They are not free!

I really don't want to pay any extra money for any product to enable them to place annoying ads anywhere. But for a lot of products there really is no way to circumvent this. Even if you buy a no-name product it probably is in fact created by some well known brand and just labeled and priced differently to reach another market.

hilariously incoherent (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765133)

thanks for the laugh

i really can't tell if you are a real moron or a clever troll, which makes the humor even better

bravo (fake?) retard!

Re:oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (2, Interesting)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765177)

I am a member of a number of websites with no advertising, even large ones.

I even pay subscription fees to some.

The fact that there is so much advertising that I tune it out has little to no relevance to your desire for me not to share my opinion, or your belief that my opinion is going to shut down Slashdot... or whatever.

Frankly, I made my income for 5 years off advertising, but we did it in a way that was not stupid banner ads. There were active discussion forums about products related to our content, where people got together to purchase the product for a volume discount and in exchange for organizing it, the site took a moderate cut.

The people got a better deal than they would have without that service and the site was able to make a decent income doing it.

Of course, that was ages ago, but the fact still stands that there are unobtrusive means to conduct business.

On another hand, I block advertising as a side effect.

I block third party cookies, I use NOScript and FlashBlock for legitimate security reasons. The fact that this effectively kills about 95% of advertising isn't really my problem.

They want to drop cookies on my machine and make flash animations fly all over and I don't allow unauthorized flash animations.

Google ads still appear for me, and those are often quite relevant, but one issue is that I don't purchase things online through random retailers FOR SECURITY REASONS, so those ads have little to no benefit to me.

If I want to buy something online, I'll go find a retailer rating website where I can choose a few good retailers to check out and make an educated decision from there and only purchase from reputable stores, regardless of the advertising.

I never called anyone stupid or called for the decline of slashdot, but I won't pretend that ads are super-duper effective, just so that you don't get upset.

gee you sound upset (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765297)

almost as if ads crawl out of the monitor and maul you

reading your words i feel like i'm dealing with one of those autistic kids who clap their ears and cower and stoop at the sound of a loud noise or bright light

Re:gee you sound upset (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765375)

Hah.

Well, I work in computer security and mmm "advertising" (usually in its more insidious forms) accounts for about 40% of the security problems in most organizations.

Considering I work for a "small fish" company who goes around cleaning that up, and our company pulls about $30 million per year from doing it...

I regard insidious advertising as a big problem. Firms like doubleclick, who index and categorize browsing trends by embedding cookies in everything are on an equal level of damage to society as when the government does the same thing... but it would be illegal for the government to do that... you know, invasion of privacy, etc.

So yeah, online advertising tends to piss me off a little, though it sure does pay well cleaning up the mess.

so if you had any real intelligence (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765477)

you would root for more insidious advertising, since you make money off of cleaning it up

'Well, I work in computer security and mmm "advertising" (usually in its more insidious forms) accounts for about 40% of the security problems in most organizations.'

hilarious and ignorant

let's see if i can play your game:

Wellll, I work for NSA and uuuhh aaah mmmm "trolls" (usually the smellier kind) account for 39.4202458% of terroristic threats to NATO member states.

pffft

1. grandiose inflation of importance
2. autistic speech cadence (aahh mmm)
3. bullshit made up statistics

based on those 3 points, you know what would be a better use of your time?

writing ad copy

(snicker)

Re:gee you sound upset (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765511)

"almost as if ads crawl out of the monitor and maul you"

Well, some of them nearly do. Blinking, flashing, making noise, waving some chick's tits around, nagging me to view this here popup before I can see the rest of the page.. THAT is the kind of advertising I hate, ignore, or block. THAT is what gave online advertising a bad name in the first place -- the constant race to be BIGGER SHINIER AND MORE VISIBLE -- which since it was initially pay-per-click-driven, completely failed to understand the concept of ads as brand awareness rather than as instant sale devices. In short, most internet advertising is essentially visual spam.

OTOH there are some good ads -- IBM's series in various tech mags is hilarious, and so well done that I look forward to each new incarnation. In the early days of Google's text ads, they were useful and I even complained when I couldn't see them. (Nowadays they're all for linkfarms and the like, so I started blocking them.) Similarly, some websites have all nicely made and relevant ads that don't whap you upside the head, and I have no problem with those.

Put it this way: Billboards aren't too much of a problem when they're beside the highway; you can look at them or not, as you like. But if you were forced to view them before you could continue on to your destination, wouldn't that annoy you into finding a different route, if you could? Same thing with internet ads.

if a website (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765607)

makes ads that interfere with user experience, they will get less traffic, and less ad revenue

duh

its a self-correcting problem

what are you? the self appointed czar of ad appropriateness? don't worry about it. the ad experience will always be on the sideline, it will never overwhelm your browsing experience, because if it did, those websites that use such methods would see a decrease in revenue. what happens instead is that a maximum of ads will be placed in a maximum of intrusiveness, mindful of the audience's tolerance of either

look at ads in a magazine, or ads on tv. those are carefulyl calibrated rates of display so as to maximize revnue and minimize audience intolerance

meanwhile, i made a joke about ads jumping out the monitor and mauling you, and you took that as a serious exposition

wtf? billboards interfering with your drive? are you for real?

its like dealing with someone with some sort of nervous disorder

Re:oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (2, Funny)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765209)

There are ads on Slashdot? (O_o)

Re:oh look, its the anti-ad crowd (2, Funny)

Zarquil (187770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765601)

We call them "Slashvertisements" or something like that. I think it's the uninteresting stories that are promoting a product and / or service.

It's not like we're reading TFA's anyways..

Nothing new here (2, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764887)

Maybe these Stanford geeks don't watch football... that yellow first-down line is actually *not* painted on the field, it's inserted into the live video feed electronically. While doing it live requires some reasonable amount of processing power, doing it by non-real-time processing is pretty trivial (it's just a 3D texture map).

The technology to do this was commonly available in the mid-90's.

Re:Nothing new here (2, Funny)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764989)

Like your Soliton Radar, it's all made from currently existing technology.

Re:Nothing new here (1)

Beyond Opinion (959609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765479)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of as well. Although if you've noticed, that technology seems to be getting better (technology getting better? you don't say). Back around the turn of the century, the yellow line was somewhat sporadic; now they have the possession/first down indicator as well, both of which look very much like they are painted on the field. I'm sure it won't be long before companies can buy the right to have one giant billboard projected onto the field for certain parts of the game.

Re:Nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765481)

I second that, this is no new work. I know many other groups do much better work on the augmented reality type of projects and their system works without you having to put marks on the video or whatever. Take a look at these two videos from EPFL, Switzerland. They do all that in real-time automatically and better, don't use them for putting ads on videos:

http://chipchip.ch/CVMID3_1/house_book/haunted_book_video.html

http://www.epfl-ecal-lab.ch/page31785.html

Re:Nothing new here (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765559)

Actually that is done by using complex hardware and prior knowledge of all the cameras, this technology works on rendered videos and has no idea about cameras or anything. Pretty cool.

It's a different approach (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765579)

I looked to me like the point of the project was to allow any user to simply draw an area on some plane in the scene, and have the computer automatically track it through the video and matte out objects in front of it as well as estimate lighting changes. This can be any area, and doesn't have to be of a particular solid color. My guess is that you can easily underlay things on the football field because most of it is well... green.

Well, there goes the neighbourhood! (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764929)

This will lead to ads all over the place. Pepsi ads imbedded in The Maltese Falcon. iPod ads hanging on the wall above Col. Klink's desk. There'll be Penzoil decals on Starbuck's viper, a McDonalds opposite the Holodeck, and Nike swoosh logos on all of SG1's gear.

I'm guessing this uses a variation of the technology that they use to put the scrimmage and first down lines on the football fields.

Missing Reflections at 2:18 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25764969)

Not to rain on their parade, but their demo shows reflective surfaces reflecting incorrectly at ~2:18+

Cool tech to b

More stimulation please! (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765361)

More stimulation in the hour of mass media over-stimulation! I seriously hope we'll be able to use this technology. I like to watch porn, but it quickly gets boring and even repetitive (I know, that kind of is the point, to a certain extent), but it'd be more entertaining if I could project my favourite comedy show on the lady's stomach or buttocks. Also I like to watch the news but I don't have the time for all of these, so if we could project the porn-comedy combo in the screens in the background on CNN that would be great.

So I could at last laugh while playing with myself while at the same time wondering what this world is coming to!

Google (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765383)

I bet google is beating their heads against the wall for not discovering it first.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?