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!

Photoshop CS5's Showpiece — Content-Aware Fill

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the it's-like-stalin-was-never-there dept.

Graphics 378

Barence writes "If you're looking for reasons to upgrade to Photoshop CS5 when it arrives, a new demo video might just persuade you. Narrated by Bryan O'Neil-Hughes, a product manager on the Photoshop team, the video shows the new content-aware fill tool, which has the potential to revolutionise the way you clean up photos. If you're not happy with an item in your picture, select it, delete it, and Photoshop will analyse the surrounding area and plug the gap as if it never existed."

cancel ×

378 comments

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

STOP! (-1, Offtopic)

The Aethereal (1160051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600546)

Stop with the ads! That's like the 4th one today.

Re:STOP! (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600588)

I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.

Re:STOP! (4, Funny)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601108)

I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.

So is the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser...

Re:STOP! (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601134)

Did you watch it? This is really cool technology.

Frankly if I'm not coming to Slashdot to see the latest and greatest toys, technology, and, yes, products then what is the point...

Damn..... (4, Funny)

ogdenk (712300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600548)

Stalin would have just loved that content-aware fill tool.....

Re:Damn..... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600722)

Any government would love it, considering that every government engages in self-serving exploitation of power. Hell, there's probably not an hour that goes by where somebody, somewhere in the business of government does something to benefit themself at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve.

Re:Damn..... (5, Funny)

carcosa30 (235579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601054)

So would Hitler, especially the part where the guy "removed a couple of Poles."

I for one (-1, Offtopic)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600568)

Welcome my "catching up to GIMP from 2007" overlords at Adobe: http://liquidrescale.wikidot.com/ [wikidot.com]

Sorry wikidot, I hope you have Slashdotation Insurance (or is that included in the new health shindig?)

Re:I for one (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600670)

Content-aware fill is different from content-aware resizing. Content-aware fill is basically a clone brush that automatically decides how to make the cloned area match into its surroundings instead of just copying and pasting content.

Re:I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600672)

Umm, if GIMP was ever able to interpret fill EDGES! Did you even watch the video? It is holy impressive how it filled in the edge gaps of this panorama image at the end of the video. Just, WOW! I WANT TO SEE THE CODE THAT DOES THIS SO BAD!

Re:I for one (3, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600696)

Photoshop has had that capability natively (ie, not requiring a plugin) since CS4, this is the ability to select an object in an image - litter on a lawn was the example given in the article - and replace its former location in the image with content derived from the surrounding areas. Basically it's like an intelligent, automated version of the Clone Brush tool on steroids.

Re:I for one (3, Insightful)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601372)

Yeah, and cars have already had the native ability to drive, turn and stop for a century. The DARPA Grand Challenge isn't really adding anything new.

Those robotic cars are basically just intelligent automated versions of cars, on steroids.

Just because it happens in software does not make it trivial.

Re:I for one (4, Informative)

thedigitalbean (268010) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600978)

Liquid rescale is an implementation of the Seam Carving technology which was incorporated into Photoshop CS4 as a feature titled Content Aware Scale.

This new feature comes from an algorithm titled PatchMatch which was presented at SIGGRAPH 2009:

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.php [princeton.edu]

Re:I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600988)

Mod parent down for not RTFA; this has nothing to do with liquid rescale.

Re:I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601002)

Why is this idiot modded informative? He should be modded off-topic and clearly didn't read the article... I guess neither did the mods.

Re:I for one (2, Informative)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601030)

Welcome my "getting modded Insightful for not RTFA and spreading bullshit" overlords at Slashdot.

Content-aware scaling has been included in Photoshop since CS4.

But this is no scaling, it's filling. The first 3 minutes of the video are not so interesting (nothing one could not do with a clone stamp in 2 seconds), but the last 2 minutes are breath-taking.

GREYCstoration or liquidrescale don't even come close.

Re:I for one (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601248)

It's not the same. Liquid Rescale moves the pieces by rescaling around them. This actually replaces just the exact area. I think it's quite a bit more useful, but in different ways.

Altered reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600570)

Cool! Maybe I can use it to create a picture of me with a girlfriend so my mom will get off my back!

Re:Altered reality? (3, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600654)

No, no. Goodbye to all my exes in my vacation photos. Stupid real dolls blocking the scenery.

Re:Altered reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600866)

That's sad, really. I'm guessing you never had emotions for those girls... evar?
Captcha: intimacy

Early preorders are already in from (5, Insightful)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600616)

Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

Re:Early preorders are already in from (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600738)

Heh - is there a plug-in that inserts dinosaurs into the background of caveman photos? (nevermind the minor issue of not having photos from the prehistoric era)

Re:Early preorders are already in from (2, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601040)

I'm reminded of the episode of Oz where somebody tries to tell a White Supremacist that Jesus wasn't white. He pulls out his bible and points to an illustration...

Re:Early preorders are already in from (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600744)

Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

I don't think it will work on text or video and besides, it's been easy to clone in dinosaurs since version 4.

Re:Early preorders are already in from (4, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600938)

Video is just a series of still pictures, that need to be interrelated. I'm certain that this could be applied to video, with enough processing power. If they can look at pixels that are neighboring in one frame, they can do it for pixels that are neighboring in time, too.

Ouroboros (1, Offtopic)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600806)

Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

You know what's really funny? When those two collide [state.tx.us] .

Re:Ouroboros (1)

TDyl (862130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601072)

Trying not to troll or initiate a flame, but when I saw the tea.state.tx.us url I immediately thought that was an official Texas State teaparty group.

Damn (1)

mahiskali (1410019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600624)

When I took a basic digital image processing class in college, we learned some of the basics of image processing (really more segementation than anything). To think about the complexity and sheer power needed to do this...just blows my mind. Truly impressive.

I'm convinced! (2, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600668)

Photoshop currently sells at a "lightweight" $700. How many photos would I have to edit to make that cost effective? It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.

Re:I'm convinced! (5, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600746)

It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.

It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:I'm convinced! (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600786)

No worries mate, the high price is something any pro will happily cough up. They don't care about you and I using it a home. That is only good cause when we go to work, we want the boss to buy a license ;) Besides, Photoshop just IS the best. And yes I know Gimp too :')

Re:I'm convinced! (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601262)

"It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago."

Terrific viral marketing. No one who downloads it would have bought it with own funds, but many will do so with company money. Adobe allowing "controlled leakage" is the best free marketing campaign since Office 97 went from workplace "to the house" and back again.

Re:I'm convinced! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600750)

People pay for Photoshop?

Re:I'm convinced! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600892)

Hasn't it always been like $700? That means it's always been an expensive pro tool. And because of inflation, the relative price has actually gone down gradually over the past couple decades!

dom

Omnomnom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600922)

I like to pirate each Adobe CS just for the sake of having such expensive software. XD

Re:I'm convinced! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601232)

How much is each edited photo worth to you?

Also, do you attach a great deal of value to $700?

More seriously, of course it did, $700 is not all that much for someone making or paying Western wages, so they will pay it if they need it to do business (i.e., if they think they will earn at least $700 more by purchasing it than if they did not purchase it), whereas personal users still aren't going to be that large a market at $200.

Re:I'm convinced! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601370)

I can still get "education" pricing on it for $199.00 and any fool can get an education copy bought for them. Who cares about "technically legal" I got a license key and the box and it updates, that's all that matters.

Having watched the whole thing to the end... (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600676)

I call Shenanigans. Someone has released this video a few days early.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600710)

ahhhh you might a very good point there... Cause my jaw was hitting the ground at mach 7 also...

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600876)

Especially the last example looks awesome enough that one might think of an early Aprils fools joke, but if you look closely it seems authentic, you can spot the bits and pieces of the image that where cloned to fill in the missing information. So this seems to be an quite clever automatic-clone tool.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600998)

Oh, please. This is so obviously fake. I'm just not sure whether to believe you folks are honestly taken in by it.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601118)

Do you post on YouTube often? I'm sure I've seen your comments there!

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601048)

I’m not so sure. How’d it know that the small hill on the right side of the picture should go down in the new area it created? How’d it know that the horizon on the left edge should go up?

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601102)

The small hill on the right side was a mirror image of the hill/valley just to the left of it.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601132)

But the one on the left side isn’t.

So how’d it know to mirror the right side but extend the left side without reflecting the angle?

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601282)

The left side is smoother and continues at the same angle for about 1/3 the image; the right side was quite variable.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601374)

Perhaps but even so, it’s not really a mirror image of the hill/valley to the left of it.

Like I said, I’m skeptical. This little tiny video isn’t high enough resolution to tell whether it’s any good, anyway.

Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601192)

I just noticed something... the description for the video says " From retouching to completely reimagining an image, heres an early glimpse of what could happen in the future when you press the delete key."

What COULD happen... sounds like this is just a concept...

Watch the vid in the article (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600694)

If anything, go to around 4 min, and watch till the end (only a minute left). This is groundbreaking. Insane. I hate it, gonna put me out of my job.

Re:Watch the vid in the article (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600782)

I hate it, gonna put me out of my job.

SHHH! Just don't let your clients know and we can all pretend to work for hours while posting on /.

Re:Watch the vid in the article (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600848)

This is groundbreaking. Insane. I hate it, gonna put me out of my job.

I shant comment on what you do - after all, somebody needs naked midgets inserted into pictures of White House dinners - but looking at that video, I'm struck with the fact they they didn't zoom in at all. In the tiny little YouTube frame on a coarse monitor, you could hide flesh ripping raptors in the repair and it wouldn't be visible. In fact, if you look closely, you can see some bad edges even at this resolution.

Now maybe this is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, but like most of the program's more powerful tools, it's more likely to be featured on Photoshop Disasters [blogspot.com] than anything else.

Re:Watch the vid in the article (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601038)

There are 2 responses to this video:
1) "Holy shit that could really be cool! I'm going to look into this!"
2) If it doesn't work 100% of the time on every pixel in the entire picture while massaging my back, I'm NOT buying it!!"

Re:Watch the vid in the article (1)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601400)

Click on the little YouTube frame, select "watch it on YouTube", select your bit rate and go to full screen. This was truely amazing, but I fear that it may be a premature Aprils Fools joke...

Re:Watch the vid in the article (5, Funny)

MXPS (1091249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600906)

Color, I mean content-aware fill me impressed.

Re:Watch the vid in the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600928)

Seriously? By the sounds of it your job was just begging to be replaced by a small shell script.

Re:Watch the vid in the article (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601394)

Would love see that script mate. Please AC enlighten us all with you great wisdom. Share the source!

Re:Watch the vid in the article (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601334)

Nope not put you out of a job, just lower your wages to $8.95 an hour because monkeys can now do your job.

Welcome to what us in Photography have had to deal with. I just saw an AD on the TV for a mall photo studio that will give you 20 shots in their studio for $9.95. and 8X10 prints start at $4.95 each. Yes I know it's done by no talent kids or minimum wage people, but the average consumer does not know that. They still think that it's all in the cost of the equipment and has nothing to do with skill and experience.

Google Street View (5, Interesting)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600716)

Sounds like something Google Street View could use to remove people from their views and make them more acceptable.

Re:Google Street View (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600844)

What if Google already has an in-house tool for that? :)

Re:Google Street View (1, Flamebait)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600884)

Sounds like something Google Street View could use to remove people from their views and make them more acceptable.

And then a bug occurs and only black people gets erased and they're screeeeewed!

Ex Wife feature (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600756)

Ex wife, there you go

Thanks E-Harmony! (0, Offtopic)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600796)

Great for folks who go through relationships like Octomom goes through diapers.

Very impressive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600798)

I edit photos for my sisters business (she's terrible at taking photos of her products, always cutting bits off I have to fill out and work around) and I can safely say this feature would have saved around 60% of my editing time. That's a conservative estimate- probable around 75%.

Can't speak for you guys, but I'm sold.

Nice Demo... (2, Insightful)

ndykman (659315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600830)

I wish there was a paper on the core algorithms behind it (cmon Adobe, SIGGRAPH), but I could see why Adobe may be sitting on every aspect of this tool; because it sure seems to bring some real photoshop wizardry to the common user. It was really an example of "delete this thing" and it just works. Takes a common complex task and massively simplifies it. One of the most impressive marketing demos I've seen in a while.

Sure, there are some cases in which I doubt it works, but from what I could see, it seemed to have some vision and perceptual rules built in to guide how to fill in the deleted area. And frankly, it's a feature that for professionals, makes the price tag for the upgrade worth it. For some tasks, it'd pay for itself in labor alone. What would take a expert hours to do, this could do in minutes. If I was Adobe, I'd seriously consider taking this and make a Photoshop Elements Extended Edition (or whatever) and add about 79-99 bucks to this price for this feature alone. Arguably, it'd be worth it for many.

Re:Nice Demo... (1)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601092)

A random bookmark I happened to have, here [umn.edu] .

This isn't quite the same issue, the focus is on scratch removal, but it's close.

Enhance (4, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600832)

Next up is the "CSI Enhance" tool. Take a photo of 10x10 pixels, and make it a perfect 2MP image.

Re:Enhance (5, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600916)

They can call it Adobe Homeopathy.

Re:Enhance (3, Funny)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600994)

No, no, that's "take a 1mp super grainy noisy photo from a 7-11 security camera and put on magic filters and super zoom to see a strand of hair from 100 feet away that shows that the attacker owns a golden retriever and thus you should check the registered animal database for a golden retriever that is in a 100 yard radius from the attack location".

Re:Enhance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601378)

Damn, they're on to me

Re:Enhance (5, Funny)

arhhook (995275) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601216)

"CSI Enhance" tool

I can see the fingerprint in the reflection on his eyeball, it must be the killer!

Re:Enhance (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601294)

Clearly, that's over the top, but you'd be surprised at the sorts of super-resolution techniques that are out there already. Most (but not all) techniques require multiple frames of the same image with enough jitter from one frame to the next so that what you lose in spatial sampling you make up in temporal sampling.

Youtube video quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600860)

No-one else dubious as to the actual quality of these touchups? I'm definitely not convinced when all that's available is a SD quality video that's been through YouTube's encoding, since it barely shows anything more than the basic colours and shapes are there.

Re:Youtube video quality (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601082)

I am, and I thought it looked rather blurry when he was removing the tree trunks in that first image. In fact the first one he removed he had to undo and do it over again because it didn’t look right.

Re:Youtube video quality (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601254)

In fact the first one he removed he had to undo and do it over again because it didn't look right.

I'm guessing you know very little about Photoshop. The one that he undid the first time was because he used the Healing Brush tool (which has been in PS for several versions now) to show how poorly the closest tool that Photoshop currently has would do the job. He then showed us how the Content Aware Fill Tool would do it. This was very clearly explained in the voiceover. Also, this isn't intended to be the only tool you use. He's showing us how far you can get by using the new tool. You'll still need to go through the image carefully and touch up edges here and there. But as a first step, to use the words of the Vice President, this is a big fucking deal!

Re:Youtube video quality (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601278)

This was very clearly explained in the voiceover.

That explains it, then: I don’t have sound. I didn’t notice that he switched tools. My apologies.

The most important question (4, Funny)

CptPicard (680154) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600882)

I wonder what sort of a fig leaf it will use to plug the gap in the goatse photo...

Re:The most important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601014)

I wonder what sort of a fig leaf it will use to plug the gap in the goatse photo...

More like a banana leaf.

Re:The most important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601240)

Inside or outside?

Image Inpainting Tech created at UMN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31600912)

Guillermo Sapiro developed the first remarkable inpainting techniques. I'm sure Adobe uses similar techniques since I remember some joint research being done with the U while I was there.

http://mountains.ece.umn.edu/~guille/inpainting.htm

Go Gophers!

For the doubters... (3, Insightful)

Op911 (593600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600952)

Wasn't this core technology discussed on Slashdot a number of years back? If you google "Seam Carving" you'll find some nice wikipedia articles that discuss content-aware image resizing. This may be a variant on the same technology, and i actually doubt that this is an early release of an April Fool's Day joke (no matter how Star Trek this technology seems).

Took a little while (1)

djlemma (1053860) | more than 4 years ago | (#31600982)

I remember reading about folks at Carnegie Mellon building this tool a few years ago.. Sure enough, there's a slashdot article. [slashdot.org]

I suppose the photoshop tool only pulls from material in the photo you're editing, and not from outside sources.. so it's a bit different. But the goals/results are pretty similar, it seems.

Similar open source tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601000)

http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
(Image Inpainting section)

One damn tool - pay for 200 unnecessary ones (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601012)

isnt the way with the software companies these days ? fill a software with innumerable features even professionals will rarely use, and ask $60-100 for 20 to 30 functions/features that people will use, because you also put there 180 or so ones that noone will use.

that's why software is being pirated. noone wants to shell out $60 for 200 functions 20 of which they will use from time to time.

Re:One damn tool - pay for 200 unnecessary ones (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601252)

Yup. I had a friend that bought Photoshop CS2 for the NoiseNinja plugin... I pointed out one day that he could have bought Noiseninja as a stand alone and skipped paying the several hundred for Photoshop and he about freaked.

Re:One damn tool - pay for 200 unnecessary ones (4, Insightful)

ExileOnHoth (53325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601326)

noone wants to shell out $60 for 200 functions 20 of which they will use from time to time.

Personally, I'll shell out. I make a living using photoshop and I support the idea that a bunch of extremely talented software engineers ought to be able to make a living developing it.

welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601022)

I for one welcome our automatic fake nude image generating overlord.

Boobies!

Now watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601034)

Now watch for FOSS fanboys claiming that this feature already exists via some obscure plugin to Gimp or whatnot. Of course, it won't even be close to the real thing. I didn't check, but someone has probably already made this post.

Yet another example of innovation in a commercial product, now watch how open source clones struggle over the next couple of years to make a 1:1 copy and eventually either failing due to the technical difficulty or making it horribly user-unfriendly in the process. If the former, they will claim "no one needs this feature" and if the latter, "shut up and read the README in the root of the tarball".

Expecting flamebait so posting Anon.

Re:Now watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601270)

You forgot a third option:

It works and is user-intuitive, but crashes the photo-editing software in Linux on 95% of system configurations. The users who cry for fixes to the software are told (3 days later, via poorly threaded forums) "You should have bought Obscure Video Card X, as they're more open-source friendly. It works just fine on my system."

Bye "Mom"! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601066)

It'll be a great "mother-in-law" tool for family photos.

But will it run... (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601074)

...on the iPad? ;)

Yes, Virginia, it is an ad. (1)

cgoodric (1311355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601160)

So easy, a CAVE man could do it. Oh, wait, what?

Lens Flares (5, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601186)

Using Photoshop to remove lens flares? Oh! Brave new world!

-Peter

GreyCstoration or G'MIC anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601214)

Similar algorithms have been around for a LONG time.

http://gmic.sourceforge.net/gimp.shtml
http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/demonstration.shtml
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/09/131207

Re:GreyCstoration or G'MIC anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601408)

Those first two links are hilarious. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

The third link is more interesting, but I'm pretty sure this Photoshop plugin is doing the image completion without looking up a photo database to see what imagery to swap in.

I'll believe it when (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601218)

I see a 12 megapixel image in hand of a before and after and not a tiny less than 400 pixel overcompressed youtube video.

I have seen this automatic stuff before and when you look carefully at it it's not very clean unless you re-sample down to 1/4 the resolution or go small for web use.. it's never clean enough to print out at 11X17 or larger.

Photoshop Story (2, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601222)

I once did a writing contract at Adobe. You know how when you pose for an ID photo, they put you in front of a curtain or something to hide the background? When I got my Adobe badge the security guy just posed me against a regular wall, then Photoshopped the wall out of the picture!

mod3 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601234)

How does it handle patterns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31601244)

I'd like to see this perform on a patterned background. It's one thing to fill in a gradient, quite another to reproduce a pattern and repeat it properly.

Great for crime shows! (3, Funny)

nilbog (732352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31601342)

I can't wait until a crime show gets ahold of this.

"Delete that wall and see what is behind it. Enhance. Enhance. Enhance."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>