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!

Erasing Objects From Video In Real Time

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the no-more-wires-visible dept.

Graphics 175

Smoothly interpolating away objects in still pictures is impressive enough, but reader geoffbrecker writes with a stunning demonstration from Germany's Technical University of Ilmenau of on-the-fly erasure of selected objects in video. Quoting: "The effect is achieved by an image synthesizer that reduces the image quality, removes the object, and then increases the image quality back up. This all happens within 40 milliseconds, fast enough that the viewer doesn't notice any delay."

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

Perfect Application (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33881166)

We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.

Re:Perfect Application (3, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | about 4 years ago | (#33881188)

In reality the networks wil use it to blur out any logo's from companys that do not sponsor the show. F1 cars will be red instead of filled with sponsors.

Re:Perfect Application (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881290)

Somehow I doubt that would work, unless the racing teams could get money some other way. Who would sponsor a car when your logo won't be visible on it? The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.

Re:Perfect Application (2, Insightful)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33881526)

The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.

I'm pretty sure they already do.

Re:Perfect Application (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33881494)

Networks won't be allowed to do that as per their sports contracts...

Re:Perfect Application (4, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33881552)

A simpler version of this has already been used to edit billboards visible in broadcasts of baseball games.

Re:Perfect Application (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 4 years ago | (#33881684)

Or they'll just use it to remove rude gestures, nose rings and nipples, in a visual analogue to profanity bleeps. Welcome to the world of tomorrow.

Re:Perfect Application (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33881804)

I'm sure that for events like F1, preserving the sponsorship messages is part of the exclusive licencing agreement the broadcaster has to sign up to.

Re:Perfect Application (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 years ago | (#33881932)

F1 cars will be red instead of filled with sponsors.

You mean like before everything was invaded by advertisement? Wow, what an improvement!

(yes, slashdot, I can type more than one comment every 20 minutes, I have 10 fingers, not two... argh...)

Re:Perfect Application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881498)

i think it would be funny if someone wrote a virus to infect London's CCTV system to remove all people from every camera feed.

Re:Perfect Application (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33881644)

We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.

First off, I don't think we'll get control over this on our TVs. The networks aren't gonna let us delete their "bugs".

I'm actually more concerned over something like Running Man where you can't trust the news reports you see because someone selectively tweaked the image to hide/alter the bits they don't want you to see.

Now, of course, the technology isn't evil ... it will be humans doing that. But, you can imagine government run media stripping out protesters or burning cars to tell everybody that everything is just sunshine and bunnies.

Re:Perfect Application (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33882098)

They can already do that - most news reports aren't in real time, they can tweak the video before they air it.

You mean like ad banners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881954)

"We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows." - by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday October 13, @08:12AM (#33881166)

You mean like how I do to ad banners on webpages by using a custom HOSTS file?

It works "like a dream", in that I don't see ad banners, or get slowed down by them, or infected by them (when they carry malicious script content, and there have been many times over the years this has happened too).


P.S.=> People, I look at it this way: It's my money being paid to stay online, and I want to get the most out of my investment I pay for, efficiency & speed-wise (this means not hauling down annoying or possibly dangerous content like adbanners). You should care in this regards also, because again, after all - it's YOUR MONEY & to a lesser extent, your time (the most precious element of all)... apk

Re:Perfect Application (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 years ago | (#33882164)

More importantly... pimple removal!

Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | about 4 years ago | (#33881168)

Pretty good, but take note that all the examples where objects sitting on pretty flat colored backgrounds. I'd like to see what happens when you try to remove an object in a complex environment. Like removing a single person standing in a crowd.

Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. (3, Informative)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 years ago | (#33881300)

Take a look at the explanation part of the video. The background texture is tiled. You can see some strange deformation in the regular pattern where the object used to be. Also in the drain example there is a strange crater effect as the camera angle changes.

It seems like smooth colour graduations work well, but patterned backgrounds have more obvious deformations.

Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. (2, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 years ago | (#33881424)

Pretty good, but take note that all the examples where objects sitting on pretty flat colored backgrounds. I'd like to see what happens when you try to remove an object in a complex environment. Like removing a single person standing in a crowd.

There were some examples of that in the clip if you watched closely. The removal drain on a pebbly asphalt caused a weird swirly pattern to occur as the camera moved. I expect the same would be true for live attempts at the same. It probably works best on static things on solid backgrounds that nobody is likely to be walking over. I expect it will be used a lot in live broadcasting, especially sports events.

Do we still believe what we see? (4, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | about 4 years ago | (#33881170)

This has some frightening ramifications for how much we believe video. Videos similar to the ones Wikileaks leaked, or news videos "live" on scene, could be doctored in near enough to real time that we consumers might never know it. Scary.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33881182)

Now we can frame someone for murder in realtime.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 4 years ago | (#33881226)

I'm sure this will be improved over time, but in every example you can see some discoloration or blur that gives away the edit. Until it's perfected, this is neat but easily detectable. Still pretty cool. I like the pack of cigarettes you couldn't see on the desk but was still reflected in the mirror.

The Running Man (Film version) (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | about 4 years ago | (#33881380)

comes to life then?

Its bad enough people believe lines said by comedians are the actual lines of some high profile people, how can we hope that people will care enough to know if the video they are seeing is not edited? Hollywood doesn't need the tech to make movies, maybe to "fix" reality shows, but I figure politics is where the mileage comes in.

Re:The Running Man (Film version) (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about 4 years ago | (#33881586)

how is that any different than now? how can i tell if a video i see now isn't either edited or staged? the only thing this changes is it makes it possible to do it live.

Re:The Running Man (Film version) (1)

cusco (717999) | about 4 years ago | (#33881626)

They don't care enough now to know that recorded video used to make important policy decisions, such as what country to invade, are routinely faked. I have no hope at all that they're going to pay any attention at all to this development, even when it gets beyond the alpha stage release. "Seeing is believing" is the sheeple's creed, even when the thing they're seeing is so blatantly faked that 10 year-olds recognize something is wrong with the recording (the case in at least one of the Binladdin videos). As long as it doesn't interrupt the flow of the Nascar race or the Ultimate Fighter match they're not going to give a shit.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881516)

Watch this movie []

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

Muros (1167213) | about 4 years ago | (#33881562)

Not only video, but sound as well. If you reversed the purpose of the technology discussed here [] to delete particular sounds instead of focusing on them, you will soon be able to completely edit out anything you don't like, in real or near real time, from video feeds. Whatever about not trusting the spin or coverage of news these days, soon you won't even be able to trust what look like actual recordings of events.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33881582)

Anything non-live can be doctored with since decades (including "Videos similar to the ones Wikileaks leaked"). The ability to alter live video in that way however is, AFAIK, new. But as long as you can't verify that any given video broadcasted on TV is actually life, that's more a moot point (see countries with a strict censoring that require "live" video to be delayed for a short time so censoring can happen).

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#33881710)

Yeah, just watch what they do with the top CGI films these days. Parts of Alice in Wonderland (the latest film I watched with CGI) are pretty much indistinguishable from reality, except for the bit where the thing is nigh-on impossible without huge expense and months of prep time for a single shot (like long shafts full of rough edges and trinkets that *could* be dug and prepared, but are realistically going to be graphics).

LotR painted all sorts of stuff in, and Gollum was painted over the top of Andy Serkis in his gimp suit, so they got the background from somewhere (he isn't a big chap, but he isn't that skinny!). Touching up non-live video is just a more resource-intensive version of touching up a photo at its simplest (touch up each frame).

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33881770)

The 'Live on scene' is pretty rare already. Almost everything is taped and edited. And even now many people believe what they see as they will have only one (if that) source of information. How many people will actually look at what others have to say? [] as an alternative? Nah, because that is propaganda from the enemy. Better just watch Fox News.

People do not want to be informed. They want to be entertained.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (2, Informative)

Tom (822) | about 4 years ago | (#33881910)

This is only news for real-time feeds. For anything that is not live (and you can verify that it's live! A lot of what you see labeled "live" on TV actually isn't!), assume that the stream has been messed with, already today. Most of the times, it is "artistic" messing - improving picture quality, editing out distracting background content, cleaning up artifacts, etc.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | about 4 years ago | (#33882062)

So, we now need easy-to-use software for identifying video and image manipulation usable without much technical skill? I have no technical insights as to how these things are done, though.

Re:Do we still believe what we see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33882212)

Oh dammit, streakers are the only good reason to watch cricket!

Video evidence? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#33881194)

It is impressive, but not can see shadowing and the outlines of the object when the camera moves in certain angles.

Also, if there is video evidence presented in a courtroom, people should be aware that technology like this exists and it can and will be used.

Re:Video evidence? (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#33881874)

Are you saying the pixels are wrong? Have you seen a lot of shops?

Journalistic Integrity (3, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33881224)

Great - it'll start off by making eyesore real estate disappear from "live coverage," then be required as a precondition for live celebrity interviews (not just makeup to cover that acne), moving on to inconvenient points to the story that would take too much time and effort to explain, then images which might "disturb the children" (number of student bodies in Tienanmen Square?), and finally develop to ubiquitous studio-in-a-cameras such that we'll have little assurance of whether live coverage is fact or fiction.

Of course that's just pessimism speaking. Really I'm looking forward to watching live reports without those obnoxious people waving at their mothers, or holding up witty slogans about taxation.

Re:Journalistic Integrity (2, Insightful)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | about 4 years ago | (#33881664)

Here's an optimistic thought — it might make people skeptical of the images they see, which is a useful attitude reagrdless of this technology.

Re:Journalistic Integrity (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33881772)

I sincerely hope you're right, but more likely cognitive dissonance will take over [] and people will be more likely to believe what they see even if they know it likely to be false.

Don't worry, I'll be as optimistic as you like on a Friday afternoon. The second morning back after a three day weekend still tracks closer to Monday before caffeine for me.

Re:Journalistic Integrity (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 4 years ago | (#33882010)

Communal CCTVs could edit out the hookers, dealers, pimps, garbage and other 'untouristy' stuff on the fly.

Now we just need it miniaturized and built-into our glasses, preferably rose-tinted, to see the world in a whole new light.

Re:Journalistic Integrity (1)

jimwelch (309748) | about 4 years ago | (#33882172)

Anyone who uses Journalist and Integrity in the same sentence should be ... (oops I did it too)!

I thought what I'd do is... (5, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 4 years ago | (#33881230)

... I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | about 4 years ago | (#33881324)


The Ring of Gyges []

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (3, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 years ago | (#33881332)

That phrase was familiar to me, but I wasn't sure where I had seen it... now I remember: []

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (2, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33881524)

Catcher in the Rye you meant right? That classic book? Bill Gate's favorite as well (just throwing that line out for comedy).

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 years ago | (#33881780)

No, I recognized it from that anime. I've only seen a handful of episodes of GinS so I had no idea what was going on story-wise, but that distinctive logo stuck with me.

Overlooking the Wiki article on the book makes me think I was not introduced to it because I went to a Catholic school. It wouldn't have been banned from the library, but it probably wouldn't have been allowed as part of a class curriculum, either.

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#33882294)

It wasn't part of my class curriculum either, and I've not read it. I only found out about it through GitS (actually, GitS:SAC - it is the "Stand Alone Complex" series rather than the film). They do mention that it is from Catcher in the Rye in one episode, but that comes after the phrase has been mentioned a few times. Someone has a rather aged copy and there is a bit of a "these funny people with their ageing paper books" tone, given the setting, but it is acknowledged in a fairly intellectual way.

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (1)

somaTh (1154199) | about 4 years ago | (#33881358)

It's beyond that, though. He just blurred his face. This is removing the entire person. In that world, he goes from being anonymous to being invisible.

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (3, Informative)

Securityemo (1407943) | about 4 years ago | (#33881464)

He learnt to edit himself out completely towards the end, though. Leading to a very big-ham moment with Batou exclaiming "He stole my eyes!"

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881538)

Right. Batou did something similar at the end during his fight as well.

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (2, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#33881670)

He did it before that, though. When he kidnapped Serano from his own home then he was visible to Serano, but not to his guards. As far as the guards were concerned then Serano was just walking out on his own and nothing was unusual. That would probably be more impressive because he did it to lots of people at once, not just a single person who was chasing him as he left a hotel and casually escaped (IIRC).

Re:I thought what I'd do is... (2, Interesting)

EdZ (755139) | about 4 years ago | (#33881364)

Not really. There are plenty of webcams that come with free software that can overlay an image (including the requisite spinning-text-around-face logo of the Laughing Man) over a tracked face in real time, but this software instead edits out a tracked area using surrounding data. I wish they gave more explanation, or any explanation at all, rather than the nebulous magical 'increase the image quality back up'.

Hmmm (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | about 4 years ago | (#33881238)

I can beat that. I can erase everything in the frame in less than 40ms.

Actually, this is really cool. They could generate hype for it by posting a demo on the web of Episode I with Jar Jar erased. They might be able to stave off Lucas's lawyers by calling it a parody, although in this case it would be more like the original was a parody.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33881472)

Or re-edit Episode IV so that Han shoots first... again.

Jar Jar (5, Funny)

veggiespam (5283) | about 4 years ago | (#33881242)

Finally, we can restore my childhood memories and eviscerate Jar-Jar from the last batch of Star Wars movies.

Re:Jar Jar (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | about 4 years ago | (#33881312)

Either it's a setup, or somehow the neurons in your brain have become quantumly entangled with the neurons of the guy who posted just above you. Spooky.

Re:Jar Jar (1)

veggiespam (5283) | about 4 years ago | (#33881340)

Only a 40ms difference in posting times. My attempt to steal and erase his post fully work.

Stalin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881246)

Wants two of these. Right now comrade!

Digitally removed dissidents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881266)

Coming soon to a politically active news story near you.

How do you (1)

Paralizer (792155) | about 4 years ago | (#33881292)

increase image quality?

Re:How do you (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33881318)

Usually by saying "enhance" [] to the resident technic freak.

Re:How do you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881646)

Usually by saying "enhance" [] to the resident technic freak.

I believe that you meant to reference this [] .

Re:How do you (1)

ZP-Blight (827688) | about 4 years ago | (#33881574)

They aren't actually increasing image quality.

What they're doing is reducing the image quality to make it easier to locate objects by blurring everything so the fine image detail wont confuse their object recognition engine. Once an object outline is set, they ""increase"" the quality by using the original (full quality) image.

This works nice for small things (notice the minimum level of panning in the video), but the only way it can be done that isn't easy to detect is if you had a powerful AI that would recognize all the objects and surfaces in the scene and recreate the missing data using a pre-existing visual database.

Once powerful AI systems go online, you would be able to generate any visuals you want that would be hard (maybe even impossible) to distinguish from reality.

ob. (1)

bareman (60518) | about 4 years ago | (#33881294)

ChatRoulette, the PG edition.

ET! (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 4 years ago | (#33881296)

Perhaps the next BluRay spec should include this technology so that when you watch ET you can select for the walkie-talkies to be erased and your choice of guns/rpg's etc to appear!

What? (1)

ledow (319597) | about 4 years ago | (#33881304)

Sorry, I started to call bullshit at the "increase the quality back up" sentence. No-one worth their salt in video processing would ever use such a phrase. This makes it equivalent to Bladerunner-esque infinite zooming and Hollywood-style deblurring to a perfect image.

I'm not saying it's not possible, or even not possible in real-time, but that explanation sends all sorts of warning signals to me. Hell, we know you can do stuff like this because Hollywood does it all the time without having to use physical tricks, and there are video processing algorithms that can identify objects easily enough, and from there it's just interpolation over the selected area in real-time (don't forget that "real-time" can just depend on how much computing power you throw at something). It's a photoshop filter applied to every frame, essentially.

The video is neat, but it does have problems with shadows and obviously only works when the prescribed area can be interpolated nicely from those things on the borders of the selected areas (table surface, flat chair surface, etc.) because they avoid doing anything else. I just call complete bullshit on the "put the image quality back up" crap explanation. Tell us what you *really* mean, don't dumb-down for this audience.

Re:What? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33881548)

The way I interpreted it was that they decrease the quality so they can get more basic shapes, from which they can infer the outline of the shape they want to remove and go back to the original quality stream to remove it.

Thwartable (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33881308)

FTFA:"It does seem to be thwarted by reflections though; a cell phone removed from a bathroom counter is still visible in the mirror."

"Zoom in on the reflection...ENHANCE!"

Not thwarted by reflections. (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | about 4 years ago | (#33881334)


. It does seem to be thwarted by reflections though; a cell phone removed from a bathroom counter is still visible in the mirror.

Ummmmm, no. The software reads an image with 2 objects, they only deleted one. Maybe the software can only delete one object at a time now. But that's not being "thwarted by reflections," the mirror has nothing to do with it. The software would behave the same if there actually were 2 objects on the screen.

Re:Not thwarted by reflections. (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#33881542)

And here I thought it was a vampire cellphone and the video was shot from the mirror world.

Obvious... (1)

grub (11606) | about 4 years ago | (#33881338)

In Stalin's Soviet Russia...

Comedy gold (1)

Wombat2k (693873) | about 4 years ago | (#33881344)

For anyone not wearing augmented reality goggles.

Not buying it. (1)

js3 (319268) | about 4 years ago | (#33881362)

How does it know what to draw beneath the replaced object?

Re:Not buying it. (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 4 years ago | (#33881506)

The same way any filter of that kind does, interpolation based on the surrounding pixels. It's the video equivalent of Adobe's filter in Photoshop 5.

Re:Not buying it. (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 4 years ago | (#33881546)

Also, it's the same way the human brain hides the blindspot.

Re:Not buying it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881522)

Photoshop CS5 can do the same thing with still images.

I haven't tried it in person but in the demo video they are deleting large trees and roads that take up 20% of the image and it fills it in beautifully.

some beaches aren't ruined yet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881384)

kill, imean iman, drill babies drill. from another (trick photography) prospective, what's done IS done, so carry on with more of the same as the consequence could not possibly get any worse?

the corepirate nazi holycost increasing by the minute. you call this 'weather'?

add immeasurable amounts of MISinformation, & there you have IT? that's US? thou shalt not... oh forget it. fake weather (censored?), fake money, fake god(s), what's next? seeing as we (have been told) came from monkeys, the only possible clue we would have to anything being out of order, we would get from the weather.

the search continues;

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati (remember, (we have been told) we came from monkeys, & 'they' believe they DIDN'T), continues to demand that we learn to live on less/nothing while they continue to consume/waste/destroy immeasurable amounts of stuff/life, & feast on nubile virgins while worshipping themselves (& evile in general). they're always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also:

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Nomenclature (3, Funny)

Posting=!Working (197779) | about 4 years ago | (#33881388)

We need a name for this process. I suggest "to Jar-Jar." Examples:

They Jar-Jared the cell phone and stapler off the desk.
"Jar-jar the 3-D glasses off the chair."
Al Pacino released the "Actor's cut" of Godfather 3 and Jar-jared himself out of the movie.
I'd like to Jar-jar my ex-girlfriend from my brain.
It was a guy! He Jar-jared his webcam!


Enhance! (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 years ago | (#33881400)

then increases the image quality back up

Enhance! []

Imagine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881404)

removing the nipples and making softporn safe for work

Re:Imagine (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 4 years ago | (#33881844)

You can barely seem them nipples.

And these guys are really lookin'!

Besides, this seems like a better way to rob banks and do other nefarious deeds where video surveillance is present. It's no longer necessary to build elaborate mock ups of a vault room or anything, just hire these Germans.

Running Man (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 4 years ago | (#33881414)

So one step away from TV networks manipulating live video for their own / political masters requirements.

You didn't see it, it never happened. The camera never lies - right!?

Suspected limitations (2, Interesting)

mattaw (718560) | about 4 years ago | (#33881456)

Obvious limitations from the demo:

1) Objects must be sitting on a consistent(ish) surface with a low rate of change compared to the object. Desk, Chair, Bathroom, Wall, Hubcap, etc.

2) It doesn't handle strong shadows (or they are not showing us it doing so).

3) It makes the greatest amount of mistakes with the shadows anyway.

Please add anything I missed to future posts.

I would like to see it erase a boat from a choppy sea where there are 5-7 waves for the length of the boat as I expect that to be a pathological case. I would also like to see it erase a discolouration rather than a very different object to see its behaviour. Cool technology though!

Re:Suspected limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881696)

Around 35-36 seconds the objects flash back into existence briefly.

In the bathroom, the object is still visible in the mirror.

Fiction Leads Reality (Again) (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | about 4 years ago | (#33881466)

Sounds like "the ugliest shirt in the world" from William Gibson's Zero History.

I thought we had this already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881528)

We watched a show we torrented from EZTV the other day and there was a slight blurring going on in the corner where the logo would be - this was all the way through the show . my wife noticed it first and when she commented on it, I thought it was a pretty cool trick.

Re:I thought we had this already? (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | about 4 years ago | (#33881766)

You watched a show you torrented - this means it wasn't live, it was done afterwards. This is done in 40 milliseconds, on-the-fly.

The real breakthrough here (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 years ago | (#33881570)

increases the image quality back up

Recovery of data lost, when image quality was reduced causing irrecoverable loss of information?

If we can 'increase image quality' in real time... then we don't need HD video content anymore. Just use standard definition video signals, and build the 'image quality increase' circuitry into TVs.

Then bandwidth required by channels is reduced, efficiency increase, allowing many more channels, cable operators will make millions in rate increases, with the ability to cram more channels in and force consumers to have them in the package with the channels they really want.

mecoder does this with the -delogo option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881634)

mecoder does this with the -delogo option. It is limited to a specific location. Still, useful to remove those damn channel "bugs".

Perfect for news networks (1)

xednieht (1117791) | about 4 years ago | (#33881702)

This is perfect for propaganda peddlers, er news networks, now they can more easily deceive the public.

Re:Perfect for news networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881936)

And now law enforcement doesn't need to steal those CCTV tapes. Just prevent them from recording anyone in uniform...

Pr0n (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881746)


Not the first attempt... (1)

eulernet (1132389) | about 4 years ago | (#33881758)

Ten years ago, one of my friends, who works on movies' restoration and coloring, told me that they had software that was able to remove moving objects from a scene.

The idea was to use the whole scene to recreate the missing parts.

I also remember an article on, with plugins able to remove logos or subtitles: [] []
and even TV ads removal: []

I call BS on that one. proof inside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881794)

Look at their youtube video youtube video []
Shift the youtube to 1:31 , 1:32. Now look at where the things was staying. Those are two yellow stone. But on the video you see it was replaced by two gray stone bits and the SEAMS of the stone align with the rest. In other word it was a part of the image copied over. Can you imagine the complexity of a software to recognize that the SEAM of the stone must be aligned and where to get it ? I doubt it can be done in 40 ms even on dedicated hardware. I betcha it was "helped" manually by the software maker to make it more beautiful.

It's the end of the world as we know it. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33881796)

If people didn't trust the media before... this is really going to give them pause for thought.

Really, no one is going to say it?? (1)

pablo_max (626328) | about 4 years ago | (#33881848)

Fine..I will say the obvious.
Never again will you need to see a penis in your porn..unless of course you want to in which case I am not judging you. ;)

Can be done with CCTV with encryption (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#33881858)

I can't find the paper at the moment, but I've seen examples of something similar done with a CCTV camera and encryption. It has the advantage of having a fairly fixed view, so it can easily repaint the background in, but the idea was that it recognises and encrypts the imagery of a person in the shot. The CCTV then captures everyone who walks through the shot in case actions need to be reviewed in future (e.g. "did we see a guy matching the vague description of the perpetrator in the area before the crime and can we get a better shot of him?") but without the decryption key then all of the "innocents" have their privacy protected because they're not shown.

Of course, there is the obvious question of "how do you know that someone is in the picture without knowing that they're in the picture? or do you just have to brute-force the video?", but assuming that they can tag an ID and a unique encryption key to a video image of a person then the idea of CCTV that shows nothing until law enforcement decrypt the necessary (and only the necessary) parts is interesting.

reflection still visible of course! (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | about 4 years ago | (#33881968)

Did anyone else notice the matchbox appeared in the mirror in the video?

AdBlocker! (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 years ago | (#33881984)

I would pay for glasses that remove advertisement from the real world. In fact, I'd pay quite a lot.

Ads are one of the "unseen evils". By now we know that the processing and even the filtering out that our brains do take up more of our awareness than we become aware of. Advertisement has been positively linked to road accidents, for example, as it is a distracting factor.

In any big city today, you are literally bombarded by advertisement, and all of it has been designed by psychological warfare...sorry, "advertisement experts" to be maximally distracting...sorry, "noticeable". It's a huge burden on your mind, and the only reason you don't notice is that the filtering process isn't conscious.

I'd pay quite a bit for a technology that allows me to concentrate on what is actually important and/or interesting in my environment.

6 million jews and 2 clowns (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#33882024)

What 6 million jews and 2 clowns? I don't see 6 million jews and two clowns.

Confusion Between Reality and Fiction (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#33882256)

Pope Benedict XVI has warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of new technologies []
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?