Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google Launches Search By Image

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-see-what-you-did-there dept.

Google 109

kai_hiwatari writes "At the Inside Search event being held at San Francisco, Google has announced a new addition to its search features — Search by Image. The Search by Image feature is something like Google's image search application for mobile devices — Google Goggles — but for the desktop."

cancel ×

109 comments

I'm not gay (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441240)

I'M NOT GAY!
I don't use mac!
My ass doesn't look like wadded up bologna!

Re:I'm not gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441754)

Steve Ballmer is that you?

Re:I'm not gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442224)

*smell of a chair being hurled with great force accompanied by a strong sound of sweat*

tineye.com (1, Insightful)

georgeda (752150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441344)

copying http://www.tineye.com/ [tineye.com] seems a bit seedy.

Re:tineye.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441534)

Just like copying AltaVista was seedy? Competition is a good thing.

Re:tineye.com (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441594)

Both are good for?

PR0N. Stalking.

Re:tineye.com (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441672)

It is the internet... everything is public regardless if you think so.

Re:tineye.com (0, Troll)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441820)

What's your real name, and what are the credit card numbers you've used online?

I mean, since everything on the internet is public and all...

Re:tineye.com (1)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442188)

credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.

but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....

Re:tineye.com (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442786)

credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.

You've got a lot to learn about SSL if you believe that...

Now let me close by redirecting your own words back at you:

but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....

Re:tineye.com (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443306)

SSL adds a layer of encryption that can only be transmitted by sender and received by intended receiver.
It does this by encrypting all data between the two points. Which is, if you have ever bothered to perform a packet capture, all in plain text unless encrypted.
Since I believe you do not know what you are talking about since you didnt explain it, or have the balls to because you werent sure about it, I suggest you learn about SSL.

Basic question for yah... go ahead, google it.. Ill wait
SSL stands for Secure Socket Layer, and is transmitted on what layer of the OSI model?

Re:tineye.com (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443400)

That's a beautiful story.

Too bad that it depends on the fairy-story of well-vetted certificate authorities and/or DNS integrity, etc.

Have fun!

Re:tineye.com (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443526)

Yes it does... what is your point?
I was talking about what SSL does, not its probability of redirection hacks and certificate corruptions.

Re:tineye.com (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443922)

Commenting on the assertion:
"can only be transmitted by sender and received by intended receiver"

That is a statement that almost implies SSL in mutual authenticated mode, which is between static entities. Outside of that context, the statement still represents SSL in a way that is misleading. It encourages a greater level of trust in the technology than warranted - which tends to result in a user's relaxed vigilance.

Wifi was barely conceived of, when SSL was first proposed by Netscape - let alone public access points! I can sit in Starbucks and broker SSL sessions all day long, with a couple of pieces of open-source kit.

Re:tineye.com (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36446902)

You are talking about man in the middle attacks (looking at the data before it is sent off. Popular method is key logging) or spoofing.
Thus my quoted statement is still true.
Just so you understand, I know what you are saying, but it is not what we are talking about.

Re:tineye.com (1)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443382)

you believe that i am in the position to not allow you to close? that is very telling.

you're an idiot.

you've got a lot to learn about being an idiot.

Re:tineye.com (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36449676)

credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.

I realize you are trying to be clever, but you're not really making any sort of point. What does encryption have to do with whether or not you've entered something into the internet? By your logic, if you use https, you're not using the internet? So https://www.facebook.com/ [facebook.com] is private?

but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....

Like I said, trying to be clever. Just not doing a good job of it.

Re:tineye.com (1)

MichaelKristopeit406 (2018812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450644)

the credit card number was never sent over the internet. an encrypted block of text was.

you think i'm doing a job of being clever? that is very telling.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

keep pretending you're not an idiot. it's the only job you'll ever have. realize that.

Re:tineye.com (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450128)

So everything is not public on the internet which still refutes the original claim.

Re:tineye.com (1)

MichaelKristopeit407 (2018814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450688)

the claim was that credit card numbers were on the internet... they aren't.

the new claim is: you're an idiot.

unrefuted.

Re:tineye.com (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443258)

I believe my point was, and if you took a second to reflect on it, that you should treat everything as public because it CAN be, very easily. Much easier than keeping that picture you had taken back in the 80s of that hottie you doinked.

Re:tineye.com (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36449840)

I believe my point was, and if you took a second to reflect on it, that you should treat everything as public because it CAN be, very easily.

I got your point just fine. That's why I inquired about your name and CC#. Both are (presumably) on the internet, but clearly they are more private than you've made them out to be.

Much easier than keeping that picture you had taken back in the 80s of that hottie you doinked.

Or your credit card number, or name, or countless other bits of info that somehow manage to remain sufficiently private. I don't disagree with the idea that one should consider privacy when entering information online, but the claim you made was too broad.

Re:tineye.com (2)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441850)

I think you mean "higher resolution versions of images you already have"

Re:tineye.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36447428)

Or original versions of "redacted" images you have.

Re:tineye.com (4, Interesting)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441638)

There is a major difference between the new Google Image Search and TinEye:

Some background: Running a service like TinEye costs a lot of money. How do they do it for free?

TinEye has a major business besides free image-matching for the public. They provide private image-matching services for stock-photo sites like Getty Images (not saying the Getty uses them, but they could.)
The stock-photo site loads their entire collection into TinEye and TinEye finds everyone who is using the picture or a derivative of it. Then the photo site can sue the people who do not have a license to use an image.

Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.

Re:tineye.com (3, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441856)

Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.

Actually, Google's search is about extracting ad views from its users.

Re:tineye.com (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450416)

There is a major difference between the new Google Image Search and TinEye:

Yeah, one of them's got a fucking stupid name, and it's not Google.

Re:tineye.com (2)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441662)

TinyEye only searches for exact image matches (including cropping, size and color changes), which has some use if you stumble across an image and want to find its origin or look for people who might violate your copyright. Google search seems to go further and search for the actual thing on the image, not just the image itself.

Re:tineye.com (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442120)

They *claim* to only do exact image searches based on the data found in the file you are searching for but what I've discovered is that their search is a bit more intense than they let on because I've searched for images and have found images that might only match 50% of the file I was searching but were most definitely related to that image. I've also found images that weren't remotely related so I'm certain they have something else going on that they're not telling everyone about.

Re:tineye.com (3, Informative)

RMingin (985478) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442316)

The other day I fed TinEye a highly-cropped version of a photo, someone's avatar from a game that I half-recognized. It found the uncropped version, and a few alternate versions (not exact matches, but same subject, different paintings).

TinEye matched a painting from Google Street View (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 3 years ago | (#36444070)

TinEye searches much more than exact images.

I just took a screenshot from Google Street View in The Museum of Modern Art [google.com] . From the screenshot I cropped out a painting (and didn't even change the perspective) and searched at TinEye which resulted in this search [tineye.com] . Colour me impressed. Once again, my image is just a screenshot from a photo taken non-orthogonally at a painting.

TinEye is also extremely useful to help understand a photoshop meme :-)

Not copying (4, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442262)

Google had the same functionality as TinEye in Google Labs for at least as long as TinEye has been around. They (weakly) integrated it into their main site in 2009 as a "Find Similar Images" feature. Google goggles (and this) does a lot more than TinEye, because it can find different images with similar content, while TinEye only finds the same image with minor cropping and filtering applied. And academia has been publishing papers on images search for years before either company made anything.

The difference is that TinEye found a niche business model for the (relatively) simple image search that it had, and developed it into a very useful tool for the limited capability it had. Google on the other hand, decided what they had wasn't good enough for their market, and kept working on it in the background until it was good enough.

Neither is a rip off of the other. They are just different approaches to different problems, both of which borrowed from prior research as well as adding their own improvements.

Re:tineye.com (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442466)

Except that Google had this feature long before tineye? Just that they had taken that option off for some reason. Now they have re-introduced it, albeit with probably better or different algorithm.

I uploaded ... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441358)

... a photo of my junk. All Google found were links related to nanotechnology.

Re:I uploaded ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441442)

You, sir, have some AWESOME junk.

Re:I uploaded ... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441986)

it's high-tech, but as any geek knows, the vast majority of fuckable chicks still dig the neanderthals

Re:I uploaded ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36443688)

Yeah. But the wife still wants it cleared out of the garage.

Re:I uploaded ... (2, Informative)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441518)

Actually, this would be an interesting way to find long-lost porn. Think about it. You have an old jpg from 10 years ago. Upload it to Google and you find others from the same set, who took the photo, etc.

Re:I uploaded ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442854)

Which is exactly what I've been using TinEye for since its inception.

Re:I uploaded ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36446042)

Yes, I'll be uploading photos of my junk, with the understanding that Google will immediately discard that photo and I'll never see it crop up anywhere again.

I'm also in the market for a bridge.

Re:I uploaded ... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450522)

Actually, this would be an interesting way to find long-lost porn. Think about it. You have an old jpg from 10 years ago. Upload it to Google and you find others from the same set, who took the photo, etc.

I'm sure you're the first person to think of this. Well done!

Re:I uploaded ... (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442112)

Mine brought up topography of Iraq.

Re:I uploaded ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36444432)

Hey Brother.

Re:I uploaded ... (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36445596)

"We got balls!"

Re:I uploaded ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36447332)

Here's my results! [google.com]

Poor Video (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441424)

That video was poor. It was full of animated graphics and few actual results. The actual results didn't even find many matches.

Also, how is Google's version better than TinEye's? Nothing they've said about Google's search goes further than TinEye's. I've used TinEye and it's worked well enough; much better than what was shown in that marketing video.

Google, I'm not impressed. You should do better.

Point-n-grunt (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441436)

They should call this technology point-n-grunt. Now I don't even have to worry about articulating my wants into words.

In all honestly thats pretty cool though, I've been expecting this for a while. Congrats on the cool new technology Google. *holds up picture of a a party hat and confetti*

Re:Point-n-grunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441550)

*holds up picture of a a party hat and confetti*

Why'd you hold up a picture of alcoholics anonymous party hat? Those parties are pretty boring...

Re:Point-n-grunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442544)

I wonder if the google plugin for Firefox will update to provide right-click-on-image functionality for this. Sort of like how you can highlight text and right-click for a "google this" option. That way we can even be more lazy and skip the copy-pasta image-info step.

Effect on TinEye? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441458)

Huh, I wonder if TinEye will disappear under the might of Google? It's been pretty useful, especially the browser plug-ins!

Re:Effect on TinEye? (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36446906)

I would rather they got integrated. Tin Eye does a wonderful job, but they don't have the sheer capacity Google has for absorbing the entirety of the internets every ten seconds.

Facial Recognition (1)

crow (16139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441504)

This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off. (I'm surprised that there isn't a dangerous search mode that only shows results that would be blocked by safe search.)

Re:Facial Recognition (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441714)

(I'm surprised that there isn't a dangerous search mode that only shows results that would be blocked by safe search.)

You aren't the only one. Maybe a "pick your range" option. Some sort of sliding scale, you set high and low limits?

Re:Facial Recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442086)

There is: http://www.monzy.org/unsafesearch/

Re:Facial Recognition (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442246)

This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off.

That may be the case this week, but with facial recognition already built into Picasa (and it works fairly well) and with other companies (facebook) threatening to unleash it on the web, we can only guess how long Google can hold off a full fledged facial reco system, at least for public figures, and probably with an opt-in, but eventually for any face at all.

The tools are there already. The privacy issue and their often mocked clinging to the "don't be evil" motto is probably the only thing preventing google from offering a FR application tomorrow,

Re:Facial Recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36446338)

Googler here. We can do it, we've got all the pieces (apart from really high quality social connection data), but the legal and social ramifications mean it won't ever see the light of day (you can probably understand we don't want headlines like "woman murdered by Google stalker").

I understand that in FB's tests, an awful lot of people switched it off.

We all know (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441514)

the most common use of this will be to find more pictures of that one girl you can't remember the name of from that pic you found online..... How long before someone uses this to identify, track, and hunt down a photobomber?

Re:We all know (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442302)

No, supposedly it will not be facial recognition, at least not yet.

It will probably be swamped by porn.

Don't bother linking to Google (2)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441542)

Great article. Not only does it get "TinEye" wrong (Tiny Eye? Really?) but it also fails to link to Google.

It's supposed to be part of images.google.com [google.com] , although it's not working for me currently (the camera icon doesn't show up in the search box). There's help on how to use this feature here [google.com] .

Re:Don't bother linking to Google (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441576)

Great article. Not only does it get "TinEye" wrong (Tiny Eye? Really?) but it also fails to link to Google.

It's supposed to be part of images.google.com [google.com] , although it's not working for me currently (the camera icon doesn't show up in the search box).

Are you surprised that TFA is wrong? (The repeated reference to "Tiny Eye" didn't give you a hint?) It hasn't launched yet. It launches in a couple of days...

Stalking made easier (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441546)

Get a photo of some cute girl or guy. Drag it to google. And soon you'll have dozens of photos & if you're lucky, a name and address. (I suspect this is not what google intended, but oh well.)

Re:Stalking made easier (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441792)

The Google demo video only showed places, art and animals, not people. As far as I know Google has the tech for that already, but not enabled due to privacy concerns. There is however PicTriev [pictriev.com] for face search, which however seems to be relatively low quality.

Do they keep your image? (3, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441596)

Do they keep the image and add it to their collection or do they toss it away?

Re:Do they keep your image? (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442662)

Just for fun, I'm only going to use images I've taken with my 3DS. Even if I have to open them in paint and photograph the screen.

Re:Do they keep your image? (1)

BenFenner (981342) | more than 3 years ago | (#36449820)

Same question I had. I stumbled across the answer at the bottom of this page. http://images.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=1325808 [google.com]

Note that images you upload and image URLs that you search with will be treated and stored in accordance with Google's privacy policy.

I can't say I'm surprised.

If I take a pic of my crotch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441630)

If I take a pic of my crotch, will it find one certain representative?

Re:If I take a pic of my crotch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441794)

Yeah, Rob Malda's. You both are in the running for tiniest penis in the world. The results are too close to call even under our most powerful microscopes.

Re:If I take a pic of my crotch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441822)

I think it will find many needles. Why do you need just one?

Needles? (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442168)

Needles? It will have trouble finding the haystack!

tineye clone, google is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36441686)

Google is now doing "me too" stuff like MS. They are now officially no longer cool.

Re:tineye clone, google is over (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442044)

Oh you mean like GMail. Or Google Chat. Or Google Maps. Or Google Earth. Or Google Docs. Or Google Video. Or Blogger. Or Yourube. Or...

Search and ads are the ONLY THINGS Google has made on its own (as opposed to blatantly carbon-copying / straight out buying).
This isn't necessarily bad (unless you want to believe Google is somehow great), but it definitely isn't a new trend.

Re:tineye clone, google is over (2)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442450)

Yep, because Google was the first search engine ever.

And suddenly... (2)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441696)

And suddenly the internets cried out in pain as the simultaneous upload of a billion boobie pics strained its' tubes to the core.

Re:And suddenly... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36441804)

Then maybe they should have made it more like a big truck that you can dump stuff on. It might handle the load better.

Re:And suddenly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442216)

And suddenly the internets cried out in pain as the simultaneous upload of a billion boobie pics strained its' tubes to the core.

Not likely. A billion more is barely a drop in the bucket...

Re:And suddenly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36443308)

So exactly how many nipples are there on the Internet?

Re:And suddenly... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36450630)

So exactly how many nipples are there on the Internet?

42 obviously. They're just copied a lot.

Re:And suddenly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36445480)

Mmmm... seems that the ones searching for boobies would be the ones that *don't* already have them!

About time (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442420)

Sometimes you have a picture that you want to know more about, and so far the only option was to take a picture of your screen with a smart phone. A desktop based image search should be much easier to use.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36445700)

Sometimes you have a picture that you want to know more about, and so far the only option was to take a picture of your screen with a smart phone. A desktop based image search should be much easier to use.

God forbid privacy from people who you don't even give your name to....

Re:About time (1)

johncandale (1430587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36445742)

never heard of tineye, or the tineye app or the tineye firefox extension?

inurl:"Big Booty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442444)

:)

Makes sense (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36442474)

If being able to search using photos on your phone is already useful to a lot of people, being able to search from your home after you've stored your pictures on your computer just makes sense. I'm just eager to try it for myself since it hasn't seemed to have actually launched yet.

IQDB.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442760)

If you're into manga and that sort'a thing, you should know about IQDB, which finds an image based on a thumbnail on several image boards. So from a low-quality thumbnail you can usually get a desktop-sized image and a bunch of tags that tell you what it is. (And it's been around since the early naughties, although not at that url.)

Google Goggles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36442852)

Are they similar to Beer Goggles?

Oh f..k, they used google translate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36444206)

The site [google.com] must be translated by Google Translate to other languages. I tried it with a few different language settings and the language seem to be total gibberish if you use anything but English.

The search site automatically show you pages that is auto-"translated" according to the primary language setting in your browser. It would be much better if it showed you pages written by a real human in one of the language present in your language list in your browser settings. As most people (except native English speakers) can read at least a couple of the largest languages, it shoudln't be that hard. [At least one of Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, English, French, German or Dutch (or Scandinavian [wikipedia.org] ) is understood by most internet users, the languages is listed roughly in the order of universality (most of the people who understand Portuguese or Spanish live in South America or South Asia, there are much more people who can read French, German or Dutch living outside Europe, then in Europe, Arabic is the universal language of the Muslim world, Russian was the universal language of the East block (but learning English is more popular with younger people), most people who can read English, can read one of the other languages in the list better; there are many people who understand spoken Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi or Italian (more then understand English) but most of them can neither read, nor live in areas with affordable Internet access)]

Worse, you have to change your primary language setting in your browser to get readable pages, there is no easy link to follow to get pages in English. As the English language pages can be read by any 9 year old (and kids younger than that shouldn't be allowed to use this service without an adult supervisor) that have studied English for a year in school, while their native language counterparts is rather confusing (and set a really bad example for proper language use), this is really unnecessary.

Useful for finding Creative Commons images? (1)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36444822)

I can see this being really useful for finding creatives commons licensed images. If you find an image or diagram you'd really like to include in a document, but it's not openly licensed, you could look for other images like it, but use Google Image Search's recently-added license filter to find CC-licensed materials.

Didn't RTFA, but ... (1)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36444866)

Is this being done by a hash of some kind, or by some form of image comparison? The first method would be efficient but will only produce exact copies. I'm not aware of any variation on the latter method that isn't incredibly system intensive with large numbers of images...

Re:Didn't RTFA, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36444958)

Obviously it ain't just hash. Must be some kind of algorithmic voodoo if you have to ask me...

Re:Didn't RTFA, but ... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36445990)

If you have a face, its local feature analysis or nodal points. 10 years ago you needed 12-22 nodal points to match a face. ~ tens of millions of faces looked at per min for a basic set up.
So in todays terms, its simple, fast and can do the US population based on how much you can spend on hardware. Would the math would get stuck or scale in bad ways? - just hire good people and add hardware? The world of faces is yours :-)
Other options might be based on what extra data an Adobe is asked to save.

I read it, but it was light, so I tested... (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36447484)

I've just done a test with (1) a small section of a public image of sushi, with all metadata removed and (2) a photo I just took of some bananas on a white background.

(1) correctly identified what it was, gave me websites using the full original image, full marks, 100%, v.g.

(2) Showed me chopping boards, boxes, a violin... anything where the image had roughly the same colours in roughly the same portion of the image.

So I conclude that it is both. The hash is extremely effective, as you might expect it to be with precomputed info, but the node search is rubbish.

I uploaded a pic of your mom (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36444938)

and it crashed with the message "Number of matches exceeds allocated memory."

Finally (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36445940)

At last, we can get an accurate goatse census.

Uses of Image Search (2)

khope (1302019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36446144)

I uploaded a photo of mine--not available on the net--and Google showed me six photos that are visually similar with differing subjects. I like it.

My hope for the future is that a photo I take of some unusual connector will return info on what it fits. Similarly I would like to identify other objects through their photos when they lack other info such as model numbers.

Stalkers, rejoice! (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36446636)

See a person you'd like to get to know better? Snap a pic, run through the service, and find their details.

Possibly more fun and profitable uses of matching random faces to names would be jury tampering, background checks for employees, finding Ex's of whomever you're dating, blackmailing married men leaving a strip club or adult book store, finding where the TSA agent who just groped you lives...

Re:Stalkers, rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36448754)

live spamming coders rejoice.

NoScript warns me of a XSS attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36447164)

This is the news URL at digitizor.com:
http://digitizor.com/2011/06/15/google-search-by-image/
The same happens on today's other digitizor.com news at Slashdot (Mac OS X Lion Has a Browser-Only Mode)
-Ignacio Agulló

Later today (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36448340)

Google will be sued for not matching all submitted images against copyrighted images to find IP thieves. Mark it down as a certainty.

Link to the original article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36448924)

Not an advert-ridden piece of shit hoping for all the clicks from Slashdot, which he didn't earn in any way, shape or form.

Not ready for prime time (1)

Pat_Ferrel (781343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36449808)

This is one of those Google features that I scratch my head over. It sounds great but is almost completely useless. I tried several images both from the web and from pictures of famous locations that I had taken on vacation. I tried product photos, and place photos. I tried the search page and the Chrome extension. I got one page crash (drag-n-drop an image to search by), and no results that could be considered anything but awful. The results were so far off the mark as to be silly. I posted a chair and got action figure toys. The one example of useful results and the reason I will keep it around is that is showed other sites that are using images that I have copyrights too but were captured from my site. I guess if I had the time I could go ask for some credit and get a little pagerank love.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...