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!

Rendering Synthetic Objects Into Old Photographs

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the improve-on-reality dept.

Graphics 134

First time accepted submitter IDarkISwordI writes "A new abstract headed to SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 provides a method for rapid execution of computer graphics, synthesized into photographs with accurate lighting and physics based on limited input from a user and interpretation by their code." The results are impressive; hard to watch the video demo (on linked page) without boggling.

cancel ×

134 comments

Virtual house dressing (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814588)

This is going to be very useful for real estate sales. No need to move furniture into an empty house for the pictures.

Re:Virtual house dressing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814824)

http://www.news.com.au/money/property/beware-of-real-estate-agents-latest-trick/story-e6frfmd0-1226157834885

Re:Virtual house dressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814894)

Is it just me or is the furniture smaller than in real life? Makes the rooms look huge. Just what we need: more fraudulent tactics in the housing market :D

Re:Virtual house dressing (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815214)

It's just you...

Although you're right to be suspicious. Those are only the 'demo' images.

Re:Virtual house dressing (3, Interesting)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815046)

No problem. Just use context aware fill [youtube.com] to remove the furniture from the image.

Re:Virtual house dressing (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37816096)

OTOH they might use virtual furniture to hide problematic things (like wet spots on the wall) behind them.

Re:Virtual house dressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37817040)

Read what he said. He's talking about staging an empty house - not removing furniture to make the room look empty.

That is indeed quite impressive (3, Insightful)

No, I am Spratacus! (2281684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814592)

Especially getting the lighting and the shadows to fit the rest of the image.

Re: (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814642)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper. (If it's there, and I missed it, please let me know.) Hopefully someone will make a plugin for this, so we can use it in GIMP, PS, etc..

Re: (5, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814726)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper.

The release is delayed because the software is limited to only a few useful objects at the moment: Buddha Statue, Dragon Statue, Pool Table and Dead Hooker.
 

Re: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814864)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper.

The release is delayed because the software is limited to only a few useful objects at the moment: Buddha Statue, Dragon Statue, Pool Table and Dead Hooker.

But I need software that can *remove* dead hookers from photos! That's the problem with academia, totally disconnected with the needs of the real world.

Re: (2)

daid303 (843777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815004)

No, no, no. No need for that.

Just add the dead hooker to a lot of photos, see, that's not a real dead hooker in my photo's, it's added with a computer, see, here is the president with the same dead hooker! Instead of trying to hide the proof, invalidate the proof.

Re: (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815180)

That's fine so long as you have the mesh and textures for the dead hooker... I guess you could always add a different dead hooker though to a bunch of photos. The president, the judge, the prosecutor, etc.

Re: (2)

fritish (1630461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815950)

"I've never seen so many dead hookers in all my life!"

"Lord knows I have..."

Re: (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#37817436)

Wait til someone combines random Facebook pics with this plugin.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815430)

Typical /. mentaility "oh science, curse thee for not solving every little problem in my life". Just toss a decorative throw or rug over your dead hooker before taking your family snapshots, problem solved.

Re: (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37816122)

Typical case of Whoosh on Slashdot.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815530)

I can anticipate a curious pattern emerging. Who knew that some many people would choose to keep the same Dragon Statue or Buddha Statue on top of a blood stained bed in a cheap motel?

Re: (1)

IDarkISwordI (811835) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814740)

Often software releases for submission to SIGGRAPH, don't appear until the following year. The number of individuals working on the software is quite limited and it may be too buggy still for release. Another possibility, and very unfortunate if so, is if they intend to market this to an interested buyer, which would likely be MANY.

Re: (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815020)

I've only skimmed the PDF (it's way above my level anyway) but I didn't see any notes about license or copyright. It looks pretty detailed... perhaps enough to allow an open-source project to replicate the software. That would be cool.

Re: (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815054)

Equal opportunity. Just sell licenses instead of selling the whole package to a single buyer.

Those photo's look.... (-1)

malakai (136531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814606)

.... Photoshopped.

Re:Those photo's look.... (4, Funny)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814696)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:Those photo's look.... (3, Funny)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814836)

Or more appropriately... http://xk3d.xkcd.com/331/ [xkcd.com]

mind boggling (1)

zachie (2491880) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814624)

I love it when slashdot news do that to me

This will come in handy... (2)

durin (72931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814654)

... the next time someone wants to frame someone else for murder ;P

Prank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814668)

Take picture of buddy's place. Insert stolen sculpture. Send to police.

Too real (4, Interesting)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814674)

Well, that pretty well wraps it up for anyone trying to prove anything supernatural or extra-terrestrial on earth. Who would ever believe any video evidence now?

Re:Too real (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814698)

Good point. I suspect there will be ways to detect artifacts of such changes, but those could probably be obscured by converting to a low-res format. Grainy-smudgy video has always been the friend of woo-woo purveyors.

Re:Too real (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815884)

True, but there are fewer and fewer reasons to release grainy video now. Many people have HD capable video camera's on their cellphones. There is no reason for video to be grainy anymore, so low quality video should be the first warning sign that someone may be trying to hide something.

Re:Too real (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814702)

You mean people believe pictures without wondering whether it's photoshopped?

True, this is much more advanced technology and seems to be amazingly effective, but a good photoshop editor has been able to fool the public for quite a long time now.

Re:Too real (5, Informative)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814738)

True, this is much more advanced technology and seems to be amazingly effective, but a good photoshop editor has been able to fool the public for quite a long time now.

The best part about this tech is that it does not require a "good" photoshop editor to sort out the light paths and shadows/reflections/etc manually, but just a person willing to graphically describe the scene using a GUI. After that, arbitrary 3D objects can be more-or-less added arbitrarily with uncanny realism.

This includes, perhaps unfortunately, realtors.

(And to the English Nazi(s) reading this: "graphically" and "GUI" are not redundant terms in this context.)

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815504)

The G in GUI is.

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815918)

>English Nazi(s)

Edward VIII is dead...

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815922)

(And to the grammar Nazi(s) reading this: "graphically" and "GUI" are not redundant terms in this context.)

FTFY

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37817028)

| After that, arbitrary 3D objects can be more-or-less added arbitrarily with uncanny realism.

I'll focus on the arbitrary use of arbitrary

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814748)

We need camera manufacturer cryptographic signing for that kind of thing. I personally hope a supernatural realm doesn't exist but the only way to know is to take every possible empirical measure to disprove my own hopes, so, we need to do this properly.

Re:Too real (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815026)

That'll work as well as DRM does.

Cryptography just doesn't work that way - you can't give the keys to someone (in this case, by putting them in their camera) and 'hope' they won't be able to use them.

Re:Too real (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815100)

Until some genius^H^H^H^H^H^Hhacker photographs a photograph.

Re:Too real (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815144)

Until some genius^H^H^H^H^H^Hhacker photographs a photograph.

Good point. And it dispels any reason to believe film cameras are safe from digital hacking as well.

Do all the photoshopping you want, print it, photograph it [sheldonbrown.com] . There, you have evidence captured on film.
 

Re:Too real (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815592)

Those exist, and have been broken already.

Re:Too real (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814800)

Great point. I totally agree with you! [removalsandstorage.com]

I think we already got there. (4, Funny)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814854)

Re:I think we already got there. (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815368)

Wait, is that the R2 unit we're looking for?

Re:Too real (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815348)

Great point. Totally agree with you!
! [removalsandstorage.com]

Re:Too real (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815366)

Why not? We believe Gadaffi's dead.

Re:Too real (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815420)

Maybe if it was live? I don't think this sort of stuff can be done in real-time.

Star Trek DS9 had something interesting with Cardassian data technology. Data was stored on crystal "rods", like their version of a flash drive. But there was a "write once" rod that can't be altered after data is finished being written to it. Perhaps we need something like this for verified reporting/journalism.

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815512)

Star Trek DS9 had something interesting with Cardassian data technology. Data was stored on crystal "rods", like their version of a flash drive. But there was a "write once" rod that can't be altered after data is finished being written to it. Perhaps we need something like this for verified reporting/journalism.

We do, they're called CD-Rs.

Re:Too real (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815528)

Not a bad idea. Probably will also have to have GPS data burnt into the photograph too.

Re:Too real (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815750)

Star Trek DS9 had something interesting with Cardassian data technology. Data was stored on crystal "rods", like their version of a flash drive. But there was a "write once" rod that can't be altered after data is finished being written to it. Perhaps we need something like this for verified reporting/journalism.

If you can read the device, you can alter the data and store it to another write-once device. You need a write-once, read-never device. I suggest /dev/null.

Re:Too real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815862)

That's called a "prom" (programmable read only memory).

I don't know if anyone still manufactures the basic sort though (reusable eeproms are a lot more popular for most applications because well, you can erase them)

Weeping angel (3, Funny)

zebadee (551743) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814682)

Right at the end of the video. Now you can have a weeping angel moving through your very own lounge!

Re:Weeping angel (2)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 2 years ago | (#37817024)

They should have had a TARDIS materialize. That would have been awesome.

Wow. (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814708)

If the manual touch-up bits could be automated, this is just about everything augmented reality is supposed to be.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814984)

It'd also have to be extremely fast. Augmented reality usually deals with live video, so it needs to be 30+ fps.

Re:Wow. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815418)

If you have a moving camera, you can already compare neighbouring frames to build a perspective model of the 3d geometry. So yeah, with a fast computer and a wobbling camera, this could be done without human input. Sorry, rotoscopers ;-)

amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814752)

those dragons don't look peculiar at all, they look like they belonged in the original photo!

Re:amazing (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814778)

Fuck you, I'm a dragon!

Finally! (1)

TheRedSeven (1234758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814832)

Finally! Now we know how Dude Perfect [youtube.com] makes all those shots!

Re:Finally! (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815112)

Notice how every time they have an audience in the shot they look bored out of their minds until it goes in? That's because they've watched him miss about 300 times already.

Nice try, no sigar (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814884)

The shadows may look "better" but the shade and reflected light on the placed subject still needs work. The palette of the placed object also seems to lack white balancing to the picture.

As long as someone tells you there's fake in the picture, you can still tell what the fake bit is, without using a computer to spot anomalies. It's cool to see that tools get this powerful, but it's not good enough to fake any sharp observer yet, let alone a decent forensic study with computer aid.

Re:Nice try, no sigar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815522)

Agreed on the lack of white balance, and it definitely struggles with inserting glass objects. When the video asked if I could tell which was real, it was immediately obvious to me just from the drinking glass on the table. While each fake took the time to move the line on the wall behind it up where we viewed it through the glass, none bothered to give it any curvature, and none of the fakes had light in the rim of the glass as the real did. That combined with the white balance problem killed the illusion.

Worth noting that I'm a lot better than my friends at picking out special effects in movies, colour variations on the backs of cards in games, and other details.

Who needs a computer? (2)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814892)

The communists under Stalin were "fixing" photographs to remove undesirable people for a long time, many years before electronic computers and graphics were invented. Of course, the undesirable people were removed from real life as well...

Re:Who needs a computer? (2, Funny)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814982)

In Soviet Russia pictures shop you.

Re:Who needs a computer? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815336)

The communists under Stalin were "fixing" photographs to remove undesirable people for a long time, many years before electronic computers and graphics were invented.

Even after Stalin's death, they were removing undesirable people from photographs and movies. Except this time, they were removing Stalin. I have seen one case where, in a video of Stalin walking with (I believe) Lenin, surrounded by Soviet military officers, they superimposed the silhouette of a Soviet officer over Stalins face, facing Lenin and away from the camera.

yay auto-shop (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814896)

Modern-day Yezhovs [wikipedia.org] already tremble in fear. With this technology, Syria, China (or soon the US) will be able to disappear people by millions! :p

Re:yay auto-shop (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814994)

Your link got shopped. Here [wikipedia.org] is a fixed one.

George Lucas... (3, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814932)

...will have a field day with this. Please, someone keep him away from whatever _is_ left of the original Star Wars film!

Didn't someone once suggest that we refer to these techniques as lucassizing?

Re:George Lucas... (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815018)

...will have a field day with this. Please, someone keep him away from whatever _is_ left of the original Star Wars film!

How cool, now we can add JarJar to EP4-6. A good idea, me-sa thinks?

Re:George Lucas... (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815130)

This is what EP4-6 Troopers are thinking about your idea [tumblr.com]

Re:George Lucas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815290)

George will use this to change all of the Star Wars films back to their original Lucas glory that was intended. They will be made in the image of the most perfect Star Wars movie of all time...

The Star Wars Holiday Special

No George we won't forget. Someone really needs to yell from the crowd the next time they see him. "Hey George! When is the next Star Wars Holiday Special coming out?" ...just to make sure he knows we know that he knows we'll never forget.

History trolls, rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37814956)

Just how long will it take for the goatse man to make an appearance at the Battle of Antietam, or for a lemon party to be taking place in the background of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.....

Combine this with this Video (1)

Hermanas (1665329) | more than 2 years ago | (#37814992)

Combine the software and techniques in this article, with the software and techniques in this video [youtube.com] , and you've got some endlessly useful software.

Software? (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815002)

Where can I download the software? Is it open source? I am afraid it won't be made available, and if it does it will be in a form where you need a few days to get it running. It seems that these kind of solutions developed in the academic world are often sold to commercial companies or made into commercial products.

Why are we trying to baffle future generations? (4, Funny)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815092)

So, peak oil arrives, there is a superflu pandemic, 99942 Apophis impacts and blocks out the Sun, etc. etc. we all die.

...then, centuries later, technological civilisation reemerges, and starts analysing data storage devices they dig up. Most of them are unreadable, but they do get fragments of data with which they can start to piece together what happened before The Event.

And what do they find? Pictures of people listening to iPods at the Battle of Stalingrad and Asimo raising the flag at Iwo Jima.

Re:Why are we trying to baffle future generations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815754)

And what do they find? Pictures of people listening to iPods at the Battle of Stalingrad and Asimo raising the flag at Iwo Jima.

That still places the object in time with less than a century apart. That is more accurate than most peoples understanding of history today.
If something of lesser importance took place for more than 500 years ago then we have a hard time placing it in the correct century.
Heck, it's not even clear wether hand cannons [wikipedia.org] were commonly in use in Europe at the time the stories of Robin Hood takes place and that is in an area that is fairly well documented.

If someone in a couple of centuries states that the flag at Iwo Jima was raised at the Battle of Stalingrad by Asimo while listening at an iPod then I am willing to say that it's close enough. At least none of the objects were placed more than a century apart which is a clear indication that historical accuracy have progressed.

Re:Why are we trying to baffle future generations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815932)

There's also the vampire and zombie epidemics of the late 20th and early 21st century. Human could never bring them under control due to the intermittent alien invasions.

Re:Why are we trying to baffle future generations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37816058)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2vU8M6CYI&feature=player_embedded

If you haven't watched it, or if you want to watch it again, might I recommend, Beatles 3000

sums up your point with hilarity,

jonathan

Seems kind of creepy to me (2)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815156)

Once we've also got the ability to render realistic 3D models of real people we're going to be in big trouble.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815288)

Guess you never watched Tron 2.0 then.

Clue wasn't real.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815602)

No, but the rendering was done with Jeff Bridges' assistance, mapping his features from the original over his current face in order to have him appear younger than he is, capturing his mannerisms, etc. That's not the same as picking your favourite supermodel and having her appear in your home movies.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815372)

Once we've also got the ability to render realistic 3D models of real people we're going to be in big trouble.

Why? Video and photos will not be useful as court evidence.

If you got caught in something you can always say, not me, and get away with it.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815424)

More likely it'll create a whole new class of "expert witnesses" who are supposed to be able to tell whether a photo has been faked with this tech. So yeah, you can say "not me"... but to have a decent chance of getting away with it you'll probably need to pay an "expert" to testify on your behalf.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815446)

It will be. Eye witness testimony is still valid. We trust DNA evidence despite the fact only experts handle the evidence. I don't see this affecting court cases realistically.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815638)

Because there is no DNA evidence, eye witnesses don't exist, and no one has trustworthy cameras?

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37816302)

Because there is no DNA evidence

Just wait until genetic kits get widespread :-)

eye witnesses don't exist

Not always, no.

and no one has trustworthy cameras?

It doesn't matter whether the camera was trustworthy if you can't proof that the picture it allegedly took that way wasn't actually manipulated afterwards. Unlike with analog cameras, you don't have a physical negative as proof.

Maybe we could have cameras which digitally sign their pictures. Then at least faking an original picture would involve reverse-engineering the camera's private key, which is not something most people can do.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37816704)

The point of a trustworthy camera is that the original image be available from a source with no stake in the outcome of a trial. For example, if a bank's camera captures a picture of a crime, and that photo is made available to the defense and the prosecution, neither side can manipulate the picture. Most pictures of crimes are going to continue to fall into this category.

Re:Seems kind of creepy to me (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815434)

That exists already to a degree. It just hasn't caught on yet. As well there is a slightly uncanny valley still.

Tron 2.0 by Anonymous below. Here is a YouTube video with a similar thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrI5AHYADRg [youtube.com] .

simple sign error with the Apollo 11 landing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815216)

simple sign error with the Apollo 11 landing... ...but they got the shadows right for the rest of the 6 total moon landings.

Yes, I know, it was a reflection from all the "tinfoil" on the landing module.

Yes, I know, it's mean to tease the conspiracy theorists - what with them all wearing tinfoil hats and being confused by their odd shadows.

That's one of the many reasons they stay indoors as much as possible.

Good news for Iran! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37815280)

Adobe was about to raise their fees...

Now we'll finally get proof of (0)

E.I.A (2303368) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815350)

everything? Watch as the White House now releases proof of Osama vs Seals and all sorts of other strange things. I can already see Mohamed hovering over the USS Carl Vinson in approval, down to the fine woolen fibres of the flying carpet. Fiction will now be a fair contestant to reality.

Modification by subtraction (3, Interesting)

john82 (68332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815378)

Given that this approach is able to account for light sources, geometry (perspective) and physical objects in an original image, it should also be able to remove objects and allow for realistic rendering of that loss. Combine that with the capability described in the proposal and the use of photographs as evidence at trial may soon be inadmissible. Or at the very least, a legal team could reasonably claim that a photo had been doctored (whether true or not) and therefore render such evidence unusable by the prosecution.

Re:Modification by subtraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37816530)

Not really, since the software does not know what is behind the couch for instance.
You could of course add some additional software in there that can estimate something like photoshop content aware fill.
Combining these two would probably give even better results since this one will give a more accurate estimate of the lighting for the hidden area.

Re:Modification by subtraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37816960)

Removing an object, would need to reveal the details of the object that it covered. This are of research is called inpainting. There are already impressive techniques in that field.

Photoshopping evidence (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815448)

Surprised nobody's mentioned how this could affect unscrupulous media outlets and court cases.

A green-screen alternative? (1)

davide marney (231845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815624)

Instead of recording just the actors live and having to rely on CG to recreate everything else, with this we could film all physical objects live, and decorate it with CG, like an updated form of rotoscoping [wikipedia.org] . I, for one, would welcome the demise of green-screen films. CG is still unconvincing, no matter how much money they keep spending on it. I still notice it. every. single. time.

Re:A green-screen alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37816062)

we could film all physical objects live, and decorate it with CG

Good idea, you should mention that in case anyone does a movie of Cloverfield, or makes a TV series out of Heroes, because what they do right now is green-screen everyone and paint in an unconvincing CG backdrop. Sheesh.

I still notice it. every. single. time.

I suspect you notice it even when it's. not. there.

Only works for asian stuff (1)

hey (83763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37815916)

like dragons and Buddha. (Joke. I know its at Siggraph Asia.)

Finally! (1)

Aquineas (922102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37816718)

I finally get to remove famous ex-gfs from old photographs! Scarlett- consider yourself forgotten, so PLEASE stop all those desperate phone-calls and emails.
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...