Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Video Inpainting Software Deletes People From HD Video Footage

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the you're-outta-here dept.

Media 124

cylonlover writes "In a development sure to send conspiracy theorists into a tizzy, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics (MPII) have developed video inpainting software that can effectively delete people or objects from high-definition footage. The software analyzes each video frame and calculates what pixels should replace a moving area that has been marked for removal. In a world first, the software can compensate for multiple people overlapped by the unwanted element, even if they are walking towards (or away from) the camera."

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

Summary Fail (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180183)

Background has to be static for it to work.

Nevertheless, an interesting accomplishment.

Re:Summary Fail (2)

Knuckles (8964) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180305)

Background has to be static for it to work.

Nevertheless, an interesting accomplishment.

Surely the person has to move far enough across the static background to reveal at last in one frame what's behind the person? I mean, if I'm standing in front of a dwarf for the whole duration of the video, how is the software to know about the dwarf?

Re:Summary Fail (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180459)

It doesn't know, but if this works like Photoshop's content aware fill, it can convincingly fake the rest of the wall. That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

Re:Summary Fail (1)

Knuckles (8964) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180501)

It doesn't know, but if this works like Photoshop's content aware fill, it can convincingly fake the rest of the wall. That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

Yeah, figured as much but, it's early here :)

Re:Summary Fail (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181565)

That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

Yes, but how fast can you manually remove someone from 30 seconds of video? You're talking about manually touching up over 700 pictures. How many can you do in a day? This software would probably do that 30 seconds in 30 seconds.

Re:Summary Fail (4, Informative)

jimshatt (1002452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180569)

But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist. For that matter, dwarfs might not even exist at all!
If you look at the video, though, the background doesn't have to be static. Objects moving over other moving objects can be removed as well. But, yeah, they have to be visible at some point.

Re:Summary Fail (1)

Knuckles (8964) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180587)

But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist.

True, unless the viewer at some point can examine the scene. (Photos and videos from a multitude of other sources, especially earlier ones. Granted, this works better with backgrounds less ambulatory than dwarfs)

For that matter, dwarfs might not even exist at all!

Might. All you know is that you haven't observed one :p

Re:Summary Fail (5, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180629)

But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist.

I hit a dwarf on the way to work today.

We got out of our cars to exchange information.

He said, "I am not happy."

I asked, "Which one are you?"

Then the fight started.

Re:Summary Fail (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182103)

Did his name happened to be Hank?

Re:Summary Fail (1)

Squatting_Dog (96576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183125)

Oh....I laughed til I cried!

Re:Summary Fail (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180819)

Zoom and inhance.

Re:Summary Fail (5, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180635)

Background has to be static for it to work.

Nope [youtube.com]

Re:Summary Fail (1, Interesting)

EdZ (755139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181203)

Yes, it does, as the video demonstrates. Their algorithm requires a static background (i.e. a stationary camera) and handles and moving foreground objects as user-selected special cases. If the background were to move, they'd need to either motion-compensate the entire footage first (assuming the camera only changed orientation, and not position, so parallax was not an issue), or perform an exhaustive search over the entire footage (which is the specific situation their algorithm is trying to avoid!).

Re:Summary Fail (4, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181279)

Absolutely false [youtube.com] . Check the Pax Planck page.

Re:Summary Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181541)

I'm pretty sure that continuous motion along any axis can be worked out with with a combination of Hough Transform and Optical Flow calculations.

Re:Summary Fail (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181703)

Why do you claim it's impossible when that's the very thing that's demonstrated in the first few seconds of the video link you responded to?

I know people don't RTFA, but not to look at the link of the post you're responding to?

Re:Summary Fail (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183059)

Using the free Windows software from Microsoft, it is trivial for me to stitch many photos together to make a stunning panorama photo. For example I once sat and made one while a boat pulled in to dock alongside me, to pick up a few passengers and then it pulled away. I probably shot about a dozen photos during this short time, all the while the boat was directly within my panorama. The resulting photo looks amazing, like there's 3-4 boats, (with the same people!). In fact I think I had to shoot quickly to achieve such a result, because otherwise the boat would have been erased completely from the 'landscape'.

Was the water static background? I certainly had no tripod as I swept the camera around me as I shot each frame, while seated on the dock.

It is amazing what effects interpolation math and a computer can achieve.

https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/ [microsoft.com]

Re:Summary Fail (1)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181825)

Background has to be static for it to work.

Nope [youtube.com]

That's still a static background, just the camera position and field of view isn't static. The view of the background isn't static, but the background is. If there were moving people in the background, and you wanted to remove someone in between, you've got a problem (because you don't know what the people were doing when they were blocked).

Re:Summary Fail (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180751)

How about the swinging arm of the guy behind the bench? That is background that is not static, yet it is redrawn with the arm motion neatly interpolated.

Ofcourse a lot of the background should be static, but it nearly always is unless you're looking at movie SFX or sea footage.

A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180187)

Researchers have developed video inpainting to remove the character Jar Jar Binks from the Star Wars Prequals.

Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180571)

The best ues of technology EVER!

Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180769)

This would be a cool usecase. I dont mind JarJar so much though, theres lots of stranger things in starwars, but i'd make a good technology demo.

Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (2, Interesting)

the_arrow (171557) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180191)

Don't the new Galaxy S4 have a similar feature, if I read correctly? Although only for photos.

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180395)

I came here to post this too. The Galaxy S4 takes something like 100 frames and then removes any moving thing from it. Was, for me, the most impressive part of last night's big reveal.

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180771)

I'd really like it to then allow users to chose a specific thing that is allowed to move, to make cinematic gifs.

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181003)

Successive approximation dejitter followed by temporal mode filter. I could throw that together in twenty minutes. Making it run on mobile phone hardware is rather more difficult.

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181369)

What's your point besides demonstrating your self importance?

That you're capable of copying people but not coming up with novel ideas yourself?

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181609)

To argue there there is no 'magic algorithm' to what the S4 does. I'm no programming genius, just a dabbler who can knock out a few functions in C. If I can do it, it isn't hard.

Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181557)

I bet it uses the GPU for doing that. These things are sufficiently beefy nowadays.

Electronic BothaChrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183277)

Anybody remember the Bothachrome comedy skit?

Reflections (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180263)

I liked the fact that you could still see the pedestrians in the reflections of the display window in the video of the musicians, even though they had been erased from the front end. Like the vampire test, but the other way around.

Re:Reflections (4, Funny)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180367)

These are not the vampire reflections you seek. . .

Re:Reflections (4, Informative)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180565)

Have these people never seen Rising Sun? This was a plot point 20 years ago.

Re:Reflections (4, Funny)

dintech (998802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180893)

I suppose NASA can use this to make it look like the astronauts weren't on the grassy knoll. Oh wait, I'm getting my conspiracies mixed up...

Re:Reflections (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181561)

Have these people never seen Rising Sun?

I've not only seen that book, I also bothered to read it. As usual, it was better than the adaptation.

Re:Reflections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182663)

I read the book too. It was a great big pile of steaming donkey shit.

For a Michael Crichton novel, about average.

oh, great (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180279)

So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

Re:oh, great (2, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180595)

Rainbows End, by Vernor Vinge. What you described is just the beginning.

Re:oh, great (1)

Auldclootie (1131129) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180613)

Already done in a Charlie Stross novel... people are walking the streets but appear as pixellated blurs... Anonymity in the crowd taken to the extreme... Also reminiscent of Peter Watts - Blindsight. We already knew that eyes are unreliable indicators at best, let's not worry until someone is editing memories...

Re:oh, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182701)

Prior art to both those johnny-come-latelies; A Scanner Darkly, by Philip A. Dick

"Let's hear it for the vague blur!"

Re:oh, great (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182721)

Already done in a Charlie Stross novel... people are walking the streets but appear as pixellated blurs... Anonymity in the crowd taken to the extreme... ..

Sounds like the scramble suits in Philip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly.

Re:oh, great (4, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180807)

So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

"Hey dude, what's u...Ow! Dude, what the hell, you just ran into me!"

"Oh hey, sorry about that. I had you flagged as spam. Didn't even see you there."

Re:oh, great (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180901)

I would have to flag some as ham, some as bull, some as chicken.

  If it's possible to replace them with avatars, they would all look like supermodels. All of a sudden it is just me and supermodels around me. Actually I begin to like the idea. But they would have to be dressed or I'd be crushed by incoming traffic.

For programmers in offices they could replace colleagues with naked supermodels. I wonder what that would do to productivity.

Re:oh, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182809)

Unless I actually knew you as a real person, I'd flag everyone as a sheep.
Hell, even if I did know you as a person, I'd probably flag you as a "special sheep".
That's because nearly 100% of the population just follows along like good little sheep.
Almost no-one truly thinks about how the whole system is gamed against them,
or why they are just good little sheep.

Re:oh, great (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181591)

Imagine the spam restaurant, a visual spam filter, and Google Glass. Enter the restaurant, order food, eat everything you see. "But you've barely touched the food!" "What do you mean, I've eaten everything!" Epic.

You could also get rid of the Vikings, if you're not that much into the Nordic stuff. (Just don't do that when they turn violent: You'll never see it coming.)

Re:oh, great (1, Funny)

brillow (917507) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181001)

Oh when you're eyes get hacked and you're unable to see people who don't want to be seen.

Re:oh, great (1)

EdZ (755139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181159)

And people complain about CCTV. Just wait until they hear about Interceptors!

Re:oh, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182481)

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes."

Re:oh, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181583)

seriously though, it could be a good privacy-enhancing feature for glass to filter out people from your broadcasts

Re:oh, great (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182011)

So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

We all know it would not removing them but likely replacing them with some attractive person. For /. probably w/o clothes, or if for Reddit, they'd be turned into cats.

What's next? (5, Funny)

eric31415927 (861917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180281)

Ten years ago, I predicted a "nudie button," which, instead of removing people from live video, would simply remove their clothing (through interpolation). I do not endorse the use of such a button on your TV's remote control, I merely predict its future existence.

Re:What's next? (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180291)

I endorse this!

Re:What's next? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180315)

There is an pseudo-app for photo's: Nudifier
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nudifier/id554023264?mt=8 [apple.com]

Someone just needs to take it to the next step. :-)

Re:What's next? (1)

only_human (761334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180449)

Someone just needs to take it to the next step. :-)

Chatroulette?

Re:What's next? (5, Interesting)

docmordin (2654319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180485)

What you proposed isn't that far-fetched, as I ended up having to contrive and implement the equivalent of this, i.e., passive, automated estimation of body shape under clothing, either from a single image or from multiple video frames, for some work I did in action recognition that required a fairly accurate representation of the person's proportions. Others, e.g., A. O. Balan and M. J. Black, "The naked truth: Estimating body shape under clothing," in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2008, pp. 15–29, have come up with solutions too.

Re:What's next? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180697)

Make sure always to add inserts under your clothes in the most unexpected (and some obvious) places. Estimate this, mofo.

Reflections on the window not removed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180297)

If you take a close look you see the reflections of the removed persons still present

Very impressive though

Re:Reflections on the window not removed (2)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180373)

Where the reflections masked? I would think you could remove them too, you just need to select them as well. I'm at work, so am unable to see the videos till I get home.

Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180331)

Why isn't there one? Since you know... that's the entire fucking point of this software...

Re:Video (1)

kaws (2589929) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180499)

There is one if you really cared to look through the second link provided. There's a nice HD video demonstrating the technique.

Conspiracy Theorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180339)

Why would they be thrown into a tizzy? Didn't they already allege the existence of such a software? Now they get to say that this version is purposefully limited to leave reflections of deleted people, so they (conspiracy nutjobs, ahem, theorists) are lulled into a false sense of confidence.

Re:Conspiracy Theorists? (4, Insightful)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180383)

You got that wrong. Now they will say see, we told you this existed. But if this is what they are willing to show us, think how more powerful the government version is that they won't show us? They can remove you from one video walking down the street, and put you in the same scene last week (ATM time stamp) robbing someone!

Re:Conspiracy Theorists? (1)

dissy (172727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181153)

You got that wrong. Now they will say see, we told you this existed. But if this is what they are willing to show us, think how more powerful the government version is that they won't show us? They can remove you from one video walking down the street, and put you in the same scene last week (ATM time stamp) robbing someone!

That isn't doing the conspiracy theorists justice!

These days there is no need to go through all the work of framing you for a crime and then inventing evidence of it. Oh no.

Instead, they will simply say you broke a secret law, but can't tell you what that law is (for national security after all), but they DO have evidence, but can't show what that is for more national security reasons.
A judge will agree that is acceptable, and without seeing the evidence will say it is enough to prove your guilt, and thus you are guilty!

That way they can more efficiently use the secret alien captured computers from the early 50s for reading your thoughts instead of wasting cycles processing video frames.
Keeps costs down. Do you have any idea how much CPU time is to rent on secret alien captured computers from the 50s?? Plenty mister, plenty!

Re:Conspiracy Theorists? (4, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181499)

Not sure if you're making fun of conspiracy theorists or making fun of people who call others conspiracy theorists?

What you describe was put into law by the 2012 NDAA. There isn't even a "judge" required.

Government says: "You're a terrorist!" The evidence is secret so you have no right to examine or challenge it. You have no right to legal counsel, no right to ever see a judge or jury, and it's off to prison you go for as long as the government says. Or maybe they just kill you, which they also claim the power to do.

And hilarity ensues (4, Funny)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180365)

Re:And hilarity ensues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180405)

Rules 1&2, faggot.

Re:And hilarity ensues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180773)

How is this rules 1&2? Are you talking about the "newfag" rule change where rules 1&2 is to not mention 4chan entirely? No... Rules 1&2 was meant for habbo hotel, tom green, and other raids. The rule was to not mention 4chan but instead to blame it on ebaumsworld. There's also no indication that this picture is form 4chan unless you were very familiar with it.

Re:And hilarity ensues (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180437)

Heheh, I want to see the video with a swarm of hang-gliders removed. Or Indy-car racing sans cars "And as we enter the final lap the head of Al Unser Junior pulls into the lead..."

so, an end to surveillance cameras? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180421)

If we extrapolate this, perhaps we won't be able to trust video as evidence any longer, so there's no reason to have all these surveillance cameras around.

Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180843)

If we extrapolate this, perhaps we won't be able to trust video as evidence any longer, so there's no reason to have all these surveillance cameras around.

The corrupt legal system will never allow that amount of common sense to creep in.

And we're slowly being made irrelevant to do anything about it.

Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182991)

It's already well established that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable [schneier.com] and it's still treated as the most important evidence in any criminal case.

Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182389)

Video isn't considered reliable as a primary source of evidence unless the video stream is watermarked during the recording. It can be used to direct the police in an investigation and it can support other evidence, but for forensic use it has to be encoded in a tamper-proof format. Most professional video recording appliances do this, and can export their videos in proprietary format (which preserves the forensic watermarks) or in a shareable format such as mp4 or avi. If someone were to edit the original video stream they would break the watermarks.

There's a good reason professional DVRs cost a lot more than the cheap models coming in from China, and it's not merely the presence of uPnP security holes. Major manufacturers have to be able to prove the chain of evidence is unbroken, just like for other forms of evidence.

Posting as AC because I work for a vendor of such products.

A course on that subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180423)

This course [coursera.org] on Coursera describes the basics of that technology. It's in its final week but I'm sure it will be reissued later on. They have other courses about computer vision announced for the next months.

The course was pretty interesting but you don't really have to do any programming to get a grade (programming assignments are optional). Lucky for me, because I have a job and no time to spend on lengthy programming assignments, but one can't become an expert of that subject just by listening at the lessons and doing the multiple choice quizzes.

finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180457)

Star Trek without Wesley Crusher

Re:finally (1)

only_human (761334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180577)

or Star Wars without Jar Jar Binks

Re:finally (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181733)

Think outside the box - just delete episodes 1-3 inclusive.

Or nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...

Prior art from 6 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180483)

At 23C3 in Berlin, someone held a talk on OpenCV's capabilites. Among other things, he demonstrated exactly the application FTA. The talk is in German, but the pictures show pretty much what he's talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1J9CLLHp4

Re:Prior art from 6 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180503)

(Ammendum: He does not extrapolate movements from previous frames though.)

Stalin (2)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180491)

Joseph Stalin would have loved this.

Very ancient technology (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180497)

People have been doing this for far more than the last 5 years. It is a trivial application of so-called 'optical flow' where motion vectors are used to identify independently moving objects within a scene.

One interesting application (seen, for instance, in the Will Smith film "I am legend") takes video footage of a real environment, and converts the footage into a virtual static 'texture' for the background elements. Artists can then repaint over this 'texture' to add damage to buildings etc. The new texture can now be reapplied to the original footage, so the moving shot appears to show the artistic changes in visual context. Clearly this method will not stand up to the same scrutiny as remodelling buildings in CGI, and inserting them into a virtual set, but it works well for backgrounds.

Films today frequently use a so-called skybox- a 360 panorama stitched from multiple still photos shot on location. This skybox allows a virtual background to be 'projected' behind the actors (say when they are pretending to be on top of a tall building or mountain) that can track the rotational movement of the camera.

The idea of element extraction forms the basis of various camera enhanced video games found on the current consoles. Usually, the technique is the reverse of the example in the article, where it is the background that is removed so that the player may be isolated and inserted into a virtual scene.

Slashdot needs editors that know something about technology, but that isn't going to happen while the owners of Slashdot use the tech stories to draw readers to the constant anti-Iranian warmongering propaganda that appears here almost daily.

Re:Very ancient technology (3, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180827)

...The idea of element extraction forms the basis of various camera enhanced video games found on the current consoles. Usually, the technique is the reverse of the example in the article, where it is the background that is removed so that the player may be isolated and inserted into a virtual scene.

Uh, yeah, and now that we've revealed that removing someone is "ancient technology" is is exactly this reversed scenario that most should fear today and is ripe for abuse in a corrupt world.

One day, you think it's cool that you've been "painted" into a video game...until you realize that same technology can "paint" you right into Exhibit A: The murder scene.

How long before innocent people are framed? Judges can't even understand how the internet works. You think they're going to grasp this and give you a fair trial?

Re:Very ancient technology (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180997)

easy, just paint the judge into the same scene as evidence it can be faked

Re:Very ancient technology (3, Informative)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181709)

One day, you think it's cool that you've been "painted" into a video game...until you realize that same technology can "paint" you right into Exhibit A: The murder scene.

How long before innocent people are framed? Judges can't even understand how the internet works. You think they're going to grasp this and give you a fair trial?

Already, people are routinely convicted based on bullshit forensic pseudoscience: PBS Frontline: The Real CSI [pbs.org] [torrent] [kat.ph]

Re:Very ancient technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182667)

How long before innocent people are framed?

They already are, and have been for a long time. Illinois dropped the death penalty when it was found that half the men on death row were innocent. [wikipedia.org] Some examples:

...Twenty nine at the time of the murder, Brown had the mental capacity of a 7 year old. There was no physical evidence to convict him, only a false confession written by a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) agent. The claim was that Brown dictated the confession to the SBI agent but given his mental state at the time, there is no possibility that he could have given such a detailed confession. Floyd was convicted solely on the false confession and was not given the opportunity to stand trial because he was ruled incompetent to stand trial.
...

In June 2010, Barry Gibbs was awarded the largest civil rights settlement by the City of New York to date of $9.9 million.[15] He received an additional $1.9 million settlement from New York state in late 2009. He was wrongly convicted of the 1986 murder of Brooklyn prostitute Virginia Robertson based on coerced testimony by a witness during the investigation by NYPD detective Louis Eppolito. Gibbs' original sentence was 20 years to life for the murder, of which he served just under 19 years. Gibbs never expressed remorse for his crime to the parole board, on the grounds that he was innocent and had no remorse. Every two years at his review, the board denied his parole because of his lack of remorse. Gibbs was exonerated in 2006 with help from the Innocence Project. In addition, the conviction of former detective Eppolito for his sideline as a mob hit man and the change in testimony by a witness in Gibbs' case helped him.[16]

...

Arrested in 1991 and convicted a few years later, Taylor served 17 years in prison. Taylor did cooperate with the police and even offered DNA samples and willing to take a polygraph test. Police charged Greg Taylor and Johnny Beck for the murder of the woman. Yet police wanted Taylor to incriminate Beck but he refused. With the help of Christine Mumma of the North Carolina Center of Actual Innocence, Taylor was freed. Mumma was able to prove the lack of physical evidence towards Taylor and the flawed process. Also, the SBI failed to report all of their testing results during Taylorâ(TM)s original trial and misrepresented the evidence. Taylor describes this experience as âoeThe perfect storm of bad luck.â

Re:Very ancient technology (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181139)

The camera games, so far as I know, still require a background plate to be taken as calibration before the game starts so it can generate a difference mask. Apple's photo booth software on mac also does this, though it only works if your clothing differs enough from the background (otherwise you become transparent). If your background or lighting doesn't change, it works great. This seems to be much advanced than diff mask. shift map or simple optical flow techniques in that they're regenerating occluded bits of people as well as just the background (see gizmag article picture, midway down the page, where the dude's arm was fixed). It also seems to work with a free-moving camera, meaning you don't have to have a fancy camera rig to shoot the footage twice in order to get a clean background. You still have to manually mask the foreground elements [youtube.com] , however.

Re:Very ancient technology (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182197)

The photobooth trick is called a 'difference matte' or 'difference key.' It's found in most high-end video editing software, though not always by the same name. I wrote one myself too - http://birds-are-nice.me/video/bluescreen.shtml [birds-are-nice.me]

As you can see from my effort, it isn't as easy as you'd think to get good results.

Re:Very ancient technology (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182927)

I think you're filtering is a little too strong in your example. Noisy camera? You use a median filter?

Common software (2)

thoughtlover (83833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180585)

Software of this type has existed for a long time. It's commonly used for rig removal, but can be used to remove any object that is 'outlined' for removal. Next-and-last frame comparison is what 'batch clones-out' the outlined object. It's the same tech that Boujou used (vector analysis, per-pixel tracking via next-current-last frame comparison), but that app is/was used more for creating a virtual camera path for a 3D environment... Mokey was pretty good at this type of object removal, too (it's called Mocha, now - www.imagineersystems.com ). This type of software is pretty common and many companies make their own in-house if they have the need, I'd think. Remember how they removed Denzel Washington's character from the remake of The Manchurian Candidate? The real-time aspect is where we're going.. like The Running Man w Schwarzenegger. They used this type of tech in it, but in near real-time. That's scary.

I thought what I'd do was... (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#43180611)

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

Rising Sun by Michael Crichton (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43180621)

Didn't the executives do this in Rising Sun? They deleted a rapist's face from the security cam.

There's an app for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181005)

iStalin

Legal implications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181031)

CCTV no longer valid evidence?

Meh... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181095)

I have seen this done in After Effects 5 years ago. In fact I remember a script/template that was floating around that tried to automate it quite well.

Samsung Galaxy S IV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181355)

Doesn't the Samsung Galaxy S IV have this feature?

what about competing TV advertising? (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181857)

the sponsor which pays for the broadcast paints over the stadium ads for the sponsor's competition. for example: in an auto race, the TV sponsor, Budweiser, paints the Miller car.

The Laughing Man (4, Interesting)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181947)

Anyone reminded of the Laughing Man from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex?

A hacker who was able to hack the cybernetic vision of others in real-time to make himself invisible...

Is this real time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182555)

I've done the same thing using layers in after effects and re-rendering the video. I'm not sure of a practical use for this technology unless it can save me time. To make this kind of change realtime would definitely be usefull!

By Neruos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182613)

If you can take someone out, you can put someone in. Think about it.

This is doubleplus ungood for future unpersons. (1)

eegad (588763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183391)

** We're sorry, the author of this thoughtcrime has been vaporized. **
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?