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!

CSI Style Zoom Sees Faces Reflected In Subjects' Eyes

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the ebay-gawkers-have-been-trying-this-forever dept.

Technology 103

mikejuk writes "A recent paper by Dr Rob Jenkins of the Department of Psychology at York University (UK) has managed to prove that you can get useful images of faces from the reflections in eyes. It really is as simple as zooming in. The catch is that the experiments were done with a 39 mega pixel camera — even so the actual final images were low resolution. In the experiment a number of people were photographed with a 'bystander' in a position so that a reflection of their face would be captured in the eye. The resulting extracted image of the reflection in the eye was only 27x36 and then rescaled using bicubic interpolation to 400x240 or bigger and enhanced using standard PhotoShop operations to normalize the contrast and brightness. Test subjects were able to match faces using the low resolution images but the important result was that if the subject knew the person in the photo then recognition went up to 90% with false positives down at 10%. So the next time you appear in a photo consider the fact that a simple procedure might reveal who you are with."

cancel ×

103 comments

Facebook tagging (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#45805039)

Coming to NSA-approved monitoring sites like Facebook: automatic detection of people you are with, even if they're not "in' the photograph!

Re:Facebook tagging (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805093)

Simple counter-measure [x17online.com]

Re:Facebook tagging (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810825)

Look like Nicolas Cage? I guess that would work, if everyone did it.

Amateurs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806137)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMIHNiR3CP8

Re:Facebook tagging (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#45806903)

I didn't know Facebook generally used that resolution picture that and everybody uploaded that resolution picture...

Re:Facebook tagging (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809729)

With people using smartphones to take photos of themselves with there friends it will help save the NSA time and money..

Enhance! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805041)

Gratuitous enhance [youtube.com] !

Re:Enhance! (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 7 months ago | (#45805281)

That was hilarious.

Re:Enhance! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805455)

No it wasn't and we all know you are the Anon who posted the link so you could talk to yourself. Fuck off with your stupid video.

Re:Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805639)

I'm sorry for that last comment. I didn't mean it. I watched the video and it was extremely funny.

Re:Enhance! (1)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 7 months ago | (#45805673)

While that was a good video, it needed the Blade Runner enhance scene to be complete.

Re:Enhance! (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45805979)

Enhance t=0m13s and watch the video again.

Re:Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45807261)

While that was a good video, it needed the Blade Runner enhance scene to be complete.

Blade what? The story clearly says this idea was invented by CSI.

Re:Enhance! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805789)

Now this is how you enhance Red Dwarf style [youtube.com] .

Re:Enhance! (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 7 months ago | (#45805951)

Now this is how you enhance Red Dwarf style [youtube.com] .

Yes, this is the video I was hoping for when I clicked the stupid one above

Re:Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806119)

Was expecting the Red Dwarf Enhance [youtube.com] one.

CP (1, Troll)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 7 months ago | (#45805043)

So we should be giving really high res cameras to pedophiles. That way the photos they take will have more than fear in the eyes of their victims.

Re:CP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805067)

Yes, because all pedos are abusers - just like all heterosexual men rape adult women.

Re:CP (0)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 7 months ago | (#45805091)

Then the ones who don't abuse children can use them to take beautiful nature shots to distract themselves from their urges as therapy. Win-win!

Re:CP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806015)

Shouldn't you be out grooming toddlers?

Re:CP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45808737)

As a professional hairdresser, quite probably.

Re:CP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805437)

So we should be giving really high res cameras to pedophiles. That way the photos they take will have more than fear in the eyes of their victims.

You are one sad pathetic paranoid poor excuse for a human.

What the fuck kind of world has your mind created that you think of
things like what you posted ?

The world has all kinds of sick people in it, and no amount of technology will
make the world a safe place.

Sure, people who molest children need to be stopped, but people like YOU who
are in favor of the surveillance state should be stopped first.

Fuck you and your police state mindset, you sorry piece of shit.

Re:CP (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45805711)

Wow, you act as if he struck a nerve with you.

I was thinking something similar but didn't have anything to do with catching pedophiles molesting children that seems to upset you. I was wondering how taking a pic of a kidnapped victim holding a news paper with the current date would still be proof of being alive when you now have to make them close their eyes to avoid being caught.

Re:CP (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 7 months ago | (#45808251)

I was wondering how taking a pic of a kidnapped victim holding a news paper with the current date would still be proof of being alive when you now have to make them close their eyes to avoid being caught.

I'm sure kidnappers don't do that anymore anyway. Too great a risk of being caught as the only guy to buy a newspaper that day.

Not too surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805049)

I picked up a Sony A7R in november and noticed that I could clearly see myself in the eyes of every person I photographed. At 36 mega pixels, consumer cameras like the A7R (and that nikon whos name I can't remember) are more than capable of the CSI effect.

Re:Not too surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805287)

You mean the Nikon D800. I've had one since May 2012 and it is great. The subject of this post is not news to us D800 users. Nor is it newd to Red or Hassleblad Digital Camera users the world over.

Move on, this is NOT NEWS

Re:Not too surprising (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45806033)

Is that like a Hasselblad but more fiddly?

Re:Not too surprising (1)

flapped (2444604) | about 7 months ago | (#45810259)

You must be a great photographer.

Re:Not too surprising (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#45805699)

..but it really isn't the csi effect.

because csi effect refers to making up a face from let's say 3x3 grid of pixels - from something that it is clear to anyone(or should be) that there isn't enough data to make the zoom work.

it just doesn't work! now making a shoddy picture from 30x30 grid or so, yeah, but false positives galore with that too.

so for me, the study sounds just like they did a study about how to get headlines before doing the study, I bet a shitload of studies have been performed on low res picture recognizition already.... that it is a reflection they're matching from is merely a gimmick.

Re:Not too surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45807291)

I picked up a Sony A7R in november and noticed that I could clearly see myself in the eyes of every person I photographed. At 36 mega pixels, consumer cameras like the A7R (and that nikon whos name I can't remember) are more than capable of the CSI effect.

The idea was popularized in the movie Blade Runner in 1982. I'm not sure what the sudden CSI marketing campaign is about.

so if i take a photo of myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805055)

i may or may not be the only witness later?

also explains why pyramids have eyeballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805147)

which would otherwise be a curiosity? beware falling gargoyles? ever get that feeling..?.? like if we used stem cells our 'healthcare' would come of age? imagine being the pr lackey (just a (low) #) of some murderous cabalistst? spiritual suicide? never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to momkind our spiritual centerpeace sync with (an invisible beardless) creation. no wonder the hymenless monkeys pity us?

Or just limit the Megpixel (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 7 months ago | (#45805065)

count of the cameras you are snapping pics with. I can only think of a couple of cameras that get 39 megapixels, and they are in the Pureview line of Nokia's products. Even those don't produce 39 megapixel images, they use a sampling method to make better images at ~9 megapixel final resolution.

Re:Or just limit the Megpixel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805145)

I'd recognize my hubby's ex even in a 1x1 image. :P

Re:Or just limit the Megpixel (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 7 months ago | (#45805221)

Problem is what is high res this year is mainstream next and in the cheapie aisle a year after that. When I started playing with cameras 0.03 MP was the norm and 2 MP cost an arm and a leg,heck even my 2011 phone is 3.2 MP . Now its getting really hard to find anything under 3 MP and 10 MP is becoming mainstream, next year I wouldn't be surprised to see 12 MP or higher become default.

Re:Or just limit the Megpixel (2)

Znork (31774) | about 7 months ago | (#45808343)

The pixel count increases as it's a selling point. The optics on most things like phones seem to stay the same utter crap, barely enough to saturate the ccd in full sunlight, leaving most of those megapixels as random noise. Leaving any CSI style zoom as something achievable in photos specifically taken with the proper equipment and setup to allow CSI style zoom but not in the junk quality images they pretend to enhance in CSI.

39 megapixels is very common w/pro gear (1)

caveat (26803) | about 7 months ago | (#45806811)

If you've only been exposed to cell phones and retail-level cameras you might think it's just a gimmick Nokia is using, but...you'd be wrong. The Nikon D800 DSLR is at 36; Hasselblad/Mamiya/Pentax/Leica medium-format bodies are anywhere from 50 to 80. Have been since 2006 or so. Give it another two generations on the DSLR front and you'll be getting a $499 50MP Nikon or Canon at Wal-Mart.

Anyway, even on my D5100@16MP I can pull recognizable images if it's a frame-filling portrait, anything more is just making it easier.

Re:39 megapixels is very common w/pro gear (1)

walshy007 (906710) | about 7 months ago | (#45815365)

And to get everything in focus at that level of detail you need a _very_ flat subject, or to have everything you want at the infinity focus level.

The depth of field (area that is in acceptable focus) decreases as required detail goes up, not to mention that if you up the required detail enough you wind up being forced to use a larger aperture otherwise diffraction effects will be the limiting factor.. using a larger aperture decreases the depth of field even more.

There are real practical limits for getting serious detail, unless your subject is completely flat and/or it's all at infinity focus.

It's the same problem large format photographers have had for ages, a surplus of detail at the sensor (film) level, but never enough depth of field to use it all.

Re:Or just limit the Megpixel (1)

Rei (128717) | about 7 months ago | (#45807127)

Couldn't one use super-resolution techniques [wikipedia.org] from a video or series of images to increase the effective resolution?

Re:Or just limit the Megpixel (1)

dwater (72834) | about 7 months ago | (#45817103)

The Nokia 808 could produce images with almost 42MPixels :

"Nokia 808 has a 41.3-megapixel CMOS FSI image sensor, 1/1.2-inch image sensor format with 7728 x 5368 pixels. Depending on the aspect ratio chosen by the user, it will use 7728 x 4354 pixels (33.6 Mpx) for 16:9 images, or 7152 x 5368 pixels (38.2 Mpx) for 4:3 images when using the default camera software. The commercial app CameraPro[12] can use the whole sensor size for capturing full 7728 x 5368 pixels (41.48 Megapixel) pictures with more than 30 Megabytes each"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_808_PureView [wikipedia.org]

How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805089)

The beta version of slashdot is awful. Is there anyway to avoid it. I'm getting redirected to beta.slashdot.org every time I reload the website.

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805579)

I erase cookies and change my user agent string.

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#45805641)

The beta version of slashdot is awful. Is there anyway to avoid it. I'm getting redirected to beta.slashdot.org every time I reload the website.

You have to log in. Slashdot knows that regular users won't put up with this non sense. WE DON'T WANT THE CHEESE MOVED. We're getting a little bit older now, less flexible. For us oldsters, Ajax is a detergent.

RIght guys? Right? You really won't go live with this nonsense.

We're doomed.

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

phayes (202222) | about 7 months ago | (#45805731)

I've never seen a cold wet dog that liked detergent...

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45806109)

They aren't too fond of concentrated sulphuric acid as well. What's your point?

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

phayes (202222) | about 7 months ago | (#45806825)

Combine the gpp author's name & his typo using detergent instead of deterrent. Add an Ixs & you get a Wooosshhh...

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

psmears (629712) | about 7 months ago | (#45808091)

Combine the gpp author's name & his typo using detergent instead of deterrent.

Err... what makes you think that that was a typo? Ajax was [wikipedia.org] a detergent (before it was ever a web technology); that was the point...

Re:How do I turn off slashdot beta?? (1)

phayes (202222) | about 7 months ago | (#45810295)

Lol thanks

And the breakthrough is...? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805129)

As a photographer, I have to clean up the eyes and all the other reflective materials from my images, if any, or find myself in sweet spots where it doesn't happens.

It's also common knowledge that you can actually learn about the photographer's lighting setup and materials by looking at the shadows AND light reflection in the eyes.

There are also nice non-shopped photographies with that reflectiveness property being applied to produce interesting results, with inverted sceneries being shown in the eyes. Take the picture close enough and you won't have 50 pixels, but 500 of reflection. Take it with a high resolution camera and you'll get 1000-2000 pixels worth of goodness.

So there's a direct correlation between a pixel count and the number of pixels for a detail.

In other words, it's known that you get good reflectivity in eyes and it's known that using high resolution cameras you can get good details from eyes, inferring you can tell who's on the other side. Well ... yep. Next thing they'll figure out is by having a high sensitivity camera you can get cleaner pixels of the people themselves in the reflectivity, as the lighting is seldom as adequate and the contrast is much less prevalent in these reflections, so by having much cleaner 32 native bits per color, you could technically have a "perfect" rendition of the user, especially at high F

Surprise me next time :) I'd even say that if you could have a consistent reflective model of a person's anatomy and a map of its clothings, you could potentially infer a person's surroundings, as every material is slightly reflective / refractive too. But we're really not there yet. :)

more abusive potential by law enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805139)

The key factor is that the test subject has to know the face in the low resolution image. It seems that we are very good at identifying a known face and not so good at matching a low res image to a set of possible hi-resolution photos including the face.

Hm, add this to the list of things which will be presented as infallible by some tech huckster, but which doesn't really do anything useful at all.

It's like an identity parade in which you just show a photo of the suspect and ask, "So, it was him, then?"

Pfft, Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805155)

Corporal Littlebottom will have words with you, son.

Re:Pfft, Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806547)

+1 "Got the reference"

Wow, amazing, I'm amazed (3, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45805183)

A recent paper by Dr Rob Jenkins of the Department of Psychology at York University (UK) has managed to prove that you can get useful images of faces from the reflections in eyes.

Didn't anyone think this couldn't be done?

Are you sure he doesn't work in the Department of Bleedin' Obvious?

Re:Wow, amazing, I'm amazed (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45805195)

Didn't anyone think this couldn't be done?

Duh. Did. Did anyone think this couldn't be done?

Re:Wow, amazing, I'm amazed (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#45808877)

The problem is that now some professor had demonstrated it every prosecution that lacks real evidence but "knows" the guy is scum and really wants to nail him will have another kind of dubious but impressive forensic evidence to use. Juries love this CSI shit, because science can't be wrong, right?

Re:Wow, amazing, I'm amazed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809111)

Often times new techniques like this require some form of judicial approval before becoming common practice (doubtful in the case of photography, but I am not a lawyer). But visual information like this seems easiest to show to a jury -- you can show the actual pixels.

Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805213)

CSI did it first

Re:Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805263)

Jesus-tap-dancing-christ! I realize there is a proud /. tradition of not reading the articles, but this is just too much!

Re:Enhance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45807345)

CSI did it first

What the FUCK is with all these goddamn CSI references today? Viewer numbers slipping or something, needed to call up the sockpuppet army?

This is NOT at all like CSI, this is like Blade Runner.

If this was "like CSI" then it would be a 320x200 pixel image, the eyes would not be directly in the picture, and the technician would use the reflection from a drop of water on a glass which is seen in a mirror which is reflecting a brass rail which has a reflection of the eyes. But it wouldn't reveal the suspect, oh no... it would reveal the suspect's hair, from which a 100% positive DNA match would be made.

What are you looking at? (4, Informative)

flanktwo (1041494) | about 7 months ago | (#45805215)

These guys at Columbia did something similar years ago, but used eyeball reflections and a cornea model to figure out what the person was looking at: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/projects/world_eye/ [columbia.edu]

Re:What are you looking at? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#45807551)

And at least 30 years ago, I read of a guy who was studying classic paintings to see if he could discern anything in the reflections in painted eyes. Wold be even lower "res", but perhaps a careful artist did so without realizing it. Have no idea if anything came of it.

Just gotta do this .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805241)

Obligatory Red Dwarf CSI enhanced zoom spoof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805251)

link [youtube.com]

Under ideal conditions, with ideal equipment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805267)

What the sensationalized headline fails to recognize is that this technique will only work if you have a high-res image, taken with a high-quality lens capable of resolving pixel-level detail, with a shutter speed fast enough to effectively freeze the subject, and proper incident light to get a usable reflection.

Where this won't work:
Security cams (low res, crappy lenses, low shutter speed)
Cell Phones (even the new Nokias simply don't have a sharp enough lens to make this useful)
Inexperienced photographers not using flash (hand shake will render eye detail unusable, even in "sharp" photos")
Dark or out of focus images

It's completely obvious that one can extract more information from a detailed image. But this study's conclusions simply fall - again - into the trap of thinking that MP = detail.

Not very practical (3, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | about 7 months ago | (#45805327)

Anybody with a recent DSLR can test that this can be done. I recently took a portrait if myself in my cat's eye.

The trick to this though is that you need a DSLR with fairly high resolution, a good sharp lens, and have the photo be a closeup of the subject. None of which are features of the vast majority of security camera footage.

If somebody was willing to spend amounts in the range of $1000 per camera, yes, this might be a possibility. Provided the person stared right into the camera while standing at a meter or so from it.

Also, it'll probably stay this way. There are limitations to the useful resolution that can be achieved, so it's not possible to simply put a 1000 MP sensor into a security camera and suddenly be able to perform the tricks shown in CSI.

Re:Not very practical (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 7 months ago | (#45806797)

You are a bit off on the price. This one is $17,000 [bhphotovideo.com] .

Re:Not very practical (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 7 months ago | (#45806969)

And if you throw 10000 notes at the problem, you can take a photo where both the eye itself, which takes up a large proportion of the frame it is so close and the reflected scene about 1-2m away are in perfect focus, and with vivid colours to boot. One of the best photos I've seen in the last few years, and when my mate says "no photoshop apart from when gamut-mapping from raw to jpeg", I believe him. I'm still not sure I know exactly how he did it so brilliantly, I'm guessing it was very careful lighting.

Re:Not very practical (1)

epine (68316) | about 7 months ago | (#45807359)

So the next time you appear in a photo consider the fact that a simple procedure might reveal who you are with.

Yeah, I hang out all the time in public spaces with KH-11 prosumer cameras concealed behind 1970s ceiling tiles in every room and corridor.

It's this increasingly common tag line on the article submissions that makes Slashdot news for slack-jawed mooncalves.

This is nothing new - and still not practical (1)

taikedz (2782065) | about 7 months ago | (#45805459)

I am trying to figure out the newsworthy part in this - it's been known for ages that you can get details out of reflxions and high-def images...

For the practical implications - we're not going to get any benefit from users' twitpics, blog images and fb photos, as those are rarely ever uploaded in full high-def+highest-quality, 41MP camera notwithstanding: I'd like to see

  • the resolution and quality actually used by the camera (user setting rarely push the camera to its max capcity to save on storage)
  • the resolution and quality of the image after the sharing app has had a go at it to improve bandwidth performance
  • the resolution and quality of the reflexion when the person photographing is more than say 6ft away
  • and finally, the quality of the reflection in sub-par lighting - which is generally the case for most average-Joe users

Yes, it is possible to get data out of reflections on small shiny objects (and I suspect forensics teams have been on top of this ever since cameras reached consumers), but the lighting conditions and capture mechanisms have to be set up perfectly.

I've seen Blade Runner too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805507)

I've seen Blade Runner too

How cool would this be (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 7 months ago | (#45805521)

How cool would this be if it were useful for anything at all?

So the next time you appear in a photo consider the fact that a simple procedure might reveal who you are with."

Uhh, whoever I was with? You mean whoever took the photo? You mean whoever posted the photo? wtf?

They forgot that CSI has ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | about 7 months ago | (#45805531)

... the technology to convert unfocussed VGA resolution photographs and convert them into focused 39 megapixel photographs. That is why this technique is so useful on CSI.

eyeception? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805551)

With enough megapixels you could capture the persons's face from the eyes of the captured face from the person's eyes

Spooky, but inconsequential. (1)

rabbitfood (586031) | about 7 months ago | (#45805569)

The only novel thing, and by far the spookiest, about this "research" is that it's coming from a "Department of Psychology".

As for the ramifications, it'll be a long time before North Korea's press officers get much overtime on the back of it. I doubt it'll be of interest even to domestic security services. However cheap and widespread hi-res cameras become, 90% reliability is woefully low. They can get much better than that already, just with a board and a bucket.

Jokes on them. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805659)

I can get xrays off peoples eye reflections.

I'm already so more future they can't even imagine.

Re:Jokes on them. (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45806145)

Imagine? We can barely understand your language.

Seriously? (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#45805679)

Test subjects were able to match faces using the low resolution images but the important result was that if the subject knew the person in the photo then recognition went up to 90% with false positives down at 10%.

So, if I know who I'm looking for I can find them in a blurry, low-res picture?

How can anyone be expected to recognize anyone they don't know?

Wouldn't the reflection in a subject's eye be of the picture taker with their camera in front of their face?

Re:Seriously? (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45806153)

How can anyone be expected to recognize anyone they don't know?

Even without context that's a tricky one.

Re:Seriously? (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 7 months ago | (#45807615)

The implication is that for a human observer extracting a description would be hard but pattern matching is easy.

Face back app (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#45805717)

How long until the much-maligned faceback app [youtube.com] in 'The Other Guys' becomes real?

CSI? Bah. Red Dwarf did it best. (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 7 months ago | (#45805833)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp77AjBdlEc [youtube.com]

(based on Blade Runner of course, which did it first)

Re:CSI? Bah. Red Dwarf did it best. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805973)

Mmmm. I'd forgot how quickly Red Dwarf jumped the shark.

Re:CSI? Bah. Red Dwarf did it best. (1)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45811081)

Six seasons of brilliance followed by a hiatus and a lame reboot that never should have been is a decent run for any series.

car reflections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45805845)

I get much better images using car or mirror reflections

Thank you, slashdot (2)

damaki (997243) | about 7 months ago | (#45805871)

Thank you for bringing up such quality content. You know, 39 megapixel pictures are only usable if you have high end glass on your camera, which only rich camera enthusiasts can afford. That excludes forever smartphone cameras (yeah, even those whatever megapixels Nokias), security cameras, small digital cameras, which would actually render useless 99% of all cameras on earth for that usage. So you only need to have one of these rich guys take a picture of a crime scene, yeah, only that...

Re:Thank you, slashdot (0)

bytesex (112972) | about 7 months ago | (#45807573)

It's a bit of shame that you feel the need to react so bitterly to an experiment whose real-life ramifications will be upon you soon enough. 39 megapixel is expensive today - will it be in five years?

Re:Thank you, slashdot (1)

damaki (997243) | about 7 months ago | (#45808163)

39 usable megapixels will always be expensive. High end lenses are damn expensive, and if your lenses do not have the required resolution, you're better off using 16 megapixels. For $1000, glass included, you won't get more than 16 real megapixels. And if you do not believe me, have a look at http://www.dxomark.com/ [dxomark.com] .

Expected (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 7 months ago | (#45806273)

"...but the important result was that if the subject knew the person in the photo then recognition went up to 90%"

So it's just like the photos of the guy with the stolen Debit card at the ATM.
Just their mother would recognize them on those images.

Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806317)

Not that zooming wasn't known and done even earlier, but Blade Runner did the zoom enhance [youtu.be] bit long before CSI. CSI simply overused it until they reached Ludicrous Speed.

Is it "VILLAGE IDIOT" day on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806525)

First a promoted story telling us how impressive it is that NASA has spent millions of dollars proving that light travels happily through space, and now a brain-dead clod discovers that reflective things, well, "reflect".

And yet, given the constant political propaganda that the owners of Slashdot promote here, isn't it interesting that in the midst of the massive 'full surveillance' scandal afflicting Obama, Obama ordered that the next space launch of a massive NSA spy satellite had a gigantic "F*ck You, you worthless American sheeple" on the side of the rocket, in the form of a Cthulu -like octopus devouring the world, with Obama's words "nothing is beyond our reach".

Why did the owners of Slashdot specifically prevent this astonishing story from being promoted here. Because THAT is how stupid they think you are. Fit to be told that reflective things reflect. Fit to be told that light travels well through a vacuum. But NOT fit to be told that Obama's full surveillance programs are a top priority of the US government, and growing daily in scope and budget, with maximum aggression against people that Bill Gates describes as "useless eaters".

Re:Is it "VILLAGE IDIOT" day on Slashdot? (1)

HellCatF6 (1824178) | about 7 months ago | (#45806965)

Then again, AC, Science means you spend a lot of time replicating the obvious. Obviously, /. is beneath you. Don't visit.
I don't read most of the articles, or posts for that matter. There was something about yours...
You claim slashdot owners don't post anti-President Obama (correct address by the way) because of a hidden political agenda. Yet they are willing to post your comments.
Please, reply and post your own links to FACTS backing up your CLAIMS about how the spacecraft was painted. I'm going to love seeing how NASA interprets a cthulu creature. I hoping for something in high heels.

Doctor Who effect? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 7 months ago | (#45806701)

So is it true a dead person's retina retains the image seen at the moment of death?

The Hasselblad H2D cost $30K... (1)

Corporate T00l (244210) | about 7 months ago | (#45806881)

That was no ordinary camera they used for this...

If you read the original paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083325 [plosone.org] ), buried in the detailsis the one where they used a Hasselblad H2D, which is a medium-format digital camera with an enormous 36.7mm x 49mm CCD.

This camera is about 7 years old (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/digi_photo_hassel-jun2006.jsp [bhphotovideo.com] ), so it might be possible to find it for cheaper on the secondary market. The current version, the H5D, also retails in the $30K range.

What makes these cameras special is not just the huge CCD, but also the incredibly precise (and multi thousand dollar) lenses.

A Lumia, or even a pretty nice DSLR in the single-digit thousands of dollars range won't pull in detail like this camera does. If with the amount of megapixels that lower end cameras claim to have, their sensors are too small and paired with inferior optics compared to what was used for this paper.

contact lenses (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 7 months ago | (#45807137)

I need to start working on those goatse contact lenses!

Why didn't they just use a film camera? (1)

toby (759) | about 7 months ago | (#45809039)

Medium format film runs into 100s of "megapixels" (i.e. up to 10x the resolution of the digital camera they used) and large format even higher.

create a fake (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 7 months ago | (#45809121)

Now the question is: can we engineer the thing and create a fake? We can even imagine a post-processing filter in cameras to remove face from eyes in the picture. We already remove red eyes.

HD from Low-Res (1)

Denis Bergeron (2884689) | about 7 months ago | (#45809341)

Everytime i came across a stories like this one, I remember a story here on Slashdot a long time ago, maybe in another time-space continuum, before 2001, maybe in 1999, about someone optical searcher in MIT who can create very HD images from staking multiple lowres image from a movie camera. This software was open source and I try it with y own images from small sony handycam with great result. I try to find reference to this software and research without any succes since. and I obvioulsy don't have the sftware anymore. Pretty sure is on NSA desk now.

What if... (1)

vac65 (2032474) | about 7 months ago | (#45812397)

...the subject is looking at a picture..?
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...