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!

Colorizing Images and Video by Scribbling

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the only-a-child-can-do-it dept.

Graphics 272

Guspaz writes "Up until now, colorizing a video or image has been a painstaking and mostly manual task. However, researchers in Israel have come up with a new way of colorizing images just by making a few scribbles. The technique works on the premise that 'neighboring pixels in space-time that have similar intensities should have similar colors,' and also allows colorization of videos by 'marking' about one in ten frames."

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

Ummmmm (-1, Troll)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 9 years ago | (#11934992)

Isn't that just a fill tool? Paint does that.

Re:Ummmmm (1)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935008)

But does the fill utility in paint work across time as well?

Re:Ummmmm (1)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935053)

The emphasis is on blends and shading. Take one of those pictures and try it in paint... I'm pretty sure the result will be QUITE different!

Re:Ummmmm (4, Interesting)

maotx (765127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935114)

Isn't that just a fill tool? Paint does that.

No. Fill just goes until it meets a boundary. This colorization is a lot smarter than that. It appears to notice the boundarys by the sudden changes of the temperature in the color of pixels. That way it can then make an educated guess on how much to color and when to stop. You can then optimize this by putting in more than one input of the colors you want to change. This effect is really quite amazing. Scroll down and look at the gif video of the birthday party. JUST AMAZING.

Re:Ummmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935266)

Our method is based on a simple premise: neighboring pixels in space-time that have similar intensities should have similar colors.

It's a fancy schmancy flood fill.

Re:Ummmmm (2, Insightful)

clarkcox3 (194009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935381)

My Emphasis added:

Neighboring pixels in
space-time that have similar intensities should have similar colors.

Flood fill would be described as:

Neighboring pixels in
space that have similar intensities should have the same colors.

See the differences? They are important.

Too much work (-1, Troll)

DeckardJK (555299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11934995)

My paint can only takes one click...

Let me be the first to say... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11934998)

So what?

Colorizing black and white movies is tacky.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Insightful)

kotku (249450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935055)

Video Compression !

Only save the intensity channel and a few bits of markup and you compress the stream quite a bit.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935147)

Already done. It's called NTSC!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

ein2many (850712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935201)

I agree. If you only had to compress B/W video and run it through a filter like this, Less bandwidth would be needed.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935377)

And I'm guessing neither of the three of us know all that much about the details of video compression. The "Motion Picture Experts Group" or whoever are probably smart people. They already compress video by only noting changes between frames & stuff like that. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that their methods may already sortof make use of this technique.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (3, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935218)

"What's wrong?"

"It's as if millions of lawyers stampeded the patent office and then suddenly... prior art."

Michael Jackson (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935189)

Yes, but now the media can use this technique to make Michael Jackson look black.

so... (1, Funny)

subrama6 (157306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935004)

they extended the paint bucket to the 4th dimension?

Re:so... (0, Troll)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935134)

No, just the third. Video only has two dimensions.

-Don

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935206)

Video only has two dimensions.

Hmmm, No. What about time or if you want to get technical "the cone of events".

Re:so... (1)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935282)

Let's count the dimensions of video: There's X. There's Y. There's time. There isn't any Z buffer. So far I've counted three. What total did you come up with?

-Don

Re:so... (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935359)

Hmmm, now if you include audio (debatable since you did say count the dimensions of video - but just for the fun of it...):
Since audio, or sound, is a wave that travels through three dimensions, I guess we could say that video (assumming it has audio included) does end up with 4 dimensions. Otherwise, I'd say your correct. Of course when most people think three dimensions, they think X,Y,Z not X,Y,time

Re:so... (1)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935408)

IF you count audio, then you might as well count it twice for stereo, and claim that video is 5-dimensional. Or even more, if you have surround sound. Might as well multiply that by two because most people have two eyes. Oh, don't forget the two ears. What are we up to, now? I lost count.

-Don

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935406)

Dude, you just said X and Y, and admitted time.
Most physiscs geeks I know call time a dimension. Whether you do or don't is really not up for argument.

Granted, we don't preceive time as a dimension, so, to us, video is 2 dimensions +1 (time.)

I'll go fourth and call video 2.1 dimensions, sort of like how Dolby (or whoever) created the 5.1 (5 discrete channels, plus low frequency effects) surround system.

Willy Wonka Video (3, Funny)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935336)

Does your TV set contains tiny three dimensional actors? Can you reach into the screen and take out a chocolate bar?

-Don

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935212)

*cough* Z-buffer *cough*

Re:so... (0)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935329)

Your TV lacks a Z axis, at least the image does.

Re:so... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935489)

Only the "visual" part of the image. On an informational level, the Z-buffer adds a third dimension to an otherwise 2-dimensional image.

Sure, I doubt that TVs will ever have (or need) Z-buffer capability, but I work with still images and video every day that have an extra dimension. Indeed, my work would be thousands of times harder without them. Therefore, the statement that "video only has 2 dimensions" is, if not "false," at least "somewhat not true." On TVs, sure, video is 2d. But that's not the only place you'll find video.

MOD PARENT DOWN! (4, Funny)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935362)

Please, I do not deserve a "+1 Insightful" for pointing out that video is only 3-dimensional.

-Don

Thank you. (4, Funny)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935472)

That feels better now.

Re:Thank you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935508)

Make a note to self:

See the Dr. about Mountain Dew sugar highs and the voices shouldn't be telling me to do bad things.

Help! (5, Funny)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935007)

I'm colorblind! That whole site is very confusing! :P

No, no, no... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935335)

No, no, no...

It's "I'm colorblind, you insensitive clod!"

A play on history (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935028)

Back when voyager(s) were flying by planets I recall reading how the cameras worked. From what I remember, the cameras actually capture images in black and white. The cameras can detect much more "color" depth than color cameras could (or can?). The scientist would process the pictures to colorize them, you identify one area of color you know and the algorithm would process the rest of the 1 billion shades of gray into a color mapping for people to view. Now why cant identify this gray shade as the color red; anytime you see it then that is red. Go on for each color spectrum or have the algorithm adjust what a little red hue is for a given little hue of gray. It appears that is what the scribbles are doing which is quite clever and the algorithm doesn't have to work (guess) so much.

Re:A play on history (3, Informative)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935511)

The problem with doing this is that, for any given camera, there will be a band of RGB color combinations that produce the same luminosity, so a single camera does not provide enough information to produce a full-color image. It requires several cameras, each filtered to a different spectral range, to be able to produce a full-color image, unless you know in advance that your image is monochrome.

Photoshop (3, Insightful)

FoXDie (853291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935039)

Personally I can't wait until there is a Photoshop filter for this. :D

Re:Photoshop (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935174)

> Personally I can't wait until there is a Photoshop filter for this. :D
You have misspelled Gimp..

Re:Photoshop (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935456)

You seem to have mistaken the Gimp for a program with usability.

Re:Photoshop (4, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935242)

No kidding. Even if you are not doing colorization, the boundry detection algorithm he is using kicks ass over the "magic wand" tools in both photoshop and gimp. Perhaps it is the fact that it is doing several "magic wands" at once and boundries are determined by what matches the best, rather than just "does this match good enough".

Re:Photoshop (1, Interesting)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935457)

Im not sure about that. I'm taking a wild guess, but I believe they simply start propogating out from all scribbles, so that, as the growth of two colors approach each other, the stronger one wins out. The wand tool in photoshop starts only from the point you click (rather than the 10+ scribbles in this algorithm). There's no competing areas of propagation.

Create a magic wand tool that requires multiple clicks on the various regions of the image and you'd have pretty good results.

Im assuming (0)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935040)

it doesn't just fill an area where all the pixals are the same, instead it finds similar pixals, and fills them, and varies them according to what they where orginally like? [p] Otherwise title should be "Over payed digital art programmers discover MS paint". [/p]

Re:Im assuming (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935112)

Crap! Forgot I was using html:p

Re:Im assuming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935152)

...and English.

TBS! (2, Insightful)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935048)

I wonder if the actual quality will improve, though -- colorized films still look, well, colorized. You can tell in 1 second...

Seems simple but... (5, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935051)

from looking at the before and after images, this technique looks pretty cool and will probably have applications for recoloring an image that is already color. For instance, the image where he recolors the fabric on the chair.

Re:Seems simple but... (1, Interesting)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935220)

I agree, this does look cool, but there are already colorization tools and Photoshop filters out there - how does this stack up against them? The article says these are "tedious, time-consuming, and expensive tasks", but does not mention the speed of their own scribble method. Using older colorization methods may be preferable if time is an issue.

Re:Seems simple but... (1)

benjcurry (754899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935267)

Well, they seem to be saying that just a few strokes of the desired colors in certain areas, then press "go". I have experience doing some of these things in Photoshop and Gimp, and it's a bitch to get the quality they show in their "after" images.

Re:Seems simple but... (1)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935299)

...For instance, the image where he recolors the fabric on the chair.

That's already easy as pie, with today's standard compositing software.

I do it for a living.

Re:Seems simple but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935379)

You are a fucking liar. I do compositing for a living and I'd love to see abilities like this on the Avid system we use. If you knew anything about professional video production, you wouldn't be so fast to stick your head out of your asshole and spew complete shit. Either talk about what you know or shut the fuck up idiot!

Awesome! (3, Insightful)

JesusCigarettes (838611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935062)

Now it's even easier for corporations re-releasing films to completely destroy the original beauty of a film by adding unnatural and unnecessary color!

Coming soon, new dubbing techniques will allow easy substitution of the original actors' voices and dialogue with trite teen-angst to appeal to younger generations.

Re:Awesome! (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935161)

The obvious extension of this is to run software which can identify objects in film and track their motion. Then you apply colour to the 3D digital copy of the item, implant it back into the film and have the original shading information from the B&W film cast on top of the coloured, reimplanted, object.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935184)

Or indeed just do everything on a computer to start with.

Second thoughts, belay that; silly idea!

Re:Awesome! (3, Insightful)

mzwaterski (802371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935166)

Then don't watch the re-released version. I mean come on, of all things to complain about. "Some company has the ability to change something I like into a form that other people will like."

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935198)

more like "a form that other people will buy" -- nobody watches a colorized film more than once. Take the magic and imagination out and art just isn't that compelling. People will indeed buy it though.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935383)

What if there is no re-released version? Also,colorization destroys the dynamic range of the light shadding of a film, so, NO, you can't just turn the color off.

Re:Awesome! (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935421)

This doesn't stand up though..as colorized films have failed big time. They were a fad for a while, but it just petered out.

But I have a big problem with colorizing films anyway. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it should be done. The weak weak argument that "the kids won't watch it" fell on it's ass as the kids didn't watch the colorized crap either! Not to mention that at the time when colorizing was huge, music videos were the rage...and about half of them were in B&W!

Also, why don't they colorize the newer movies like Manhatten or Schindler's List or even Pleasantville to be 100% color? How about starting Pleasantville as color and have it slowly go to B&W? Sure, why not...the "kids won't watch it!"

Or how about this, instead of fucking with everyone else's work, they go out and make their own fucking movies!

What's next? Don't like an actor because of his political affiliations so there will be a technique to replace actors in a movie with a different actor whom you agree more with? "the kids won't watch so-n-so because he said something bad about President so-n-so, so we've gone back and taken him out of this movie and replaced him with someone more pleasant".

Re:Awesome! (4, Funny)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935223)

Coming soon, new dubbing techniques will allow easy substitution of the original actors' voices and dialogue with trite teen-angst

Are you listening, Mr. Lucas?

Re:Awesome! (2, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935344)

You mean like dubbing Mel Gibson in Mad Max?

It happens already.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Queer Boy (451309) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935467)

Now it's even easier for corporations re-releasing films to completely destroy the original beauty of a film by adding unnatural and unnecessary color!

You mean as opposed to Technicolor? [wikipedia.org]

Unfuckingbelievable. (1, Insightful)

syukton (256348) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935063)

Their site is going to get slashdotted real quick. Lots of content on there. It's beautiful. It's ... it's amazing what they've done with so little effort.

I am so curious what this could do for so many old movies...

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935164)

I am so curious what this could do for so many old movies...
Completely wreck them is the answer, I believe different lighting and makeup techniques were used for B&W film. Whatever the reason actually is, they never look right after being "improved" in this way.

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (3, Interesting)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935193)

I am so curious what this could do for so many old movies...

Ruin them? :) A lot of the appeal of older B&W movies is the fact that they aren't in color. You get a much broader range of contrast when it's filmed on B&W film than a color image which has been desaturated.

If you meant older color movies which have degraded, then I agree. This seems like a very useful technique for restoring the original vibrancy of colors to films whose media hasn't stood the test of time.

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (2, Insightful)

Issue9mm (97360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935323)

I don't necessarily believe that old black and white movies are good BECAUSE they are black and white. Granted, a lot of "colorized" movies look like crap, and I'll also grant you that a lot of black and white movies are good. I think that the correlation between the two is probably imagined. Colorizing a good movie doesn't necessarily lessen the movie, and can add considerably to it I'd say. The act of adding color (if done well), by itself, is not going to ruin the movie, in my opinion. Adding color, and doing it poorly could, but that's neither here nor there.

-9mm-

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (1)

micromoog (206608) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935396)

Colorizing a black and white movie is adding something that the director did not put there. And generally, he's dead, so you can't consult him about it.

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935425)

That's fine, if they've bought the rights, like Ted Turner did with plenty of movies, and then colorized them...

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (1)

roror (767312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935451)

That is a good point.

Also, the appeal of b&w picture (movie) is that there is no color to distract you from the form of the picture. There are some situations where black and white are incredibly powerful.

Although, I agree you can never show how red was the sunset ..

Re:Unfuckingbelievable. (2, Insightful)

thatnerdguy (551590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935495)

The director didn't add colour because he probably couldn't! The question is would he have wanted to see the movie in colour if available?

Mirror of the site, with images (2, Informative)

hankwang (413283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935071)

This page is over 10 MB, so it's electable as the fasted slashdotted site ever.

Here is the coralized mirror [nyud.net] .

Re:Mirror of the site, with images (1)

hankwang (413283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935143)

... and one at mirrordot.org [mirrordot.org]

I sure hope they can patent this... (4, Funny)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935080)

...and raise enought money to rebuild the smoking ruins of their server room.

I can't... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935083)

...access the site, so my comment here is pretty useless.

That's nothing... (3, Funny)

TheBrakShow (858570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935099)

The folks at slashdot can take down a webserver just by making a few scribbles on their website.

If only the walls were breathing... (2, Funny)

DeckardJK (555299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935154)

Looks like a very cool idea. The videos are pretty amazing, however; the recolor job in the birthday party clip makes it look like a bad acid trip.

Actual fast mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935172)

http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/b824e8605782b61d2 dca3ca678065972/index.html

Been there, Read that (2, Interesting)

tonsofpcs (687961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935195)

Read about it earlier this week, it looks cool, colorization looks nice, but with so few samples its hard to tell if it will work with a wide range of inputs, or only ones with contrast ratios like those shown.

Re:Been there, Read that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935343)

Wow, you are amazing. thanks for pointing out that you saw it before all of us. It makes you much cooler than anyone else.

mirrordot.. (1)

kagelump (812908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935197)

http://www.mirrordot.com/stories/b824e8605782b61d2 dca3ca678065972/index.html
gee that was quick...

Interactive Digital Photomontoge & Graph Cut.. (5, Interesting)

Pete Brubaker (35550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935213)

This work is very similar to some work that was presented at last years siggraph using graph cut optimization titled Interactive Digital Photomontage [washington.edu] by some researchers at the University of Washington. This stuff is really cool and has applications outside of just re-coloring black and white. For example, compositors in the film industry adjust the color composition of scenes that were filmed during the day to look like they were filmed at night. Sometimes they just need to tweak the color because the art director isnt happy with it. Other times it's because they introduced CG elements into live action scenes and they dont quite match. If they can tweak those colors interactively, without authoring masks, it is faster than re-rendering the scene and that saves money.

Very cool stuff.

Pete

think consumer stuff (1)

mblase (200735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935473)

This stuff is really cool and has applications outside of just re-coloring black and white.

Industry applications are interesting, but nothing new -- the industry has been using this technology for a long time when it was more labor-intensive, because they can afford to.

The REAL impact of this technology will come when you see it migrate into new versions of iPhoto and Photoshop Elements. In Photoshop, recoloring a part of a photo is relatively easy, but it still involves a mildly complicated process of selecting the color range, specifying the hue you want to shift it to, checking and re-checking.

This, however, is something Apple could roll into iPhoto with relative ease. No more selecting pixels, ranges, or hues -- just select a shade from the color picker, scribble it over the area desired, and hit "apply". Don't like it? Undo and try again.

The industry will use this because it's faster, but I know professionals will still need and want tools to fine-tune their adjustments. Consumers will use this exclusively.

Oh great... (-1, Flamebait)

Tavor (845700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935225)

Now with thiswe might just see little kinds in the Phillipines and Indonesia colorizing frames and sewing up Nike shoes...
just kidding
Actually, this looks like a ood way to take most of the tediusness out of a meniul (but necessary) task.

they can't spell in Israel either (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935233)


colorization was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

didn't invent this. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935234)

been around for years.

Not a new concept (2, Interesting)

UMhydrogen (761047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935236)

I'm not sure if this was intended to sound like some new ground breaking technique, but it really isn't. I am a masters Electrical Engineering student and am currently taking an Image Processing class. Using neighboring images to reconstruct an image is a VERY VERY common task - in fact, it's almost the only way to do it. How else are you supposed to guess the colors (or what pixel is *supposed* to be there) without knowing what's around it. It's obvious that the highest correlation will be between the nearest neighbors (except on some edges).

Maybe next time we can make a program that just guesses the colors and look at how interesting those come out!

Re:Not a new concept (2, Insightful)

James McP (3700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935355)

I think the "break through" in this process is that it works over a series of frames automatically rather than requiring each frame to be manipulated. It was my uneducated understanding that colorization tended to be a frame-by-frame process.

If this can cut the work down to 1/10th normal it becomes plausible for the general public. While I'm no budding spielburg, I know a lot of people who might want to touch up the color quality of their wedding video.

Ruining Movies Now Easier Than Ever! (0, Redundant)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935263)

Thank goodness.


I thought I was going to have to wait until they started dimensionifying old non-holographic movies until I once again heard the keen of good films having their asses wrung with sandpaper.

Are there any non-evil applications or this artform?

Welcome to last summer (1)

kcomplex (414253) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935265)

This was in SIGGRAPH 2004 [acm.org] , as were plenty of other great papers. Are we waiting another 6 months to see those on Slashdot?

Wont Work (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935280)

Have done colorization of house and home interiors for years. Try this algorithm on the siding of an all white house and it'll get confused real quick with window and door trim especially in spots where there are no shadows due to angle of sun. Good 75% solution.

Heavy stuff... (1)

krunchyfrog (786414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935292)

I don't know how much of data is on there, but it took my firefox memory usage from 65 megs to 200 megs!

You insensit1ve clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935306)

Rules to follow well-known Creek, abysmal dim. Due to the standards should to be about doing area. It i5 the percent of the *BSD teeth into when AAsholes, as they

Colorizing by scribbling? (1)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935332)

Sounds like they just print out the image and reach for the crayon box.

application to motion video (5, Interesting)

mzs (595629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935337)

The site is slashdotted so I cannot read it, but i wonder if something akin to this could be used for compressing motion video. For example the intensity is encoded with currrent techniques, but instead of the color being encoded at a lower resolution, instead only a very small amount of colored points are encoded. Then during the decoding, the decoder uses an error function, intensity, and the time domain of previous and future frames to 'fill' the colors out.

Ok, this doesn't look like rocket science here... (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935341)


Take a grayscale image, and you already have the brightness and value for each pixel. All you do is add the hue component based on the color "scribbled" by the user. Stop filling with that color when you hit something that marks a definitive boundary.

Re:Ok, this doesn't look like rocket science here. (1)

ankit (70020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935388)

Its not that simple. The problem is how do you define a "definite boundary"? And even if you do what you suggested, you are likely to get rather flat shaded images. What these folks do is really solve an optimization problem and try to make use of the fact that neighboring pixels of similar intensity would have similar color. It is kind of like a fancy flood-fill algorithm, but applied to a new area, and thats what makes this novel!

Tech Geeks vs. Film Purists (3, Insightful)

venomkid (624425) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935374)

You b/w film purists. If all you can see is a threat to your bizarre, luddite idea of what film should be, you need to get your heads checked, or at least you need to listen to your inner geek. Stop using these folks' achievement as an opportunity for chest-thumping.

The idea that one could color correct video with a few strokes from mspaint is staggering. Imagine if one could do this to color video, in real time... you could color-highlight an object and the computer could follow it without sensors or other pre-implanted devices, and that's not even a particularly original idea. This is awesome technology with applications probably well beyond what we see here.

Intersesting seeing the artifacts... (1)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935405)

If you load up page [nyud.net] and watch the very last video, can see a slight artifact in the reflection of the hanging stuffed animal. There's little spots of orange color, like you would get out of the AirCan tool in MSPaint.

I have a feeling this could be corrected with another scribble or two. Really a stunning piece of work. Very cool.

that's gotta hurt (1)

matt me (850665) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935440)

all the images on that site are bitmaps. slashdot is now sending thousands of users to download them. that's a lot of bandwidth. ha ha, the site is now down. only wish i'd been downloading an image at the time and seen it stop half way. only then have you seen the power.

BMPs! (1)

hamishmorgan (652803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935446)

OMG someone has to tell these people about the joys of the JPEG image format. A whole page of bitmaps?!?! Why don't they just take a bat to the webserver... same effect but more fun.

Relativity? (1)

zev1983 (792397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935452)

"The technique works on the premise that 'neighboring pixels in *space-time* that have similar intensities should have similar colors,' and also allows colorization of videos by 'marking' about one in ten frames."

So this obeys the laws of general and special relativity? What about quantum chromodynamics while we're talking about color?

Re:Relativity? (1)

zev1983 (792397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935485)

I can't believe I actually posted that... My brain has been infused with copy toner and been shriveled into a raisin from air at 0.0% humidity...

Comic books and the like (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11935453)

I dabble more in the area of 3d art, but at times I've lifted a pencil and come up with some decent b&w sketches. Pencil shading is easy but sometimes getting the colours just right is more difficult than you might think.

When I looked at a lot of B&W webcomics, I can see that they'd look better in colour (especially the ones where the artist does occasionally do vibrant colour cells, but usually don't have time). This could change that though... want to see what your character would look like with a gold uniform... scribble a few colours within the borders. Want to see what that night-sky would like like with a red moon and rouged horizon, scribble a little red in and let the program do the work.

For cases where you want to preview colours, or just don't do colour well yourself, this would be a boon indeed!

Amazing how Tech drizzles down. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11935503)

This is a really cool thing to see in person. At NAB last year the Discreet people had this as a feature coming from there high end Smoke systems. Since all Discreet programs require a Tablet the pen scribble thing is used for color correction by scribbling around the area you want changed. Masks are done by making a rough trace around the area and it figures out what your focusing on. Its a time saver but you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their systems. After a couple of years other programs like Shake and After Effects start to pick up the plugins. Most major tech leaps in video happen at Discreet first then trickle down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?