Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 5:49pm

  
  

  If Telling Lies With Still Photos Is “Photoshopping” ...

  ... what’s the term for telling lies with motion video? “Videoshopping”?
  
  For example, this, this and this.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 6:53pm

  
  

  Re: If Telling Lies With Still Photos Is “Photoshopping” ...

  Japanese censorship

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 6:57pm

  
  

  Manikins

  Virtual fashion models are about to replace human models in advertising. H&M has already started using completely computer-generated lingerie/swimsuit models on its website.
  
  Right Mr Ho has never walked past a clothes shop before in his entire life.
  
  They are called Manikins or "dress manikins", guess what they replace REAL models in advertising and have done so for so many years now...
  
  Get out much ???
  
  Why is it these "tech innovations" are so damn OLD ????
  
  All these things have been around for years and years !!!!
  And you only have just worked out they exist ?
  
  Xerox labs has created software that can predict whether or not a photography will be aesthetically pleasing.
  
  Did you know that there is also software that does the same thing for music ? that can determine if a song will become a smash hit or not !!!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jay (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 7:38pm

  
  

  Re: Manikins

  I'm marking this as funny because obviously, the AC here has no idea how innovation works.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Rose M. Welch (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

  
  

  Re: Manikins

  They are called Manikins or "dress manikins", guess what they replace REAL models in advertising and have done so for so many years now...
  
  Mannequins didn't replace living models.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 8:05pm

  
  

  That Photoshop thing looks a lot like things like picturesolve.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 8:42pm

  
  

  This looks shopped.
  I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Rose M. Welch (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

  
  

  Re:

  I make my own shops at home.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:57pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Lol
  http://xkcd.com/331/

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Rekrul, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 9:19pm

  
  

  Virtual fashion models are about to replace human models in advertising. H&M has already started using completely computer-generated lingerie/swimsuit models on its website.
  
  What took them so long? James Coburn was doing this with moving CGI models back in 1981!
  
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Bob Webster (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 11:32pm

  
  

  Doctored Images.

  It's a whole lot easier to deblur an image when it has been synthetically blurred. Caveat emptor.
  
  http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/18/adobeclarifies

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:31am

  
  

  Re: Doctored Images.

  Yep - that reminds me of the creep who used swirl on photos to blur his face and then taunted the world only to find out that the swirl can be undone.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Michael Ho (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

  
  

  Re: Doctored Images.

  Nice find. I was wondering how much of the demo was staged to maximize its "blow your mind" effect.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 12:14am

  
  

  Re: Doctored Images.

  Whether the blurring is “synthetic” or not, it can still be physically modelled and undone to some extent. Remember the early days of the Hubble Telescope, when the images it was producing were so crap? I was at a talk given by one of the researchers who developed algorithms to try to undo that crappiness. They were able to produce some quite usable images, even before Hubble was given its COSTAR “glasses”.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:28am

  
  

  Re: Re: Doctored Images.

  IIRC - The Hubble images contained information that required correction because the mirrors had been ground incorrectly. There was plenty of information in these images that needed to be rearranged and the mechanism (incorrect mirror grinding) was well understood.
  
  In the case of TVland enhance, enhance, enhance there is not enough information available from low res video surveillance cameras to perform such stunts. Hence, the much laughed at mockery.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment