Slashdot Mirror
Live or Memorex?
Jett points us to an article in free! and another in Broadcasting and Cable, describing how CBS News digitally inserted ads into their New Year's broadcasts - the same technology that adds ads into live sports broadcasts. The technology to undetectably alter a still photo has been around for a long time, but only recently has the capability existed to alter live broadcasts in real-time. The CBS News director suggests that a good, ethical use of this technology would be 'blocking out objectionable signs or covering up a competitor's logo'. How can society cope with a world where seeing can not equal believing?
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question2 25.htm
And since the line is added by the broadcaster, there isn't just one company doing it. Each of the 3 broadcasters has their own system, I think.
ESPN (and MNF) use SporTVision for example, not PVI.
What annoys me more is how much ads are being forced upon us in all aspects of life; tv, movies, the net, magazines, even in college textbooks. TV is the worse right now; it used to be that the end credits for most shows were just shown in full screen, no problem, but then someone got the idea to splitscreen them, to allow an ad to run along side the credits. This idea expanded everywhere, and now nearly no show has anything happen during the credits (one of the few I can think of is Frasier or Whose Line is it Anyway?). I remember one time a local station tried to do the same thing during the end credits of Voyager, which UPN had already splitscreen, such that one could not hear the preview of next week's episode, nor read any of the credits as they were 1/4th of the screen.
Why do we need ads pushed in our face as much as advertizers think we do? I'm sure I'm not the only one on /. that generally makes shopping purchases based on reviews and reports, rather than "I saw that on TV!". I would also suspect that up to 50% of such Americans are like that as well, being trained consumers rather than drop-of-the-hat buyers. Unforunately, I suspect that this group does not include the target of these commercials: the 15-21 and 22-30 demographics. These people tend to spend more on impluse purchases, as thus will be more prone to an ad than others.
And very much unfortunately, we have no way to stop this forced advertizing. We are the low end of the entertainment food chain, when it comes to consumers. The stations know they have our eyes, and the ads know they have our wallets. We have no real place to complain to except the FCC (as Americans, at least), and I'd suspect such cries would go unheard. Until we are at a point where there are 6 minutes of show vs 24 minutes of commercials.
Hopefully, what occured above may spark something, whether a law suit between two rival TV networks, or something pointing out that the press can no longer be considered to be biased. One question that might be asked is what version of a live shot might be archived away in the stations' vaults, the original or the modified? Can you imagine the shear power that a network press room might have if they can present their archived version (the one that was modified in real time) and use that as evidence in a major governmental scandal? Sure, there are telltale signs that the picture was modified, but technology will only get better to a point where you can't tell.
I do hope that the network media realizes they have journalistic morality to think of here. Even something as innocent as changing a sign to be an ad for yourself can lead down the road to trouble.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I think it lies with two parts: first, the camera that will have the shot of the first down line will be in a fixed position (though it's angle of view might change) at the start of the place, so the software can calculate based on camera angle and the appropriate yardage line where the FDL is at and where the camera is at to plop the line on screen. The second part is then just to block the line when players cross it, and since no uniform is green in the NFL (or significantly green), this is almost just doing a chromakey with a big fuzzy zone.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
All human transactions include built in presumptions about the status of each interaction--in plain english, there's alot about what we get from eachother that we just sort of "assume".
Contracts generally exist to clarify assumptions, not introduce utterly unexpected clauses--for example, a parking lot *can* disclaim liability for random damage caused to your car, but *can't* make the claim that exceeding one hour parking causes ownership of the car to transfer to them.
Contracts reflect the surrounding legal environment; they rarely completely rewrite it. The leeway granted on contract negotiations appears to usually be connected to the equivalent levels of power between the two negotiating bodies--the less legal force one party has in relation to another, the more the validity of the underlying contract is controlled by the legal environment. (Thus, the recent dismissal of an employee's noncompete clause which stated they couldn't work for a year in the same industry--this would have destroyed the employee but done no harm to the employer, thus the judge declined to enforce.)
This applies directly to the re-editing of video streams in that there's a presumption by the viewer that what they are seeing is a representation of the facts. The yellow first down line represents a fact that is in conceptual existence but lacks physical representation. This is a use of the technology to aid comprehension. However, the surreptitious modification of video streams to replace advertising and/or objectionable content is different--there is no underlying shared context being expressed, rather the value that the viewer places in what they see within in a given scene is redirected towards whatever the production crew desires.
Now, it obvious that the production crew can decide the backdrop as a whole--indeed, computer generated news desks are not entirely rare. But they're represented as such, and come replete with their own credibility wins and losses. Similarly, a correspondant appearing to report from the Middle East is spawning the presumption that, "They must know what they're talking about because they're actually there when I'm sitting on my couch *here*".
We attach value and credibility to the backdrop of any news report--even the simple tagline for an AP Newswire story gives the location of the author(if not his or her name).
To replace advertising, or any content in a non-obvious manner(pixelation of objectionable content is obvious, and explicitly changes the context of the display) is to borrow the credibility one holds for an environment and secretly sell it to the highest bidder.
That's not fair, and not even a 1.5 second blurb at the beginning of a broadcast can escape that fact. It's lying to the customer. That's not fair. Show some kids a walking, talking, thinking Teddy Ruxpin bear, and when they grow up provide them invisibly manipulated cities and scenes to believe in?
Hell, at least they're consistent.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I've always felt that when grade schools try to introduce students to the news paper in grade four or so they should also teach them the power of critical thinking. This would of course go against the normal school systems agenda, so I doubt it'll ever happen. An interesting exercise is to pick a few articles in the newspaper, especially if they are on something people typically have an opinion about, and seperate cold hard facts from the reporters opinion or interpretation. Maybe use two colours of highlighter to dilinieate fact v.s. opinion. Tally it up. Even in situations where you are supposed to be getting a report on something you'll find a great deal of opinion interjected.
The media has also been guilty of image manipulation before. One of the popular magazines was caught during the OJ Simpson trial. They doctored up a picture of Simpson and gave him a couple days beard growth, darkened shadows to make him appear more menacing and so on. They were definately trying to manipulate the public. It was done to sell more magazines but it was done at the expense of the publics perception of Simpson.
Watch any interview on TV, most of the cutaway shots to the reporter are done after the fact. Often the questions are reshot later to give the reporter a heightened air of professionalism. Have you ever contrasted the way a reporter speaks to the way the typical person speaks? Some of it is professionalism but a lot of it is a cheat on the part of the producers.
So, this is nothing new. It's reprehensible but you shouldn't trust the media any less over it. You should always be looking for the hidden angle which is the only way you'll be able to form your own opinions.
Uhh, michael, you may have gone a little far with that department listing. Drawing a connection from anyone involved in the media to the Nazi propaganda minister is, to me, the height of condemnation. It implies the most evil intent possible, and I don't see any explanation why -- was that just the first thing that came to mind or what?
Their web site doesn't say anything about how the first-down line technology works; I've been wondering how they place the line, and whether any technology is needed on the field to make it work. Anyone have more details?
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
So does anyone know if this technology has been used to reappropriate others Ad Space? As a business owner, I'd be up in arms if someone decided to film outside my office and thus reappropriated billboard space I payed good money for. To me, it would be like someone reappropriating content from a piece of my software to advertise their own adgenda...look at the problems Real is having because someone decided to change the advertisement in their free software (free as in it doesn't charge ya to download and thus you are paying for it with your eyeballs).
To me, this is nothing more than theft. If you don't want my advertising don't film near it. If you don't like my advertisments in software, don't use my software.
Having said all this, I do very little in the way of advertising and usually the whole concept sickens me, still if someone pays for something it cannot and should not be taken or edited without their permision (hmmm...maybe I'll rent a sign outside my office and GPL it for non-commercial work, but require a $50k licensing fee for every other occurance).
blah
clif
Goebbels was a brilliant propagandist. All that the reference implied to me was that this is a brilliant tool for propaganda.
Being able to distort reality towards any means is very impressive. For example, showing a local businesses logo on one of the boards of an international soccer match would make the company appear larger than life. Putting a M.A.D.D. logo in place of a Budweiser one would raise the cause to a higher status. Being able to elevate any agenda to a more prominent position than it holds, and thereby really placing it in the forefront of people's minds, is very Goebbels.
Goebbels was one of the greatest marketting geniuses of history. He managed to sell genocide to the masses, he justified it and made people believe it was the right thing. He made it into something people rooted for, or at least wouldn't speak out against. Not even Microsoft has been more successful. Goebbels did his job, right or wrong is not at issue. Much like Johnny Cochran did his job defending O.J., right or wrong was not at issue.
If anything, the Goebbels reference is a warning, and as such, it's the most effective reference that could be found.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I know everyone realizes this fact, but nobody seems to have mentioned it yet.
:), can be implemented with existing technology. Telephone or ISP style billing at a rate near that of electricity, with ReplayTV functionality, with possibly different price points for HDTV and old-style quality. Maybe we could get to the point of giving away TV sets with a three year subscription...
It costs a lot of money to do (national and local) broadcasting. This is where advertising revenue comes in. All the customer has to pay for is the TV set, and the electricity. If it were not for advertising, we would have 15 minutes per hour of pledge breaks, or worse yet, we'd have to pay a premium (over cable or satellite service fees) to the broadcasters.
A different system, where we are billed for time spent watching a particular station, might be better. First off, content might be better, since it would actually be 'our' money paying for what we spend our time watching, and we'd be more discriminating. Second, products might actually be cheaper and better, since they wouldn't carry the cost of advertising in the price tag, and would have to sell themselves on their actual merrits instead of cute or cleaver advertising (Bud, Weis, Errrr). Third, we'd spend less time watching TV, since it would cost money to do so, so we would do more valuable things, like reading, coding, and actually raising our kids. There's also the fringe benefit of not leaving the TV running when you leave the room.
The whole face of marketting would be different, since merit and value would be the predominant sales point, instead of image...
But that's not the system that is in place. It's not the system that has been shown to work well for those who are in control of it and who benefit by it.
My SYSTEM (tm)
I sure hope AOL Time Warner doesn't read this post before I file for a patent... [sigh]
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
There is something here that bothers me. No, it is not the fact that people are doing real-time adverts, nor is it the fact that we can now do real-time manipulation[0]. The thing that is bothering me, actually, is the response to this issue.
You see, this is nothing new. Every since the first monkey[1] picked up a bone and thought to itself, "tool." We have had trickery, backstabbing, conning, and deception. Humanity suffers from an incredible amount of want, the want of more possessions. Humanity will do just about anything, including defacing his/her personal reputation and good worth, simply for a few more possessions. Not all is bad of course, ever since deception, we had the ones seeking out the deceptors and uncovering them for what they are.
It has been a game of tag since day one. What we are seeing now is the very evident cycle where the greedy have found ways to circumvent what used to be an unstoppable barrier of truth: Namely, photographs and the moving picture. For years these two technologies bared life for what it really was, and could even be used as evidence in courts of law.
What we are seeing is essentially no different than a gang of crackers circumventing new software bugs, and the developers coming up with new patches to fix the bugs, albeit at a much slower pace. We are already to the point where everybody looks twice at a picture. Simply everything is run through a computer now, and sometimes it is getting very tricky to spot the evidence of computer tampering[2]. Now we just need to readjust to the fact that video, even live video, is becomming just as vulnerable to dupery as a pre-shot film. Nobody has placed truth in pre-shot film for a very long time now[3], and soon people won't place so much validity in live film.
This isn't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing, it simply is the way things are. We had, for about 60 or 70 years, a very good medium for 'prooving' things. Before that there was just paintings, sketches, and word of mouth. We may have to go back to that, we may come up with something new and revolutionary, who knows! Times change, people just need to realize that change is not evil.
With all of that being said, I'm going to go back a tad and state my opinion. I think this is excellent news. The ability to manipulate moving pictures in real time brings us one step closer to an entirely new, and interactive form of entertainment. Sure, it will bring along with it the sleazy car salesmen and whatnot...as do all new technologies. I prefer to look at how such developments will aid humanity instead of dwelling on the abuse, the abuse can be ignored. Turn off your television and do something constructive for a change[4]. It isn't that difficult.
.:. Starface
------------------
[0] There seems to be two arguments going on. One against advertising in general which is a tad bizarre if you ask me, the other is pro/con real-time manipulation.
[1] Or, perfect, wonderfully created being. Whatever your cup of tea is.
[2] I worked at a job where it was my description to 'fix' photographs. I know the tricks of the trade, there are alot of adverts and photos out there that are tampered.
[3] See here, for an excellent demonstration of that.
[4] Try literature and a cup of Earl Grey.
V
It seems like Mann has done pretty much research in WearComp, If some want to know more just visit his homepage, or Unv. Toronto.
Remember the Gulf-war? A lot of what was presented through CNN was in fact pure propaganda.
A kuwaitian girl crying, saying that soldiers from IRAQ defiled an orphanage.. pure propaganda, not true.
Of course, IRAQ did it to an even greater extend.
The same happend in Yugoslavia. People were shown all the monstrous acts by NATO.
Of course there were some horrible things that happened. But when you only present the worst acts of war, on none of the more gentle, you have already fooled your people.
Of course.. this technology could leed to an even greater abuse of "reality". Seeing opposition do things they never really did. Scary...
While this sucks, it doesn't change the base problem: we are at the mercy of the media to report the truth. This has always been the case. A reporter can write and cut all they want to make the story sound as they please. The studio can further enhance and cut to fit their agenda. They can also choose which stories to run.
Every reporter is biased; they are only human. A good reporter keeps the bias out of the report as much as possible, but they may not file a report for a story they don't think is important, may report with an unintended tone of voice that projects their opinion upon the listener, etc.
Editors have the same bias problems; in addition, they are under pressure to keep viewer's interest so that advertising can be sold. Therefore, they have a tendency to report shocking or glamorous stories that keep people glued, but may not be representative of what is really going on in the world.
In the end we have to simply trust them or not trust them. Everyone has certain news sources that they trust and others that they don't trust.
Hopefully people will always want a trustworthy news source and there will always be an entreprenour willing to fill the niche.
maybe next they will show spoofed footage of the
mars polar lander. "see, NASA isn't all that bad
after all".
bah!
where will this stop? why not just have max
headroom report the news from the surface of
Neptune? we rely on news to be REAL and in NO
PART FAKED.
i guess it's time to start wondering about the
validity of everything *except* that which we
behold with our own eyes...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
The idea of television people (including news reporters) doctoring footage is old. This is just new tech for doing it. Take a look at any sit-down interview on a nightly news program. You will notice subtle background changes between the shots that show the interviewer and the shots that show the interviewee. This is because the interviewer footage is shot later on a sound stage in order to make the reporter look as good as possible. In many cases, it's not even the same reporter.
Babylon 5 (a science fiction show that aired in syndication and later on TNT) did an interesting take on this where a reporter interviewed various people on the show, and they actually used the same technique as a subtle que that the news company was not on the level (this later turned into a plot point when the same news company was under the thumb of an oppressive Earth government).
Same here. This technology will be used for ads first, but the much more valuable tool will be doctoring the news so that it's "acceptable" for mass consumption. Yahoos in the background of street footage will be edited out. Protesters in a rally that have nothing to do with the main story will be removed. These things will all seem reasonable at first (unless you think about it too hard)
The danger is that once the mechanism exists, it will tend to be over-used. The news we see already feeds on itself, downing out events that don't fit the demographics. What happens when the drive is to have the news look more and more like what you're expecting after having switched channels from another station? One edit feeds another, and eventually you'll have "a dramatization" tags at the bottom of every news screen. Or maybe you won't even have that....
I believe formula 1 bosses were looking at something like this so that the car sponsorship logos would be added on digitally, broadcaster by broadcaster.
That way they could bypass national anti-smoking regulations and each team could sell more space per car.
Tom
I can think of a better use for this technology!
Just like Junkbuster: an Open Source system to bust all the ads.
On the other hand: Half(+) of my screen would be blank during many shows...
-- From Denmark
First, I don't understand how blocking out a competitor's logo could be ethical. It might not be a big deal, but ethical?
Second, I think most of us know that pictures cannot be trusted, anyway. This has been true for a long time for photographs (especially on magazine covers), and is also true for most media reports (they can be edited without you being able to tell). And one thing that has been possible in TV since the beginning --- and which is much more effective --- is to reorder parts of an interview, for example, or to leave stuff out.
So I think this boils down to the old question of trust: Do I trust the media (or certain tv stations, papers, etc) to not manipulate the facts? It's now possible to do more stuff, but that doesn't mean we were safe from manipulation until yesterday.
(and I apologize for my troll posting yesterday - I was in a very, very bad mood.)
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
I find it highly unlikely that, given the rising costs of sports these days, any sporting venue would decide not to sell any advertising space it possibly could. In fact it's a lot more likely that the same space will be sold several times over. Take the prime ad space behind home plate, for instance (I'll use Safeco Field as an example, a Mariners vs. Yankees game). The stadium would sell that space to local merchants like Starbucks, Eagle Hardware and Eddie Bauer (as it is now). The Mariners broadcast team would rent the rights to digitally alter the same area for their sponsors, like State Farm, Fletchers and Pepsi. The Yankees would likewise rent the space to advertise Mobach's and The Wiz (or whoever sponsors the Yankees games). And, if the game is picked up nationally by ESPN they could use the same space for national sponsors like Chevrolet, The Gap and Budweiser.
Multiply this by the scoreboard, outfield fence, facades and other vertical surfaces and you can begin to see that there's too much potential money to be made for anyone to leave this alone. Not that I think it's a good thing, but I think it's the way things are.
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
I'm not sure how advertisement laws in the US work, but here in the Netherlands, it is illegal for stations to show footage that contains advertisements.
Signs of Coca-Cola and other brands have to be made unreadable (Pixillated). The technique used here is just a bit more subtle, making it appear as if it never was there in the first time.
As for advertisers not getting their 'paid' room, I disagree. They have their spots on buildings and billboards, and paid for the people there to see them - not for the chance that they
One last thought - Anyone remember seeing Arny in 'The Running Man'? Near the end of the movie, the outcome of the fight is altered, digitally, to make it appear as if he lost, by altering the live feed to the viewers... The next step?
I guess it can tell the Jets from the grass.
How it Works
The central computer in the 1st & Ten system examines every frame of video in real time (i.e. 30 times per second) and determines which pixels to change to yellow. These are all the points in the image where an actual painted-on-the-field first down line would be visible, such as grass along the line that is not obscured by a player or referee. It determines which pixels to change based on very precise information about the camera's view, a 3D model of the field, which camera is on air, and a palette of colors for the field and another palette for players.
Pixels along the line with colors from the field palette are changed to yellow unless that color is also in the palette for players. Player colors and other colors not on the field palette are left unchanged. This makes the virtual line visible where the field is visible and hidden where the field is obscured, just as a real line would be.
Each camera in the 1st & Ten system, is instrumented with very precise encoders for pan, tilt, zoom, focus and extender (1x or 2x doubler). A computer at each camera reads the encoders and transmits these readings to the Sportvision production truck 30 times per second. Another computer in the truck gathers readings from all the cameras and transmits a consolidated data stream to the central computer. These readings and the 3D field model go into a geometrical calculation that determines which pixels in the video frame would be in an unobstructed view of a real first down line.
Yet another computer determines, also 30 times per second, which camera is tallied (on air). It does this by comparing the video streams from each of the 1st & Ten cameras to the program video. This computer allows for graphics, such as the constant time and score box, that are not in the camera view but are introduced into the program video. The result, camera 1, 2, 3 or none of them, is transmitted to the same computer that is consolidating data from the three cameras, and it adds tally to the data stream going to the central computer.
The final computer has only one simple but crucial task, draw the yellow line in video 60 times per second (every field, not just frame) and send that to a linear keyer to superimpose the yellow onto the program video.
Need more
I think it is more interesting to note that this allows broadcasters to edit images on the fly. Silly things like billboards or advertising are not goiing to change the world, but there are further ramifications to this sort of tampering.
What would JFK's assisination look like with a shooter added in?
What would the missle strikes in Africa look like with incriminating evidence added in?
Or maybe a president and some young woman?
I know these sorts of images are already present to some degree, with many people believing in faked images or others believing images have been faked (the moon landing and Mars faces come to mind), but technology such as this has the potential of allowing someone like Ted Turner or the military to wield power over what we know.
Yes, I am paranoid. But I know what I can do, and I am not as smart as they are.
Computers can only simulate determinism. ~Hermetic.
At least this will allow some sporting venues (ballparks, in particular) to cut back on tacky signs hanging all over the place. In that case, this technology could help those who wouldn't see it (fans who actually go to the game).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
There has been a great deal of commentary dealing with the fact that the alteration of images is not a new idea, but very little on how society will deal with the new technology that allows real-time video alteration. And though no historical scholar of merit, I believe we can already see precedents in past technological advances.
When The Great Train Robbery was first shown, people were alarmed when a man on the screen turned towards them and shot a pistol. Reportedly, certain men in certain theaters actually drew their weapons and shot back. This was a new technology, new trickery of the eyes; unused to it, people were gullible, and some could not separate reality from technology's alteration of reality.
Flash forward. We have many many movies with guns. Yet the news is not full of stories about people whipping out semi-automatic weapons and shooting back at the screen. Why? Because we have become accustomed to the technology.
With every technological advancement there is an initial "wide-eyed acceptance" that takes place. "Ooh! Shiny!" But luckily (?) people have short attention spans, and they adapt to their situations. Dishwashers do not illicit comments like "What is that thing? It does WHAT?" Simple line drawing animation no longer fools people into thinking that dinosaurs are actually still alive. And, given time, not only will people not believe the little digital ads inserted into live broadcasts, but bunches of slackers will sit on couches and make fun of them for being poorly rendered.
Once the virtual images are superimposed over the actual live picture, whether of a football game or in a news story, the virtual images appear to viewers at home to be as real as anything at the scene. People who walk in front of landmarks replaced by virtual billboards appear to television viewers to have walked in front of the electronic billboard, making it appear completely real.
Just like the above, she wasn't really there, she was standing in front of a blue screen in a studio in New York. The networks put a spin on the practice and called it " Look Live", It got some attention for a couple of weeks. In one camp they had the ethical journalists stating that it was not right and on the other they had the execs saying that it added flavor the news.
This is not too much different. Placing any kind of "Look Live" or "Look Anything" behind a live news broadcast is misleading. As far as placing the first down marker etc. on sporting or entertainment programming would more than likely be ok.
But is the news entertainment??
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.