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?
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?
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 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.