3D Face Imaging in 40 Milliseconds

Roland Piquepaille writes "Computer scientists at Sheffield Hallam University, UK, have developed a new face recognition software which can produce an exact 3D image of a face within 40 milliseconds. A pattern of light is projected on your face, creating a 2D image, from which an accurate 3D representation is generated. This technology should speed airport check-ins, but it could also be used in banks or for checking ID cards as it allows full identification in less than one second."

Comments

database?

[switchfutguy]

what about the time it takes the image to be looked up in the database? i'm sure that would take it more time to verify...

Re:database?

[buckhead_buddy]

switchfutguy wrote:

what about the time it takes the image to be looked up in the database? i'm sure that would take it more time to verify...

I think the article is implying that the real utility will be in matching the physical face with the biometric data stored on the identity card. Whatever advances are made there are independent of the verification of the card to the government registry.

1. Create biometric data out of face holding attached to person with card.
2. Verify face to biometric data on ID card
3. Verify ID card codes to central database for authenticity

Biometric verification can be done parallel to waiting for the data about whether the card is authentic or not.

Heck, before the legislation setting up the ID cards passed, this speedy new biometric verification wasn't even broken to the public yet. All of the debate about verifying the biometric data in passing this ID card law was under the old school assumptions that it would be a friendly cashier or steward "verifying" that the person looked vaguely like the photo and was approximately the same height, weight, race, and age as listed in government records. Verifying the central records match the card is a problem that has to be taken care of regardless of the "speed" in verifying the biometric part with the human.

Of course, It's sort of disturbing that people knew this "recognition revolution" was in the pipeline but deliberately didn't say anything until after the legislative debate was over and all of the people worried about abuse of a system like this could be swept aside as science fiction freaks.

I'm still skeptical of the actual technique. (Heck, it's hard enough to verify "automatically" that a JPEG says HELLO WORLD when one has to deal with anti-aliasing and different fonts. How are they going to deal with people who gain or loose a lot of weight since the biometrics were taken.) But the real worry appears to be that the people developing it and supporting its development wanted it kept under wraps until all moral debate was silenced.

Re:database?

[Rickler]

About the time it takes to get the info with the account#/SS#. Then the face would be matched against the face already in records.

Re:database?

[fantasticalmonkey]

"How are they going to deal with people who gain or loose a lot of weight since the biometrics were taken"

Surely they could update the card each time it was verified. This way the changes would be extremely small and it should still pass.

There would still be the problem if someone didn't use their card in a long time, and gained/lost a lot of weight (for example), but I am assuming that the ID cards would be used for almost everything eventually (payments, keycards, etc), so the chance of not having your card verified for an extended period of time would be much less likely. Also, I suppose they could allow a slight difference between the scan taken and the data stored but it gets noted, and a proper match has to be made within 3 attempts.

There will obviously be problems if someone has an injury which drastically alters their face, etc, but they will probably be able to work around this eventually.

Who knows..

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the same lines, how in the hell would this speed up airport check-in times? If I bring a standard state issued ID, they look at it and hand it back. It takes between 3 and 5 seconds, 10 at the most. So, you want to put a computer that can have downtime and requires database lookup and other technical requirements (last time I traveled the biggest headache was the automatic check-in machine had a broken printer) into the mix? It makes no sense. Computers suck at tasks such as facial recognition anyways... What if you look different today than the day your photo was taken and placed in the databse? This is just dumb.

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, even without a shave, existing facial rec systems have been known to fail when the lighting at pickup time differs from that of recording time. Face rec is hardly new, but the problem hasn't been speed, AFAIK. The Mass. cops tried it and quietly folded their tents.

Re:database?

[Spy der Mann]

How are they going to deal with people who gain or loose a lot of weight since the biometrics were taken.

If you can recognize your brother after he has gained weight, I'm sure the biometrics can recognize him, too. This is why the algorithms are programmed to have a margin of error. Like "it's 80% probable that this picture belongs to the person in question".

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

use q (kx.com) to minimize access times.

http://kx.com/q/d/kdb+.htm

Re:database?

[swillden]

If you can recognize your brother after he has gained weight, I'm sure the biometrics can recognize him, too.

Sure, as long as the matching algorithm is as sophisticated and accurate as the one in your brain, the one developed over millions of years of evolution of a social animal, and then fine-tuned by years and decades of personal feedback training.

The fact that you can recognize your brother after he has gained weight is evidence that it's possible to perform such recognition. It, however, in no way means that any matching algrothm we can create will match the feat.

In this particular case (weight gain), most facial recognition matchers probably won't be fooled, as long as the gain isn't too great. Not because the matching algorithms are anywhere near as good as the human brain, but because the matchers focus primarily on bone structure, which doesn't change with weight -- unless the change is so great that it hides previously visible structure under a smooth, round layer of fat.

In general, though, facial recognition technology is lousy. It's improving, but it's not remotely as good as what people can do.

Re:database?

[schon]

If you can recognize your brother after he has gained weight, I'm sure the biometrics can recognize him, too.

Uh, yeah, because facial recognition software is so accurate.

I think you've watched a few too many hollywood movies.

Re:database?

[teknomage1]

Indeed. I work at a VsFX house and we have face models that have billions of vertices and take up over a gig on disk. How are they intending to search through a space like that with error tolerances in a timely manner?

Re:database?

[Spy der Mann]

I think you've watched a few too many hollywood movies.

Or studied Neural Networks in college ;-)

Re:database?

[garyboodhoo]

The system won't be matching billions of vertices - that's not how the brain recognizes faces either. That level of granularity is used ONLY for visual effects/animation in a situation where content is being pushed thru the rendering pipeline using brute force methods without regard for what the content represents

The key here is deriving patterns & relationships (signatures if you will, to use the Trek lingo!) that describe a unique ID. The significance of mapping facial features to a 3D representation using a projected grid of data points is that environmental lighting is made irrelevant and that relationships can be derived without transforming 2D data into a 3D space

Re:database?

[thedletterman]

I don't see the government trying to make some ultra-massive computing system linked globally. I see the main use for this would be municipal governments.. perhaps the state. How about a state has entries for all persons with a warrant for arrest? The municipal government has entries for all violent felons and drug dealers. The FBI has their most wanted list, as well as suspects currently under investigation. The US Marshalls Office has all wanted felons. None of this is a bad thing in any way. I can't imagine more than about a million entries to search, and this could be easily cached by a small database server. I don't remember the code that was encoded on my fingerprint card when I applied for security clearance, but it was something like 16 bytes.. meaning a gynormous cache of 16 bytes per entry if the algorithim for face is anything like fingerprint. I believe the face recognition may be simpler even, seeing as insted of identifying all the deltas, tails, et al that a fingerprint records, it only looks at the upper eye socket, the distance between pupils, the cheekbone, and the corners of the mouth.. so if you ever wanted a negative result on a face scn, all you would really need to do is squinsh up your face like you ate a lemon and close one eye.

Re:database?

[weierstrass]

>Along the same lines, how in the hell would this speed up airport check-in times? If I bring a standard state issued ID, they look at it and hand it back.

Because, there are only about 3 guys checking ID, so you have to wait in a queue.

Re:database?

[matria]

So you're saying that it's OK that there's a 20% probability that this is some kind of crook using my ID?

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine more than about a million entries to search

Then your imagination is very limited. Outstanding warrants number in the hundreds of millions. Plus why would you want to make it more difficult to catch violent criminals by expending resources on non-violent prohibited drug crimes?

Re:database?

[thedletterman]

"Outstanding warrants number in the hunderds of millions"

I think you need ot shove that statistic right back up your ass where you got it from. Like I said in the post, that was a number for that State, but even still, the US population is less than 300 million. So I guess like everyone between the ages of 18-60 has a warrant for their arrest.

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it will not detect people wearing silicone masks, actor's wax and makeup, and it will only detect the ones with a previous record/picture, good enough for matching.

They do all this disneyland stuff, and ignore pulse/heart rate detectors, eye twitching, blushes - you know all the stuff Israeli check in chicks look for. Smart people over $12 uncommitted casuals, with technology as effective as an electric pepper grinder.

What is the false positive rate?
Cut all the bullshit, this is the one. Scrap wasting money on nuts and bolts, and invest in humans. Also is a breach of copyright, when actors and models board.

Re:database?

[1u3hr]

How are they going to deal with people who gain or loose a lot of weight

Facial hair? I doubt this light can penetrate hair.

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead you get a really expensive machine to do it, therefore most places can only afford one.

And end up standing in a longer queue.

Re:database?

[mysticwhiskey]

Somewhat coincidentally, I've just finished watching Shallow Hal. My question is: If I put on weight, will it recognise the REAL me inside?

Re:database?

[Xypheri]

there would also be the problem like on this season's 24 where the hacker modified the biometrics on the card of a top ranking official but left the rest of the ID card intact allowing him full access to the secure facility..

Re:database?

[jacksonj04]

For high security areas, I'm sure people won't mind the verification not only verifying the card, but also verifying the data on the card matches the central database.

For everyday purposes, just have a full verification done every n times the card is used.

Re:database?

[Kludge]

I'm still skeptical of the actual technique.

Good idea

How are they going to deal with people who gain or loose a lot of weight since the biometrics were taken

Or grow a beard, or get cosmetic surgery, or have a face that swells due to medication, etc, etc.

As someone who works on validation of computer target recognition, I recommend being very skeptical. Error rates will be very high.

Re:database?

[Dashing Leech]

"Uh, yeah, because facial recognition software is so accurate."

Actually, I've worked on 3D facial recognition algorithms and they can be incredibly accurate. You are correct that 2D facial recognition algos have limited accuracy, but that's largely because 2D cameras merely measure the amount of light reflected into each pixel, so any real-world dimensional measurement is an interpretation of feature locations and extrapolated into 3D. Perspective views is big problem as are lighting conditions, clutter, and disguises.

A 3D sensor directly measures the 3D shape and can fit it quite easily to the reference model. We've done 3D face matches with wigs, glasses, and beards at the same time and still correctly identified the person. You really have to cover up a significant amount of the shape of the face to fool it.

And even then, that was for identification. This application is verification, so a disguise would be counterproductive. You'd have to take someone with a similar face shape and use professional face-shaping make-up (like for movies) to make an identically-shaped face to fool it into believing you were someone you were not. Not just one that looks the same, but is actually the same size and shape. Hard to do, especially without someone clearly seeing you are wearing the fake features, despite what Mission Impossible or other movies make us believe.

That being said, I don't know the statistics on similarities of faces. I would certainly bet identical twins could fool it, though I'm not sure how identical their face shapes are statistically.

Re:database?

[Dashing Leech]

"As someone who works on validation of computer target recognition, I recommend being very skeptical."

As someone who has written, studied, tested, validated, and worked with 3D target recognition and facial recognition algorithms, I agree to a point. I only agree because it's always good to be skeptical of these things until the (unbiased) evidence has been presented.

That being said, the jump from 2D to 3D recognition is nothing but revolutionary in terms of recognition and verification accuracy. Beards, cosmetic surgery, and even swelling are not major impediments. They do reduce the match, but less than you'd think. There are areas of the face that don't change much even in such cases. 3D face recognition is more about measuring the shape of the skull. The skin generally follows the shape of the skull except where there are heavy fat deposits, or of course if you grow a beard. Unless you're changes were to the extent of a normal face to something like the Elephant Man or Eric Stoltz in "Mask" (no, not the Jim Carry movie), it's still going to do quite well.

And even then, the application here is verification. If the changes were enough to make it fail, that would just mean you'd have to go through either a secondary manual security check and/or update the biometrics. It's not like you could, say, pretend to be Tom Cruise and say your face changed. If you don't look like Tom Cruise with a beard or fatter face, and have the same shaped skull, and have the other security info to back you up, you're going to get your biometrics updated.

As a general comment (not specific to the parent post), I know /. likes to pick apart these things, but /. readers are not of so superior intelligence that they can come up with flaws in 2 minutes that experts in the area of research have not addressed, studied, or solved in years of research.

Re:database?

[Dashing Leech]

"existing facial rec systems have been known to fail..."

2D versus 3D, my friend. 2D cameras measure reflected intensities from a given perspective, and therefore are prone to problems with (a) reflectivity/lighting, (b) the viewing perspective, and (c) other things in the image (occlusions, clutter). 3D directly measures the shape of the face, which is harder to change than you think. (Really, it's the shape of the skull that primarily dictates the shape. Only certain areas of the face can change much and don't largely affect the verification.)

However, this too isn't all that "revolutionary" as the article suggests. Real-time 3D range images have been around for 5-10 years, especially using structured light (some even faster than 40 ms), and robust 3D face recognition algos have been around for almost as long. There just haven't been any/many commercial products yet, and this example is also in the lab, so it's more or less at the same implementation level as 3-5 years ago with similar systems.

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have to shine light on your face? Why not use infrared so it's visible to the computer, but not annoying? Patent Pending! :)

Re:database?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently arrived in Korea, and the moment we came off the plane and out of the walkway into the airport, there was a lady sitting at a governmental desk behind a video camera with a computer. I asked her what she was doing, and she said it was to identify criminals. This is the same technology that they have been using year after year at the Superbowl.

Re:database?

[teknomage1]

Still, even assuming perfect selection of points for maximum uniqueness, You're going to need a lot of data to compare against, or you'll have to suffer through a lot of false positives.

Re:database?

[grimsweep]

Neural Networks should be the first indication to you that, frankly, machine learning algorithms are often only as good as their input. Training an network to recognize a face has no specific guarantee on which features it recognizes in the first place, as the nature of such an algorithm leaves it up to the algorithm to decide in the first place. Believe me; if neural networking were truly the silver bullet of getting around facial biometric variation, it would have solved the issue years ago.

Re:database?

[Spy der Mann]

Neural Networks should be the first indication to you that, frankly, machine learning algorithms are often only as good as their input.

Exactly, this is why having a 3D representation of a face is going to help a lot.

Hrm.

[Limburgher]

Impressive, but what if I shave?

Re:Hrm.

[Pavel Stratil]

well the same can be done easily in some other part of the EM spectrum in which the facial hair is "invisible" wether you have it or not

Re:Hrm.

[Limburgher]

Good point. What would be really nice would be to use something where the machine only sees the skull. Even harder to fake, but there's always the possibility for medical issues. Not only would a technology like repeated x-rays casue health issues, but using some sort of intrusive body scanning could be interpreted as a HIPAA violation, unless you pre-consented in some legally binding way.

Re:Hrm.

[Watson Ladd]

Or put dots on your face with a magic marker. Subgraph Isomorphisim is in a class by itself in complexity theory.

Re:Hrm.

[Tablizer]

Impressive, but what if I shave?

It is okay, Osama, you were passed up by two presidents, hundreds of Preditor flights, and thousands of US soldiers. I doubt some geek toy will do you in.

Re:Hrm.

[Limburgher]

Shit, all that, only to be unmasked by a /.er. Arghhhh! ;)

Re:Hrm.

[storem]

If you joke about it, please do so with knowledge (or lookup correct naming!).

The UAV used by the US Air Force is called Predator .

And if the technology is Russian, you don't shave, the technology shaves you: A4 Vision :-)

Re:Hrm.

[Tablizer]

If you joke about it, please do so with knowledge (or lookup correct naming!).

Only if you can tell me which posts will hit the mod lottery up front.

Scan Me.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This technology should speed airport check-ins, but it could also be used in banks or for checking ID cards as it allows full identification in less than one second.""

Minority Report.

Great

[mcc]

I can't wait until the day when I get punched in the face, and suddenly I can't use ATMs anymore.

Re:Great

[Tablizer]

I can't wait until the day when I get punched in the face, and suddenly I can't use ATMs anymore.

Then stop mooning the football team in your sister's chearleader custome.

Re:Great

[sammykrupa]

Possibly the funniest comment on Slashdot. Have a good weekend, Sam Krupa

Re:Great

[Wayne247]

Actually, I *can* wait for the day I get punched in the face.

Re:Great

[thedletterman]

Fcial recognition relies on probability matches, not positive identification. it's just a filter, of varying sensitivity. even being punched in the face or gaining ten pounds might not invalidate your entry. it scans off areas that aren't very suceptible to change with weight or aging. The top of your eye socket, the distance between your pupils, the corners of your mouth, your cheek bone... don't think your going to walk up to an atm and take out cash, you're going to need your implantable rfid and a facial scan to make that happen.

Re:Great

[repvik]

The distance between my pupils you say? Well dang, that's hard to modify. Try this. Focus on a remote mountain, tree, house, whatever. Then you stick your finger up in front of your face. Focus on it. Notice how your eyes move? Yes, the distance has now shrunk. Yay.

exact?

[jpardey]

If this wasn't Rolland, I would RTFA. However, it sounds odd to say an exact 3d image. What is so exact about it? It's a digital representation of reflected light, not a clone. Sounds sort of like saying "an exact photograph" or "a real live stuffed animal."

Re:exact?

[Khyber]

Well, the way I'd look at it would be something akin to how we can accurately get a 3-d image using sonar, and that's only some form of energy projected in one direction. Why not project another, faster form of energy - such as light - instead of sound to get a better, higher-resolution image, at a faster rate?

Re:exact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're so on topic...

I hope your first name isn't Jeo

Ta ching...

Re:exact?

[arrrrg]

Why not project another, faster form of energy - such as light - instead of sound to get a better, higher-resolution image, at a faster rate?

Except that a faster form of energy will make actual depth readings less accurate, for obvious reasons. Slower is better in this case, as long as its not so slow to accumulate motion blur. Anyhow, FTFS it sounds like this thing works using computer vision techniques, rather than fancy laser range-finding.

Re:exact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's from Roland, however, he doesn't link to his own site this time, despite doing his own writeup about the technology.

Hurrah for just ignoring something without taking a critical look at it.

Re:exact?

[jpardey]

Sure, I could spend the time to check it out, but why? Ronald has used CNet blogs to cover himself, etc. How do I know without investigation that the site is legit, and not paying him for links? I would rather not follow any links he is pushing than do work to check out his usually pointless links.

This Is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If these machines really are as fast as accurate as claimed, this would be an aweome tool in the War on Terror. You could install these thing in more than just airports. Subway, train and bus stations would also work because it's so fast. Stadiums or any other place with large crowds won't be a problem either.

I could foresee a day when these machines would be hooked up into a central database and we can stop evildoers in their tracks before committing any heinous criminal acts. The world will be a much safer and better place if this happened.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[symbolset]

..we can stop evildoers in their tracks before committing..

Congratulations. You've invented precrime.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Your behind the times by five years:

Face Recognition at Florida Superbowl


A ticket to Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa Bay, Florida, didn't just get you a seat at the biggest professional football game of the year. Those who attended the January 2000 event were also part of the largest police lineup ever conducted, although they may not have been aware of it at the time. The Tampa Police Department was testing out a new technology, called FaceIt, that allows snapshots of faces from the crowd to be compared to a database of criminal mugshots.


And the results:
The Register on Face Recognition software

By leveraging the Florida open-records law, the watchdog organization obtained system logs proving that the Visionics contraption has thus far failed to identify one single crook or pervert listed in the department's photographic database, while falsely identifying 'a large number' of innocent citizens.

"The earliest logs provided by the department show activity for July 12, 13, 14, and 20, 2001. On those dates, the system operators logged fourteen instances in which the system indicated a possible match. Of the fourteen matches on those four days, all were false alarms," the ACLU notes.

The Tampa coppers started using the system in June of this year, and abandoned it in August.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

A ticket to Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa Bay, Florida, didn't just get you a seat at the biggest professional football game of the year. Those who attended the January 2000 event were also part of the largest police lineup ever conducted, although they may not have been aware of it at the time. The Tampa Police Department was testing out a new technology, called FaceIt, that allows snapshots of faces from the crowd to be compared to a database of criminal mugshots.

What would have happened if they had scanned the players on the field? Or the cops doing security?

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[thedletterman]

No but when someone that's been thrice convicted of robbing liquor stores wanders into a liquor store at 1am, you can pre-dispatch the police.

Or when someone who hasn't been caught has knocked off a liquor store, you can alert the police the next time they walk past a sensor.

Having worked as a consultant to the NYPD, I can see how municipalities could find this very useful for controlling local crime.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[1u3hr]

No but when someone that's been thrice convicted of robbing liquor stores wanders into a liquor store at 1am, you can pre-dispatch the police.

After the first thousand false alarms, will the police still think this is a good idea? And then when he REALLY wants to rob a liquor store, he wears a Groucho mask.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[thedletterman]

So maybe you DON'T dispatch the police, maybe instead you build statistics and metrics to more effectively determine patrols and police density in different neighbourhoods. The usefulness of this application to law enforcement is limited only by innovation.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[1u3hr]

instead you build statistics and metrics

Oh good, total surveillance. Track everybody all the time. And if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to complain about.

Actual crimes are ALREADY reported. People buying liquor at 1AM are not committing a crime.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[thedletterman]

"track everyone all the time"

We can diminish this argument on the premise that facial recognition isn't identification, but probability matching. not 'john smith' but someone who 'looks like john smith'.

"if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. I never suggested anything of the sort.

Yes, actual crimes ARE already reported. What if I could have told you someone that matches his description went into the same liquor store three nights in a row, and had also visited five other liquor stores in the preceeding week.

What if I could tell you the a group of five people who match the description of five people who robbed a bank last week just entered a Citibank on 34th and Lexington?

There's alot of beneficial things you can do with this information, and due to the massive amounts of data collected, very specific screens would be the only useful application. But since you threw up the argument, "if you have nothing to be afraid of.." (which is a privacy argument regarding being SEARCHED), would you freak out if your neighbour looked out the window and saw you walking down the street? What about if a police officer recognized you while you were walking down the street? Did you just get your 4th amendment totally violated? What about the video camera at just about every gas station you go to? Do you shield your face as you walk past them? As you stand at the counter? Do you pay for everything in cash, or do you swipe a card and use a pin number? Are checks unconstitutional? The very idea that one should be able to go "out in public" cloaked in "privacy" is not only oxymoronic, but completely moronic.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that all sounds good and well. But, you're not considering what collecting and processing "massive amounts" of information would cost. You're also not considering that most police departments don't have to worry about patrolling metropolises and that most cities don't have enough crime for this to be particularly useful(unless you've solved the database lookup problem to make it quick enough to match every person in every store in the country against a database of all criminals who might be in the area in a matter of seconds?).

Patrol schedules can't be changed to significantly improve preventing crime outside of places like LA(even there, I doubt it would be very effective. Crimes are planned around this stuff.).

Hell, with the increasing power and decreasing size of electronics, why don't we give everyone a handheld device that, based upon their location, will tell the probability that each person within a mile of them might be somebody who they might have to worry about? Then we can have all the fun of lawsuits for pseudo-identity-collection discrimination.

Of course, this is arguing from a purely feasability standpoint. This doesn't consider what is Constitutional for the government to do. Of course, it is completely unconstitutional, but so are public works, gun control, and social security.

Re:This Is A Good Thing

[1u3hr]

There's alot of beneficial things you can do with this information, and due to the massive amounts of data collected, very specific screens would be the only useful application.

Of course you could solve crimes with total surveillance (which term I repeat, as I think it is appropriate; or "Big Brotther Police State" would also fit the bill). However, you ignore the other foreseeable consequences of allowing a government to track you (by "you" I do mean everyone) so minutely. The "neighbour looking out the window" is very different; firstly because s/he is not the government, and secondly is not compiling a dossier linked to your file that will be kept forever and accessible to an undetermined number of government functionaries and quite likely to others with connections. The temptation to extend this to look for more and more infractions, to cover more and more of the population, is irresistible. Just look at what J Edgar Hoover did 50 years ago with his relatively primitive resources.

Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

It took 2.85 MEGAseconds for their press release to reach slashdot.

Pity there were no details of how they did it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been playing about with facial recognition, and I can quickly develop a contour map of a face from a digital photograph. Does anyone know of a quick algorythmn to attain the information given by the contours (for instance something that can accurately guess seperate contours when two lines meet)? Or indeed just point me in a good direction, the path I've travelled so far has been a little slow and inaccurate.

Airport check ins???

[Matts]

I hate reading things like this - the marketers got hold of it and decided that airport checkins were clearly a problem, and this would help. Sorry, but that's BS.

Airport checkins take time because they are a security procedure. The "recognition" part of it takes seconds as it is - just swipe the passport or other form of ID. What takes the time is confirming that the traveller's luggage hasn't been modified, finding a decent seat on the plane, and labelling up the luggage they drop. I've never been held up because they couldn't figure out who I was. Ever.

Re:Airport check ins???

[hublan]

Haven't you been keeping up with the program? The only way to get research grants these days is to tie your research somehow into "the war on terror", no matter how tenuous that connection might be.

Re:Airport check ins???

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been held up because they couldn't figure out who I was. Ever.

You must be white.

Re:Airport check ins???

[maxume]

I thought airport checkins were an appearance of security measure.

Zit!

[Tablizer]

So if you get the Mother of All Zits on travel day, you walk/swim to Hawaii.

Re:Zit!

[radiotyler]

No, that's where the Department of Homland Security Body Cavity Search (TM) comes into play.

Great-Lights out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait?

Re:Great-Lights out.

[Tablizer]

If this was 1999, I would start up wepunchyou.com and make zillions!

Oh shit...

[radiotyler]

Exactly what this world needs, a 3-d replica of my face.

So much for us fuglies living in relative anonymity.

Re:Oh shit...

[irimi_00]

There's always plastic surgury.

Re:Oh shit...

[Anonymous Writer]

Or a paper bag.

Re:Oh shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a plastic bag.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Hate me because I'm fucking your sister.

'parameterisation'?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article . . . " Biometric features are extracted by a 'parameterisation' process, giving a digital mapping of a face that would form part of a fool-proof security system."

Re:'parameterisation'?

[poopdeville]

Yes, that is one of many alternate spellings for "parametrization".

Modifiable

[TheStonepedo]

This is a very modifiable "biometric." I lost a little piece of my nose in a nasty bicycle accident. Some people get facelifts, nosejobs, and botox injections. Many men have differing amounts of facial hair on a day-to-day basis. People who fly infrequently could gain or lose a good deal of weight between flights and have different facial dimensions.
The error tolerances that would have to be built into an automated face scanner would have to be large. I would rather have a human check my ID in a few milliseconds more than have an inaccurate system for verification. Show me a 40 millisecond thumbprint scanner with an international database and we'll talk.

Re:Modifiable

[radiotyler]

Speaking of that, I'd love to see some folks in the special effects industry play around with these biometrics systems to see how easy it is to spoof someones face, or invalidate their entry in the database with make-up or whatever magic they use these days. Why are there never any MythBusters around when I need them?

Re:Modifiable

[Firehed]

Why fingerprinting? You can burn off your prints and there are ways to spoof them. Let's go with iris recognition. It worked in Minority Report, and it should be fairly effective for the time being as you can't get an eye transplant for a couple grand yet.

Re: Modifiable

[thedletterman]

It's never been easier to drain out Bill Gate's bank account. I never imagined my halloween mask collection could make me a billionaire.

Re:Modifiable

[Moofie]

You made that acronym up yourself, didn't you?

Content Restriction Annullment would be a good thing. Protection of good things is often interpreted to be good. Your sig is not much with the sense-making.

Camera

[HermanAB]

Sounds like Kodak moment to me... :)

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...welcome our face scanning overlords.

at best, incremental

[penguin-collective]

3D-based face recognition has been tried before, and you can buy 3D scanners that use projected light patterns commercially. So, there isn't really anything particularly new about this.

Trialled

[Anonymous Coward]

If this wasn't Rolland, I would RTFA.

Don't worry, you ain't missing much. From the article: Similar systems that have been trialled have proved unworkable because of the time it takes to construct a picture and an inaccurate result. (emphasis mine). Trialled? Remind me not to send my kids to that university.

Re:Trialled

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the brain speed test... whose installer claims that it is required to play "spacific" sounds...

Great!

[PrivateDonut]

Now having my passport stolen will be the least of my worries...

Re:Great!

[JediTrainer]

Now having my passport stolen will be the least of my worries...

...you worried about having your face stolen?

Wow.

[Catbeller]

We can't build a working, reliable transport to earth orbit in 60+ years, but we can build superscience security in less than five years. Guess we really want to lock ourselves into prison. Not enough spirit or imagination to create a way out of the jail we were born into.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking the exact same thing. We're regressing rapidly in terms of space aspirations, and more and more we cluster ourselves in cantons with our big guns pointed at the neighbour next door. Also only a few nowadays set their sights above the ground. It's quite a bad time for dreamers yet can't be any better for nefarious security bulldogs.

Goodnight, privacy.

[TheNoxx]

You know, the similarities between the growth of technology and the "fictional" world in the book "The Traveler" are getting a little too eerie for me.

I wonder how long until people start using diluted steroids and such to temporarily alter their face's shape (as mentioned in the book, of course) to get around the rapidly advancing face recognition technology, for good or evil motives?

Re:Goodnight, privacy.

[Incadenza]

It is a good thing I took my kids to this theatre installation today:

De Hoofdenfabriek (The Head Factory ) Anneke de Lind van Wijngaarden / Aart Jan van der Linden / Dr. Hackmesch

Perhaps you've also grown a bit tired of your own head and are ready for a new model? Then simply go quickly to the Head Factory and have your head remodelled! Just figure out who you would rather be, and tell it to the doctor! The world-famous specialist Dr. Hackmesch has come over from Germany especially for the Tweetakt festival to carry out these very specialized operations. Dr. Hackmesch: "From now on, you can finally become whoever you wish. Just wave your old head goodbye while you still can.

Most of the operations are a great success, much to the satisfaction of the clients. Of course, there are always a small percentage of people who are never satisfied anyway, and after all we have to work with an unbelievably small budget. Fantastic, wouldn't you agree?"

Re:Goodnight, privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also sounds too much like 1984 - by George Orwell

Re:Goodnight, privacy.

[boingo82]

You don't even need steroids. Just going to the dentist, getting your tonsils out, would do just fine.

works in the dark

[twitter]

I wonder if an infrared pattern would work. You would not even know you had been scanned.

Re:works in the dark

[Original Replica]

We probably generate too much IR interference from body heat. Ointments like IcyHot also make a big difference to IR cameras. Any projected grid strong enough to punch through that interference would be noticably warm.

Re:works in the dark

[aminorex]

It certainly would, from which one can draw the inevitable conclusion that the only way to escape from Orwellian, Brazillian horror is to annihilate all the humans who don't share your genome with a timed superspreader virus.

Re:works in the dark

[1point618]

Shh!!!

Don't give them any more ideas!

Re:works in the dark

[limegreen]

Yes, it does work. Ask Neurodynamics who've been doing this for 7+ years.

Re:works in the dark

[Anonymous Coward]

No, anyone who's ever done IR photography will tell you otherwise. IR emissions are very low compared to reflection of ambient IR light. Leaves tend to show up brighter than people for example. They aren't hotter, but chlorophyll is actually very reflective of IR.

There is a good reason for not using IR though, in the same way as they shouldn't use UV (although lack of cheap UV cameras would prevent that anyway). They will be shining a bright light pattern on your face, and some of that will go in your eyes. Not a problem for visible light, your irises will contract. IR light won't trigger that reaction, so you'll get the full blast straight to the retina.

another reason not to fly

[aichpvee]

This technology should speed airport check-ins

Just one more reason for me to continue to not fly. When are people going to realise that catalogue and tracking every movement of every person is not only an extreme invasion of privacy but a pathologically insane thing to do?

Pffffttttt.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If faces are made illegal, only criminals will have faces!!!

but it could also be used in banks

[JimBobJoe]

but it could also be used in banks

I believe the biggest problem banks have is ordinary robberies. I can't say I've heard of any situation of someone using someone else's identity to wipe out their bank account.

Even in countries that do not have identification cards (and, after all, the english speaking world fell into this category until only fairly recently) I haven't heard anything to suggest banks are having/have had troubles identifying customer's correctly. (The identification collected when opening an account now is for Patriot Act purposes.) The lowly ATM with 4 digit pin is used successfully without identification (phishing is its main weakness.) Thanks to debit/credit cards, identification is now even less relevant to banking.

Why's this crap always being pushed on banks?

Re:but it could also be used in banks

[jrockway]

> I can't say I've heard of any situation of someone using someone else's identity to wipe out their bank account.

Ever heard of "identity theft"!?

Re:but it could also be used in banks

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm....do you know what "identity theft" is? It refers to a theft of information; not somebody's chin dimple. To my knowledge there are no roving gangs of bank robbing dopplegangers terrorizing the countryside.

Re:but it could also be used in banks

[mpe]

I believe the biggest problem banks have is ordinary robberies. I can't say I've heard of any situation of someone using someone else's identity to wipe out their bank account.

That would be something like "phantom" ATM withdrawls. Which are most likely to be the result of criminals working for the bank...

Re:but it could also be used in banks

[JimBobJoe]

Ever heard of "identity theft"!?

Identity theft usually refers to the procuring of one's credit history identity. That doesn't affect the victim's bank account.

40 miliseconds

[SeaFox]

A pattern of light is projected on your face...
And you are recognised within 40 miliseconds.

So I guess this pattern of light would appear like nothing more then a brief flash to a person.

Really, someone's been watching Minority Report too many times.

Gather data fast, mine it later

[HTH NE1]

what about the time it takes the image to be looked up in the database? i'm sure that would take it more time to verify...

That's less important to them than to record images of everyone who flies. Gather the data first, worry about mining that data to find a patsy^Wsuspect later.

Consider this scanner at the gates of a sporting event. You have all these people de^H^Hcontained for long enough to run them all through as many databases you want. Its doubtful their faces will change greatly during the course of the game, so you locate them again using in-stadium cameras for special attention. Failing that, there are also cameras at the exit gates.

And this could be tied in to traffic cameras too.

And it can be used

[nurb432]

To watch, identify, and track people as they mill around on the side walk minding their own business, commiting no crime. Just cant allow people to live their daily lives anonymously can we.

Re:And it can be used

[thedletterman]

I know this might not be a popular question, but why should someone be able to walk down the street anonymously? all our tax dollars paid for tht street after all... I draw a line for privacy, and it's called society. I don't think there's much of a right to operate within society anonymously. Noone's going through your pockets or pulling your kids out of bed. They just want to know who the guy going into the grocery store. of course technology like this would be a severe deterrant to crime.. but who cares. now, the government not only knows where I live, they know when i'm on my way home! OH NOS!1

Re:And it can be used

[nurb432]

You should be able expect a certain level of anonymity out in public, as a law abiding citizen. Sure you can be seen by others, and observed, but that is far different then being identified, tracked and logged.

Just because your actions are 'innocent' and 'I dont have anything to hide' doesnt give anyone the right to investigate you. Its none of their business.

Oh, and remember i paid my part of that sidewalk too. And we are not talking about a 'dumb' security camera stuck on a wall here.

Re:And it can be used

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also not a popular question, but what right does the government have to use taxes for roads and sidewalks? If it's not one of nor derivative of the powers granted it in the Constitution, the government shouldn't be doing it.

It's just the same w/ social security and most other "protections" and "services" the government provides. People don't want to take care of their affairs, but still want them to be taken care of. So, they arbitrarily assign that job to the government and ram it down everyone elses throats in the name of justice. Well, not particularly arbitrarily, but because lying to yourself is easier if you can make everyone participate.

glasses and/or beards?

[hitmark]

how does the system respond to these?

existing face biometrics systems break down with simple alterations like those iirc...

Re:glasses and/or beards?

[Spy der Mann]

how does the system respond to these?

"Please take your glasses off, sir. Thank you."

Actually, dealing with beards is probably easier than you can imagine. If the person has a fixed beard style it won't change much between scans, plus, the beard doesn't cover ALL your face. Only the surroundings.

Re:glasses and/or beards?

[hitmark]

heh, ok. but isnt there a risk of false positivs or false negatives given that you get less "accurate" data?

if one wear a full beard, everything from the cheekbones down is coverd. to me that sounds like very little data to provide a accurate biometric profile from...

still, this will mostly be used to look for islamist terrorists right? so who cares as they are the only ones wearing full beards these days...

basicly there is to much fluff and to little substance in all this...

Are the shapes of our faces truly individual?

[Slight3r]

I know that things like the patterns in our eyes, fingerprints, and the blood vessels in our faces are never supposed to repeat in somebody else, but what about the shape of a face? If they build in the tolerance for weight gain/loss, facial hair, etc. could somebody else have a face similar enough to get through? What about identical twins?

:Re:at best, incremental

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw this in the 60's. Project a grid on an object to get rough 3d information. If I had the mod points I had 2 days ago, they would be yours.

Wait a second!!

[Symp0sium]

My twin brother is going to empty my bank account now! thanks Sheffield Hallam.

Re:Wait a second!!

[Tablizer]

My twin brother is going to empty my bank account now! thanks Sheffield Hallam.

Get even, steal his girlfriend. She'll never know the difference.

Re:Wait a second!!

[sconeu]

Sure she will. Symp0sium is a geek, he won't know what to do.

(no offense intended Symp0sium)

Foolproof Security?

[NorbrookC]

FTA: giving a digital mapping of a face that would form part of a fool-proof security system.

I have yet to hear of a "fool-proof" security system of any sort. I've heard many security schemes touted over the years as being "unbreakable" or "fool-proof", and yet somehow someone manages to break them or fool them. This is what happens when PR hype takes over instead of substantive information.

This is an interesting technology that may have applications down the line, but it's still new, hasn't been given a wide range of testing, and appears to be something that can be spoofed by facial changes. The PR hack at the university needs to switch to decaf.

Re:Foolproof Security?

[Dante Shamest]

Girls' pants are pretty fullproof to most people here.

Re:Foolproof Security?

[noidentity]

"FTA: giving a digital mapping of a face that would form part of a fool-proof security system."

I have yet to hear of a "fool-proof" security system of any sort.

Note the all-important conditional in the quote. For example, "this piece of wire will be part of my fool-proof security system!"

Re:Foolproof Security?

[bobbuck]

You don't understand. Foolproof security means protection AGAINST fools, not protection FOR fools. Genius proof security is way expensive and most criminals are dumb anyway.

Biometrics still a dream.

[Marthirial]

The reason why 3D biometrics is still a dream, regardless of how fast it produces "readings" is because unlike our brain, it cannot pull data from imaginative association to fill up the current pattern. In other words, our imaginative brain - driven by images - can associate a face by comparing it to a memorized set of parameter, such parameters are so flexible, that we can correct any imperfection in the current pattern, for example, remove the beard or change the hair's color. Also, there is a spiritual (in lack of a better word) component that cannot be reproduced by a computer. That is, seeing what hasn't been seen before, a principle that explains archetypes, this, in psychology, is a common way to explain unconscious associations.

Foiling face recognition software....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Plastic surgery in Central America. It's cheap there especially Costa Rica.

The sacrifice is too high

[smchris]

Biometrics used to mean a robber would want my finger for the ATM. Now they want my head?

Re:The sacrifice is too high

[PatTheGreat]

It wouldn't work so hot. The loss of blood from your head would undoubtedly change the shape of your face significantly. Then again, if they throw in tolerances for weight gain/loss, then yeah, you may want to be worried about your neck.

black faces?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this works for black faces. I don't mean Michael Jackson black, no. I've seen people who have *really* black faces, such that it's really difficult (for me, at least) to see significant facial features.

I mean, the face does actually have to reflect light, right? Maybe the camera part of this system is super sensitive.

We could use this in games!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be cool if you could submit your face to some mmorpg and walk about as yourself? Of course, it'll be funner to have the ability to tweak the face so that it only sort-of looks like you. And in games where you could be a non-human character, it'll be interesting if the game could apply some morphing algorithm so you looked like some non-human creature that kind of resembles you.

Security?

[bmecoli]

Screw security, I'm going to hook this device up and make a model of my face so that I can play as myself in *insert modern FPS here*

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect Dark for N64 was supposed to allow you to put faces on the characters in multiplayer using the gameboy camera. Cancelled due to (a) not being able to get it to work (face saving excuse, obviously) and (b) the legal shitstorm and bad pr for Rare and Nintendo that letting kids shoot their friends ingame.

Obligatory

[Shadyman]

I, for one, welcome our new biometric overlords.

The sacrifice is too low.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Biometrics used to mean a robber would want my finger for the ATM. Now they want my head?"

Why not? You're not using it.

Imaging != Identification

[nick_davison]

An accurate 3D model of a human face can be constructed in 40ms?

Excuse my whilst I almost jump up and down with glee. I mean it's not as if a typical high res photograph can be taken in 1/300th of a second (given decent light) and a bunch of them can't be taken simultaneously with a bank of cameras - leaving almost all of the remainder of 1/25th of a second to quickly calculate a 3D model using the same digital photogrametry that's been around for years on a powerful enough system.

To put it in context, there have been camera systems that can film an actor "in 3D" - and then use that co-ordinate data to manipulate a 3D character - for TV use for the last half decade or so. By definition, at 25 frames per second, it too builds a 3D model within 1/25 of a second (40ms). The only difference is higher accuracy.

So, OK, they've come up with a new technique for projecting a dot pattern that makes it even easier to record a set of points than the old annoying stick on black dots method. Even so, quickly capturing a 3D image isn't radically new - a bank of cameras can capture it in far less time than 40ms and you can do the processing in a staggering 2-3 whole seconds as the person steps away before the next person steps up.

The slow bit has always been comparing a complex 3D model against a huge database and identifying matches when people move their facial muscles between each image.

Of note is the simple fact: This talks about how "fast" 3D imaging is now available (although it has been by years but we'll ignore that) which is a totally different concept to actually comparing that information against several million, if not hundreds of millions, of other entries.

OK, so fair enough, the article talks about comparing someone to a specific record to see if they're who they claim to be. Again, nothing that couldn't already be done with a bank of decent CMOS based cameras. They imply that this is "more" accurate (which I still dispute is any more accurate than a bank of 10MP CMOS cameras and traditional photogrametry) but make absolutely no reference to cracking the real problem of people's 3D facial structure changing as their muscles move, as they gain weight, etc.

So - they have a quick method of creating a 3D snapshot, which could be done already, and haven't solved any of the real problems that make a simple 3D snapshot useless (comparing against large numbers of possibilities, parameterizing 3D points that move as faces do). So absolutely nothing then? Sweet.

I wonder if I could come up with a new, different, but absolutely no better technology for something people also still can't do very well. If so, I wonder how much a breathy press release and vapid article would net me in grants for my research?

Re:Imaging != Identification

[PitaBred]

A bank of cameras is more expensive than a single, 2D camera and a fast processor. This is an application-type advance, not just an ability-type advance. This means that it'll be easy to do outside of a research situation. Your "solutions" that you present are all expensive, cumbersome and error-prone. This has many fewer drawbacks, so it's more likely to be rolled out.
But then again, you know better than anoyone else. Of course. You post to /., how could you not?

3D Faces - The Movie

[0x15]

If this interests you, MERI has additional information in the form of a movie about it.

Even worse...

[John Harrison]

The article implies that you have to be enrolled using this system in order to it to be used to verify your identity. So it isn't any use in finding those that there is a high resolution photograph of without the 2d pattern projected on them to generate the 3d surface. This is only useful for proving that someone is carrying their own valid document, not for picking known criminals out of crowds.

Re:Even worse...

[mpe]

So it isn't any use in finding those that there is a high resolution photograph of without the 2d pattern projected on them to generate the 3d surface. This is only useful for proving that someone is carrying their own valid document, not for picking known criminals out of crowds.

Even if the "known criminals" have been previously arrested and had the procedure carried out (along with "mug shots", finger prints, DNA samples, etc) the article says nothing about the effectivness against people intentionally changing their appearance. There is also the problem that even if the person's face matches with their documents that does not in itself prove the documents are genuine.

Re:Even worse...

[John Harrison]

A digital signature across the files on the document would be what indicates the docs are valid. It is all there in the ICAO specs.

Can I defeat it with gelatine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

You will have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide!
Now if they can do that with a face maybe they can use the same technology on other parts of the body... How about that smoking bikini shot of Jessica Alba in the movie "Into the Blue". *Rrrrrowwwr*

Tinfoil

[Zibara]

I have come up with the perfect way to thwart this privacy-invading scheme! Cover my face in tin foil!

Applied to Bank Security When?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see access-restriction applications for this technology. But the more I learn about the security precautions banks currently employ on their consumer accounts, the more laughable I find references to the banking industry where these sort of gee-whiz technological innovations are being discussed.

I just got off the phone with two major banks today inquiring about security on their accounts. This after Washington Mutual wrote me to say that my grandmother compromised her account and authorized a bogus transaction by saying yes to confirm the name of the city where the account is held. No, really -- they put this in writing:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/2006/03/wamu s-response-to-my-letter.html

So long as UCC 3104 serves as the code governing check transactions, checking accounts are less secure than an unpatched Windows machine. True, I'm sore because someone dear to me got burned. But with the increase in electronic transfers of fund, I get the impression that fraud of this sort is rapidly growing.

You wanna something foolproof ?

[aepervius]

Here is it :
Combine together two of those :
* iris recon
* 3d face recon
* fingerprint
with one of those :
* a pin code
and one of those :
* a secure card with a chip and a recent encryption technology

As it is always said here on /., something you are, something you have, something you know.

Re:You wanna something foolproof ?

[StikyPad]

Step 1) Threaten to remove head, to obtain pin code and secure card with a chip and a recent encryption technology.
Step 2) Remove head to use with iris recon and 3d face recon.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!!!

Street Tracking

[Dr_Barnowl]

It's not about airport checkins. That's just the palatable "face" (hur hur) of the technology.

The real use of this is to identify you in locations where you are not presenting your ID ; in the street, in shops, on public transport.

We already have a reliable biometric system for passports and other photo-ID. It's called a "photograph". Making a machine do the work only makes sense if you want to do a lot more of it.

Facial recognition

[JD of the DB]

Facial recognition tech is far more sophisticated than merely matching photos. I participated in a demonstration several years ago where the system had very low error rates (both Type I and Type II), despite the test subjects changing hair color, skin tones, changing facial hair, stuffing cotton in the cheeks, donning and doffing hats, glasses, etc.

Re:Facial recognition

[nebopolis]

While simple disguises might not fool the facial recognition software, a silicone mask could probably even fool a human at first. picture I'd suggest investing in one high quality mask for the near future.

Deceptive News Article

[NewsSmellsFishey]

Hello, first post and all. Saw this news article and it made me laugh. 40ms for taking the picture, maybe, but that doesn't include all the other time involved. I'm a student at Sheffield Hallam and I've been taught by the lecturers involved. What's more I've had my face scanned in. I can tell you that 40ms is very, very deceptive. So maybe it does take 40ms to take the photograph but it isn't a stunningly high resolution photo and even then it is only a photo. The system works by taking a normal photograph and scanning your face separately. The two are put together later in post-processing and from my experience it takes several days of fiddling with parameters, avoiding marking assignments and not paying attention to students. I wanted the data for my face from when it had been scanned. It took me nearly a week of nagging to get the lecturers involved to sort it out and in the end I had to get it off their computers myself (an old mac). 40ms doesn't really include the time it takes for you to cut through the bureaucracy of Sheffield Hallam

NOT a breakthrough

[mattr]

I don't know about these guys' system but it isn't a breakthrough. Unless you count total loss of public anonymity a breakthrough. Anyway I've seen videos from a structured light scientist, and this is published at least in ACM Siggraph, of what I believe is 60Hz 3D reconstructions using a video camera. Yes that is 16.6 ms per frame. Or if you want 2 frames you are still below 40 ms. Looking for the guy's name again but google for "structured light video camera 3d reconstruction 60Hz" and you get a bunch of papers some from Stanford. The video I saw showed reconstruction of sculpture being turned by hand in front of a video camera, also the google links show crime scene registry, etc.

Game developers, take note!

[metalmario]

I've been playing TES4: Oblivion for a couple of days now, and I have to admit that the use of HDR is cool, and while some graphics are better than in Morrowind, some are not. You could get around 10x better faces in Morrowind by installing a fan made mod to the game, and the faces in Oblivion are just horrible; The vector models are stretched and the textures are blurry and plain ugly.

License this technology to game developers, please, so no more ugly textures and deformed models (unless your real life models are ugly). ;)

videos

[pg133]

There are some interesting video on their website 3D Imaging: Fast 3D Scan Technologies

Lower resolution WMV movie for Windows users: (320 x 240, WMV file) , 4.7 MB

Lower resolution QuickTime movie for Mac OSX users: (320 x 240, MOV file) , 3.8 MB

Patented!!! and eyeQ by mobileye

[Frans Faase]

First of all this seems not very novel to me. They already aquired a patent for this technology int he U.K. in 2004. I am far more impressed by the abilities of the eyeQ system by Mobileye, a intergrated camera with processor being able to perform complex image processing. It would not surprise me, if the eyeQ could do this job as well. The image processor is RISC based, and although it only runs as 120 Mhrz its computing power is theoretical equivalent of an Intel Pentium IV processor, running at 4Ghz clock rate. Its architecture somehow resembles that of the Cell processor.

ya gotta love the 'foolproof' characterization!

[tkjtkj]

laughing and laughing ...whoa!!! fOOLPROOF!! ... hahahaha ... ya mean like ..well...like *what*? exactly???? Oh .. like 'foolproof software install technology'??? like 'foolproof retinal scanning'???? like 'foolproof distribution of digital movies'?????? like .... like .... oh gosh .. wait! anOTHER knee-slapper!!! i get it !!! FINALLY i get it ... its a ...a.... its a JOKE, right???? hahahahaha ..and its not even April yet!!! yeah, ya goT me !

Whew!

[sgt scrub]

I was worried that it was something for public consumption. I don't think I could take another blitz of tubgirl and goatse pics. This time in 3d? Can you say tunnel vision?

Technically impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen this done with a 2cm grid. No matter where the light is projected from, the error of parralax is too large. That is to say, a single pixel has a depth RANGE to about 2 cm. Big nose? I'll say.

Now, if the grid was 1/2 a cm, it STILL give a very approximate face - because the grid connection points (like the game "go", where the lines intersect) are stil 5mm.

And then, keeping track of all those points, the algorithm (which is the development, I'm sure) has to handle lost points, and the complex 3d math would take... say... 40ms. So, it can GENERATE a low resolution 3d face in 40ms....

I gotta get a /. account. Some of these "new technologies" are old hat (with a new coat of paint. who paints hats?)

nK

Two factors

[Anonymous Coward]

First, one person can have multiple warrants for their arrest. Each State maintains their own, so one person could have fifty. Probably the District of Columbia, American Samoa and Puerto Rico have their own too.

The warrant on someone arrest doesn't necessarily expire when they do, either. Not all warrants are for real people. Some people go around under aliases and collect multiple warrants in a single state.

Therefore, you could easily reach two hundred million warrants with just forty million criminals. I think we've had forty million criminals in the US over the past twenty years, don't you?

There are international warrants to be considered. Will the system match them? If they want to look out for "terrorists", it should. Warrants worldwide *certainly* total hundreds of millions. I doubt we'll be matching our database with China's, but India would be important.

open source face recognition

[schweini]

speaking of face recognition:

anyone know of an open-source face-rec package that is easyly integrated into other projects?
i was thinking about a program that takes images on STDIN (jpeg, mjpeg, whatever), and simply outputs matches (and the certainty of a match) on STDOUT. that would be trivial to incorportate into nearly any project.

3D Face Image in 40ms...

[hIr8eR]

On any given evening after 20:00 I don't believe my brain can process a 3D facial image that fast...

No Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think about the difference between calculating [and applying] an accurate affine transform to 30fps video, regestering each frame (e.g. covariance minimization), &c. vs. tilting your head, a bit.

Working with Computer Vision Systems is a bit more involved than working with your naturally evolved biological vision system. OTOH, it doesn't really take millions of years to hack out some hardware/code to do the job. People have only been working on this problem [Computer Vision] for 20 years, and we've gotten some pretty nifty stuff developed, in that time.

80,000 superbowl fans in an hour

[MMHere]

It will take nearly an hour (over 53 minutes) to process the individual faces of people packed into an 80,000 seat stadium to watch something like the superbowl.

This is assuming you can even isolate each face from all the others (and that the camera doesn't linger on Janet Jackson's torso during the half-time show...)