Some Eye-Popping Research From Siggraph

jamie found links to a discriminating selection of Siggraph papers at waxy.org. Among the more captivating: automatically improving the attractiveness of faces in portraits; automatic substitution of similar faces into photographs (with potential applications such as a privacy-enhanced Google Street View); and using still photographs to enhance video of a static scene.

Comments

So in summary

[mrbah]

Just add symmetry and make thinner.

Re:So in summary

[mobby_6kl]

I can see this tool becoming very popular with the Myspace crowd once they realize the limitations of the current "hold camera above head level" method.

Re:So in summary

[grantek]

Also notice the eyes dropped in most of the touched-up photos, and were rotated to sit horizontally - interesting to look at, I'd like to see what 'designer' plastic surgeons would have to say about that

dating sites will love this

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how soon they will be offering the "attractiveness improvement" service to the photos of their subscribers. I don't think they have enough CPU power to improve mine, though.

Wow. No, really, wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never trust an image or video ever again. Never. Ever. Make sure you watch the "enhance video of a static scene" clip.

Lists of Siggraph (and other) papers

[Animaether]

I'd call this karmawhoring, but seeing as the editors didn't even bother linking to claimed list at 'waxy.org'... lists of Siggraph papers have been kept by Tim Rowley and Ke-Sen Huang for years. You can find this year's list at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html

And an overview of all years at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/

This also includes lists of papers presented at other events such as Eurographics.

For even more fun, visit the papers' authors sites; they often also publish papers at seemingly unrelated events that contain some interesting computer graphics gems.

Re:real footage?

[pembo13]

I get the feeling from you that you trust it now. I find this confusing myself. Considering that an apparently large portion of Slashdotters very much consider themselves rationalist who do not believe things without proper evidence, it seems weird to me that many simply believe what they see in the news. These past week (maybe 2) there were at least two cases circulating around the internet where it had been observed that CNN has used footage from one event, trying to pass it off as that of another event. And that's pretty low tech.

News reports should be only be as trusted as logic can be applied to the report.

Take for instance the recent story of a Russian sipper shooting at a reporter. A few questions came to my mind:

• What kind of sniper takes such a shot and misses?
• What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?
• How does one tell the affiliation of a sniper? Do they sign their bullets or something?

News stories should be treated as untested pieces of evidence -- in most cases at least. The advancement of technology will only make it more difficult to tell truth from fiction.

Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby.

[mrbah]

Microsoft spends billions of dollars researching things like that, but never brings any of them to market. Look at the "Image Deblurring with Blurred/Noisy Image Pairs" paper -- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized. Contrary to popular opinion Microsoft does innovate, it's just that all the good stuff gets killed by some committee full of assistant senior project project team manager manager mangers.

Re:I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I tried it, and I got floating point error.
:O