Slashdot Mirror


Analyzing (All of) Star Trek With Face Recognition

An anonymous reader writes "Accurate face recognition is coming. Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition, a face recognition start-up spun out from Carnegie Mellon University, has posted a tech demo showing an analysis of the entire original Star Trek series using face recognition. The online visualization includes various annotated clips of the series with clickable thumbnails of each character's appearance. They also have a separate page showing the full data of all the prominent characters in every episode including extracting thumbnails of each appearance." Their software can recognize frontal or near-frontal face instances.

30 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. anyone by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Funny

    know the name of that red shirted guy?

    1. Re:anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      know the name of that red shirted guy?

      They had names?

    2. Re:anyone by LargeMythicalReptile · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean Ensign Ricky?

    3. Re:anyone by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is either Ensign Expendable or Lieutenant Cannonfodder. But I'm not quite sure.

    4. Re:anyone by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not even supposed to be here. I'm just "Crewman Number Six." I'm expendable. I'm the guy in the episode who dies to prove how serious the situation is. I've gotta get outta here.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    5. Re:anyone by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ensign Expendable or Lieutenant Cannonfodder

      Just taking a wild guess here, but I'm sure the NCOs outdied the officers by an absurdly high ratio. Remember kids, shit rolls downhill.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:anyone by stonedcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're all dead dave, everybody is dead dave.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    7. Re:anyone by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crewman Expendable. The officers very, very rarely died. And when they did they came back to life later.

  2. It's not so bad... by raehl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless you're looking pretty much straight-on towards the camera, this software doesn't appear to work. It does appear to be able to track a face over multiple frames if it can recognize it in one frame, but if you have 30 seconds where no suitable frame occurs, the software doesn't know who it is, even if it's pretty blatantly obvious to a human who it is.

    1. Re:It's not so bad... by bughunter · · Score: 5, Funny

      I imagine this scene would cause a few problems for the software, too.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    2. Re:It's not so bad... by Timmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. There are lots of very easy-looking (to humans) scenes in the episode I watched where it detected a face (a fairly solved computer vision problem) but couldn't detect who it was.

      This data set is also possibly the easiest one they could have chosen. All the shots are very simple - the camera never moves. There are a limited number of characters and most of their faces are pretty distinct (e.g. one black woman, one with crazy eyebrows, etc.)

      Still, it's quite impressive that it works as well as it did.

  3. Unfair to Klingons! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny

    We forehead-challenged beings demand you stop your software discrimination!

  4. Re:YRO? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably because most of the world's CCTV cameras are feeding us rather than old Star Trek episodes back to Orwell HQ...

  5. I thought of something similar by whois · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About a year or two ago

    What I wanted was for face recognition software to become more general so you could search for movies using vague memories from your childhood:

    "Girl on boat", "Wheat field", "Yellow flag"

    With an advanced enough search engine, you could tag everything automatically.

    I didn't think of privacy concerns though, I guess thats a good point.

  6. Re:ok ... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are you serious? Not only is it a fantastic demonstration of face recognition technology under real world conditions, but it's also incredibly useful.. if you have a little vision. How many times have you been watching a tv show and said "wow, where have I seen that guy before?" To find out these days I typically do:

    1. Take note of the show I'm watching and the episode name (if given).
    2. Go to imdb and hope they have specific info on that specific episode.
    3. Try to guess what the character's name was, and take note of the actor's name.
    4. Click through to the actor's filmography.

    And, most typically, one of those steps fails. Now imagine if your tivo or other media playing device had face recognition technology like this. You'd just press one button and it would put boxes around all the faces on-screen, you'd select the face you're interested in and it would immediately tell you the name of the actor, the name of the character that actor is playing in this episode, how many other episodes of this series that he's in, and the actor's entire filmography. That's a real product that I'd actually buy!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  7. Re:ok ... by LordKaT · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jesus, that's a lot of work to go through to figure out that Bruce Campbell has been in a shitload of B-movies.

  8. Re:Fair use? by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am a female lawyer you insensitive clod!

  9. Doesn't work well by genner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you let it play a few minutes you'll see it indenify Spock and then in the next scene he comes up as unknown even though he's facing the camera. The system seems to fail when he arches his eyebrows.

    1. Re:Doesn't work well by Burdell · · Score: 5, Funny

      The system seems to fail when he arches his eyebrows.

      Fascinating!

    2. Re:Doesn't work well by karnal · · Score: 4, Funny

      defiantly quite impressive.

      I had to read that twice to fully understand that you may have meant "definitely." Or perhaps, you do think it's defiantly quite impressive. God, that's even hard to type.

      --
      Karnal
  10. Per-episode graph by Geam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am not sure how much I really trust that per-episode chart once I started looking at one of the sample episodes. At some points the face recognition will not pick up on main characters for apparently no reason. For example, in episode 53 at about 1:30 in the sample there is dialog between Spock, Kirk, and someone else. The camera angles are steady and consistent (other than people turning their head while talking) and sometimes the system does not recognize one of the characters after it did just a few seconds earlier. On the right side it shows the name of the character or "Other" if it recognizes a face, but not compared to something it knows about.

    Overall, this is simply amazing!

    --
    "Mostly harmless."
  11. Lotsa problems by bgspence · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Checkout http://facemining.pittpatt.com/S3E75/, Scotty shows up under Kirk twice, and thats with just one try.

    Or, http://facemining.pittpatt.com/S1E12/ actor 0117 has an odd match on my second peek.

    They might want to try shirt matching.

  12. Re:Seven of Nine! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Informative

    (3) probably most important: out of copyright.

    Really?

  13. What it doesn't do by actionbastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is recognize the faces of actors in makeup that may change their facial features. It doesn't recognize Vina when she appears in the 'non-illusion' state, although to real people she is still easily recognizable as Vina. So they have a 'ways to go' with their capabilities.

    --
    Sig this!
  14. Cylons or Dollhouse by scrib · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which is scarier?
    Approaching Cylons or your consciousness on a WD Green drive?

    --
    Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
  15. Ideal Tool for Locating Missing Children by reporter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Combining this face-recognition software with age-advancement software should produce the ideal software for locating missing children.

    Most of us have seen the pictures of children who have gone missing. These pictures appear at Walmart, in the 1040 publication from the IRS, etc. Many such pictures contain the faces that have been advanced in age by computer software.

    However, the reach of such pictures is limited. Few people pay attention to such pictures. Of the people who care enough to notice, they are not constantly looking for the missing children in order to report them to the police.

    How can this new face-recognition software help? Most restaurants (like McDonalds), most movie theatres, and the like already have cameras that film everyone entering and leaving the premises. The government should feed these image streams into a cluster of supercomputers owned by the FBI and running this new face-recognition software. It will then match faces (in the crowds) against the age-advanced images of the missing children. Such a supercomputers could run 24 hours for 7 days per week and scan images that are fed from millions of locations across the USA.

    In such a scenario, the chances of finding the missing children would be greatly improved.

    1. Re:Ideal Tool for Locating Missing Children by Trahloc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem with that is ... I don't trust the humans running the system to use it for that singular purpose. If such a system were impossible to corrupt then it's be great, but at this point in time and any I can reasonably foresee for humanity it would be abused without pause.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
  16. Re:YRO? by William+Baric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could you post the journal of all the things you did in public places today? I'm interest to know. Begin by telling me all the address of all the houses and buildings you entered. I mean... you can't expect privacy as soon as you leave your door, right? So I'm sure you won't mind if I know, right?

    BTW, Slashdot is certainly a public place and so hiding behind a nickname should not be expected. Could you give us your real name please?

  17. Re:AI... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OCR is easy, obviously, with all the CAPTCHA news going around.

    Bullshit.

    OCRs typically boast 99% accuracy -- which sounds good until you realize that this means an error in every line or two of text.

    CAPTCHAs only need to be able to solve correctly a small percentage of the time to be effective -- even smaller, given humans can screw them up, too, and that problem is getting worse. So for example, Gmail couldn't just blacklist your IP for trying to register gmail accounts, without seeing quite a lot of abuse -- and botnets make IPs almost irrelevant anyway. But even 10% accuracy, which would result in absolutely unreadable OCR, would still mean that out of every 10 gmail accounts you attempt to sign up for, you get one fully functional account.

    Which is damned good, for a spammer.

    But, it's though that by about 2025 the number of transistors and speed of processors will be such as to rival the brain and after that point all bets are off. It will be an exciting 15 years in AI research.

    I'll place a bet: We don't currently understand the human brain very well. How do you suppose we'll be able to emulate it? And your guess of 15 years seems very optimistic...

    Put another way, if I gave you a brand-new, top-of-the-line computer -- for the sake of argument, let's say it's a fully loaded Mac Pro -- only with the hard drive completely formatted, could you make it do anything useful?

    I'll make it slightly more realistic. I'll give you what Linus Torvalds had: A copy of Minix and a C compiler. And of course, you've got more hardware than he does. Could you just write a modern OS?

    If you assume that the raw power will let us "evolve" an AI, I'm going to suggest that it takes much more hardware to evolve a program into being than it does to run it.

    But, if we imagine a conscious program we can imagine a being who can 'image' every moment of life (or of their brain), save it, and even rewind backwards, or stop and start states, easily. If you're an AI and you see something you don't want to remember, just rewind a bit and it's gone forever :P

    Yes, the last 15 years or more of science fiction -- cyberpunk, in particular -- make clear just how cool it would be for an AI to exist. That doesn't mean we're anywhere close.

    human intelligences uploaded into the machine

    Here's the uncomfortable truth: It may well be that we create AI, but no means to "upload" ourselves. Ever. The best we can do is create AI children.

    And they might not like us very much. See the other side of cyberpunk -- distopian futures with robotic overlords. (Terminator comes to mind.)

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  18. Greasepaint is a cloaking device by carlzum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you don't want to be recognized by facial recognition software, wear black and white greasepaint. In Episode 70 the actors playing Lokai and Bele are misidentified in a few scenes. The images are categorized by the black and white makeup rather than the actor. I'm not sure why Bele's face paint is reversed in some of the images. Did he look in a mirror or something, or did the video capture reverse it?