Slashdot Mirror


Photoshop CS5's Showpiece — Content-Aware Fill

Barence writes "If you're looking for reasons to upgrade to Photoshop CS5 when it arrives, a new demo video might just persuade you. Narrated by Bryan O'Neil-Hughes, a product manager on the Photoshop team, the video shows the new content-aware fill tool, which has the potential to revolutionise the way you clean up photos. If you're not happy with an item in your picture, select it, delete it, and Photoshop will analyse the surrounding area and plug the gap as if it never existed."

59 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Damn..... by ogdenk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stalin would have just loved that content-aware fill tool.....

    1. Re:Damn..... by carcosa30 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So would Hitler, especially the part where the guy "removed a couple of Poles."

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  2. Re:STOP! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  3. Early preorders are already in from by sir_eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

    1. Re:Early preorders are already in from by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Video is just a series of still pictures, that need to be interrelated. I'm certain that this could be applied to video, with enough processing power. If they can look at pixels that are neighboring in one frame, they can do it for pixels that are neighboring in time, too.

    2. Re:Early preorders are already in from by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm reminded of the episode of Oz where somebody tries to tell a White Supremacist that Jesus wasn't white. He pulls out his bible and points to an illustration...

  4. Re:Altered reality? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, no. Goodbye to all my exes in my vacation photos. Stupid real dolls blocking the scenery.

  5. I'm convinced! by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Photoshop currently sells at a "lightweight" $700. How many photos would I have to edit to make that cost effective? It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.

    1. Re:I'm convinced! by thewils · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.

      It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago.

      There, fixed it for you.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    2. Re:I'm convinced! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago."

      Terrific viral marketing. No one who downloads it would have bought it with own funds, but many will do so with company money. Adobe allowing "controlled leakage" is the best free marketing campaign since Office 97 went from workplace "to the house" and back again.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:I'm convinced! by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Adobe doesn't make their money on hobbyists. They don't even really make their money on small shops. They make their money on mega corporations who buy a dozen licenses because they need to crop photos, and their employees all know how to do that in Photoshop, because they've pirated every version since 5.5.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    4. Re:I'm convinced! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Photoshop currently sells at a "lightweight" $700. How many photos would I have to edit to make that cost effective?

      One. That's why I have a legit copy of Photoshop.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:I'm convinced! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everyone loves throwing that line around, but I've yet to meet a professional designer (freelancer or otherwise) who's paid for Photoshop, let alone "happily."

      Greetings. I'm a 3d artist that does texture and post work, and I have happily paid for Photoshop and upgrades. My colleagues that do freelance have also paid for it 'happily'. You may now tick off that "haven't met any professionals' checkbox. :D

      I suspect the $700 pricetag is Adobe's way of offsetting some of the losses incurred by piracy.

      No. We pay that amount because it is an effective tool that we make money from. My copy of Photoshop paid for itself easily within the first gig I did. You could partially blame its successs on vendor lock-in. Most of my clients give me Photoshop files and expect modified ones back. But it's not like it's aching for features. It's easy enough to get the results of other 2d apps into Photoshop with little to no hassle, but it's not often I find a need for that.

      Try to keep in mind that photo editing isn't the only thing it does. The big money comes from image creation, and that's why there are gobs of people happily paying for it.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:I'm convinced! by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is Gimp always brought up when talking about Photoshop competitors?

      Because it's Open Source.

      I understand the near future will take Gimp out of the domain of "programmers-who-like-to-do-graphics"

      That doesn't really matter to GIMP fans - it being for programmers, and it being Open Source are why they like it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  6. Re:I for one by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Photoshop has had that capability natively (ie, not requiring a plugin) since CS4, this is the ability to select an object in an image - litter on a lawn was the example given in the article - and replace its former location in the image with content derived from the surrounding areas. Basically it's like an intelligent, automated version of the Clone Brush tool on steroids.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  7. Google Street View by ISoldat53 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like something Google Street View could use to remove people from their views and make them more acceptable.

  8. Nice Demo... by ndykman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish there was a paper on the core algorithms behind it (cmon Adobe, SIGGRAPH), but I could see why Adobe may be sitting on every aspect of this tool; because it sure seems to bring some real photoshop wizardry to the common user. It was really an example of "delete this thing" and it just works. Takes a common complex task and massively simplifies it. One of the most impressive marketing demos I've seen in a while.

    Sure, there are some cases in which I doubt it works, but from what I could see, it seemed to have some vision and perceptual rules built in to guide how to fill in the deleted area. And frankly, it's a feature that for professionals, makes the price tag for the upgrade worth it. For some tasks, it'd pay for itself in labor alone. What would take a expert hours to do, this could do in minutes. If I was Adobe, I'd seriously consider taking this and make a Photoshop Elements Extended Edition (or whatever) and add about 79-99 bucks to this price for this feature alone. Arguably, it'd be worth it for many.

    1. Re:Nice Demo... by marcansoft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's the paper, from a comment above.

  9. Enhance by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next up is the "CSI Enhance" tool. Take a photo of 10x10 pixels, and make it a perfect 2MP image.

    1. Re:Enhance by EvanED · · Score: 5, Funny

      They can call it Adobe Homeopathy.

    2. Re:Enhance by Gerafix · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no, that's "take a 1mp super grainy noisy photo from a 7-11 security camera and put on magic filters and super zoom to see a strand of hair from 100 feet away that shows that the attacker owns a golden retriever and thus you should check the registered animal database for a golden retriever that is in a 100 yard radius from the attack location".

    3. Re:Enhance by arhhook · · Score: 5, Funny

      "CSI Enhance" tool

      I can see the fingerprint in the reflection on his eyeball, it must be the killer!

    4. Re:Enhance by Wescotte · · Score: 2, Informative
  10. The most important question by CptPicard · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder what sort of a fig leaf it will use to plug the gap in the goatse photo...

    --
    I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  11. Re:Watch the vid in the article by MXPS · · Score: 4, Funny

    Color, I mean content-aware fill me impressed.

  12. For the doubters... by Op911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't this core technology discussed on Slashdot a number of years back? If you google "Seam Carving" you'll find some nice wikipedia articles that discuss content-aware image resizing. This may be a variant on the same technology, and i actually doubt that this is an early release of an April Fool's Day joke (no matter how Star Trek this technology seems).

  13. Re:I for one by thedigitalbean · · Score: 4, Informative

    Liquid rescale is an implementation of the Seam Carving technology which was incorporated into Photoshop CS4 as a feature titled Content Aware Scale.

    This new feature comes from an algorithm titled PatchMatch which was presented at SIGGRAPH 2009:

    http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.php

  14. Re:I for one by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welcome my "getting modded Insightful for not RTFA and spreading bullshit" overlords at Slashdot.

    Content-aware scaling has been included in Photoshop since CS4.

    But this is no scaling, it's filling. The first 3 minutes of the video are not so interesting (nothing one could not do with a clone stamp in 2 seconds), but the last 2 minutes are breath-taking.

    GREYCstoration or liquidrescale don't even come close.

  15. Re:STOP! by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.

    So is the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser...

  16. Lens Flares by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using Photoshop to remove lens flares? Oh! Brave new world!

    -Peter

    1. Re:Lens Flares by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah. Wow. I never dreamed that anyone would find that obscure. For example.

      -Peter

  17. I'll believe it when by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see a 12 megapixel image in hand of a before and after and not a tiny less than 400 pixel overcompressed youtube video.

    I have seen this automatic stuff before and when you look carefully at it it's not very clean unless you re-sample down to 1/4 the resolution or go small for web use.. it's never clean enough to print out at 11X17 or larger.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I'll believe it when by l0xin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure it might not turn out to be *perfect* on closer inspection, but given that it looks so convincing at a preview size still means orders of magnitude less effort required to get it to that stage.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when by Gaerek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you've ever used photoshop, you would understand what it takes just to get to that part. Ever try removing a tree from an image in PS? Then have the sky look natural? That's almost impossible for the average user, and probably at least an hour (or more) of work from someone who knows what they are doing. Fixing the mistakes at that point is easy. This is could possibly be one of the most revolutionary tools in photoshop since the clone stamp.

  18. Photoshop Story by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I once did a writing contract at Adobe. You know how when you pose for an ID photo, they put you in front of a curtain or something to hide the background? When I got my Adobe badge the security guy just posed me against a regular wall, then Photoshopped the wall out of the picture!

    1. Re:Photoshop Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I once did a writing contract at Adobe. You know how when you pose for an ID photo, they put you in front of a curtain or something to hide the background? When I got my Adobe badge the security guy just posed me against a regular wall, then Photoshopped the wall out of the picture!

      And then when your contract was up, they pulled up the picture again and Photoshopped you out of the picture.

  19. Re:I for one by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not the same. Liquid Rescale moves the pieces by rescaling around them. This actually replaces just the exact area. I think it's quite a bit more useful, but in different ways.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  20. Re:One damn tool - pay for 200 unnecessary ones by ExileOnHoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    noone wants to shell out $60 for 200 functions 20 of which they will use from time to time.

    Personally, I'll shell out. I make a living using photoshop and I support the idea that a bunch of extremely talented software engineers ought to be able to make a living developing it.

  21. Re:Watch the vid in the article by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope not put you out of a job, just lower your wages to $8.95 an hour because monkeys can now do your job.

    Welcome to what us in Photography have had to deal with. I just saw an AD on the TV for a mall photo studio that will give you 20 shots in their studio for $9.95. and 8X10 prints start at $4.95 each. Yes I know it's done by no talent kids or minimum wage people, but the average consumer does not know that. They still think that it's all in the cost of the equipment and has nothing to do with skill and experience.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  22. Great for crime shows! by nilbog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't wait until a crime show gets ahold of this.

    "Delete that wall and see what is behind it. Enhance. Enhance. Enhance."

    --
    or else!
  23. Re:I for one by JobyOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, and cars have already had the native ability to drive, turn and stop for a century. The DARPA Grand Challenge isn't really adding anything new.

    Those robotic cars are basically just intelligent automated versions of cars, on steroids.

    Just because it happens in software does not make it trivial.

    --
    Porquoi?
  24. Another youtube video about content-aware fill by chebucto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Includes more detail about the algo
    - Developed with researches at Princeton
    - Demo'd at SIGGRAPH in Aug. 2009
    - Old spot-healing tool tried to find one match for the hole; new tool copies multiple patches from the surrounding BG to fit into the hole, as well as finding & copying surrounding patterns

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9vbHRcrbdQ&feature=related

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  25. Re:I for one by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, what about Resynthesizer?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  26. Gimp Resynth by pydev · · Score: 2, Informative

    That capability has been available for a while in the Gimp as part of the Resynth plugin:

    http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer

    It lets you resynthesize a texture, fill in a selection with surrounding content, and synthesize images "in the theme" of another image.

  27. Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... by metamatic · · Score: 3, Informative

    A few days ago I was reading about some of the algorithms for doing this, shown at Siggraph in recent years. I think it's real.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  28. Re:Having watched the whole thing to the end... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, clearly the images where Photoshopped. I could tell from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few Photoshops in my time... er, wait a minute...

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  29. The Difference Between an Ad and "Holy Crap!!" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm usually among the first in line to call Slashdot on its thinly-disguised slashvertisements, but this goes beyond product upgrade and into the realm of William Gibson novel.

    I'm kind of staggered just trying to wrap my head around the uses and implications...

    1. Re:The Difference Between an Ad and "Holy Crap!!" by gnud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Implication: To get a job as a graphic designer you'll have to be a designer, not just have a photoshop tutorial under your belt.

  30. Re: Video applications by shidarin'ou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The key thing is getting it not to chatter or flicker, which it probably will- as I doubt it will generate the exact same results frame to frame. Nevertheless- expect it to make matte painting, wire removal, etc a lot easier. I expect they'll use it to generate a quick starting point for clean plates, which will then be given further refinements and then composited in normally.

    After watching the video and seeing obvious problems even at 360p, it seems unlikely it'd hold up at 2k without some love at least.

  31. One word: wow! by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just "wow". Everyone who has spent tedious hours "fixing" some piece of "almost" perfect photography just fell off of their chairs.

    I haven't bothered upgrading anything but InDesign in recent years - the old Photoshop (or even GIMP) was good enough. This is a reason to upgrade!

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  32. You should see After Effects CS5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCr96ldClz4&feature=related

    Same stuff except with real time video. Amazing.

  33. What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a very cool GIMP plugin for some things, but...

    This is my source image:
    http://s3.images.com/huge.28.142421.JPG

    I want to remove the lady on the right, so I select her:
    http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1346/resynthesizerselection.jpg

    And then, per the Resynthesizer page's recommendations, I use "Script-Fu/Enhance/Smart remove selection..."
    http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/228/resynthesizerresultradi.jpg

    Oh dear.

    Anybody with access to the Photoshop beta feature want to give that image a stab? For all I know it fails just as spectacularly - but from the research it's based on, I highly suspect it'll fare better.

  34. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering that the regular image clone tool did that in one click (well, not counting tracing a selection and setting the clone source), I don’t think it’s a very good test image.

    (I used GIMP, not PS, if it makes a difference.)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  35. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by Animaether · · Score: 3, Interesting

    darn blockquote fail :)

    I know I picked it out - what about it?

    I didn't pick it out to specifically make Resynthesizer fail - it's image #2 on images.google.com for 'person in field' (sans quotes).

    For an example that does work with Resynthesizer, try:
    http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/0f/33/e2/so-cool.jpg

    Select the top-left dark thing, run the Resynthesizer script-fu - voila... dark thing removed, and sky filled in pretty well.

    The problem is that this is entirely hit-or-miss.. and it's far more often miss than hit.. and then -when- it is a miss, it's a spectacular miss (as in that person-in-field image).

  36. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by upeters · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is what I got very quickly with Alien Skin's Image Doctor: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1785/edited28142421.jpg

  37. Re:Altered reality? by moonbender · · Score: 2, Funny

    My binary is an ELF! It was different before, but that's a.out.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  38. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by shish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is what I get using the plugin on its own: http://shishnet.org/ufufuf/resynth2.jpg

    Do note that the script-fu wrapper works better for larger images, which this isn't

    Also, the example from the video, done with gimp instead, the results are pretty similar (IMO, better, but I'm pretty sure that the "improvements" are just luck): http://shishnet.org/ufufuf/panorama-synth.png

    Having been using the resynthesizer for years, I've developed a knack for which source images will work well and which won't, and the thing that struck me about that video was that the source images are pretty much ideal conditions -- I'll be impressed when they can get good results on the images that aren't so clean :-)

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  39. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by shish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just tried expanding a panorama as in the demo too, and resynthesizer does that pretty well too (please ignore the fact that the source material is REALLY shittily exposed, it was shot on a mobile phone with no manual exposure mode :( ):

    original
    expanded

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  40. Re:What about Resynthesizer? Well.. example within by shish · · Score: 3, Informative

    obvious question: workflow / parameters?

    Generally I use the foreground select tool* to select the smallest area to cover the object, then grow selection by a few pixels so that none of the object's edges are poking out and confusing it, then filters - map - resynthesize (ie, use the plugin rather than the script), and have the "tilable" options disabled since they tend to grab samples from the opposite edge of the image (if I want a tilable image, I'll use the tiling filter separately...)

    Probably the biggest factor for simple success is to have the object you want to remove be on its own (surrounded on all sides by similar textures) -- if it isn't, then you need to do things the long way -- eg, if you want to remove the leftmost wheelchair from this image, and you want it to be replaced by grass when three of its borders are touching non-grass, then you'll find that it ends up somewhat messy since it attempts to merge four different edge textures. In this case you'll need to copy a section of your desired fill texture (ie, a rectangle of pure grass) into a separate image (specifically, a single layer image with no transparency); then on the original image select the object to remove, open resynthesizer, and select the "fill texture" image as the texture source; this way the generated texture will both match the surroundings of the original as much as possible, while being filled with the "surroundings" that you've specifically chosen. Having taken a sample of "pure grass" and a sample of "pure stone", then removing the top and bottom halves of the wheelchair with each respectively, the results are nicer. (with the exception that the first two images were produced with a mouse and twenty minutes of careful selecting, and the final one was 5 minutes work with a laptop nipple, so there are still some bits of wheelchair poking out of the sides...)

    Incidentally, does photoshop have SIOX yet? Having the features "vaguely scribble in the general area of an object to have the object selected precisely" and "automatically and realistically remove a selection" could potentially combine to form "one-click realistic object removal" \o/

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment