Slashdot Mirror


Erasing Objects From Video In Real Time

Smoothly interpolating away objects in still pictures is impressive enough, but reader geoffbrecker writes with a stunning demonstration from Germany's Technical University of Ilmenau of on-the-fly erasure of selected objects in video. Quoting: "The effect is achieved by an image synthesizer that reduces the image quality, removes the object, and then increases the image quality back up. This all happens within 40 milliseconds, fast enough that the viewer doesn't notice any delay."

39 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Perfect Application by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Perfect Application by leuk_he · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In reality the networks wil use it to blur out any logo's from companys that do not sponsor the show. F1 cars will be red instead of filled with sponsors.

    2. Re:Perfect Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somehow I doubt that would work, unless the racing teams could get money some other way. Who would sponsor a car when your logo won't be visible on it? The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.

    3. Re:Perfect Application by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.

      I'm pretty sure they already do.

    4. Re:Perfect Application by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A simpler version of this has already been used to edit billboards visible in broadcasts of baseball games.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Perfect Application by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.

      First off, I don't think we'll get control over this on our TVs. The networks aren't gonna let us delete their "bugs".

      I'm actually more concerned over something like Running Man where you can't trust the news reports you see because someone selectively tweaked the image to hide/alter the bits they don't want you to see.

      Now, of course, the technology isn't evil ... it will be humans doing that. But, you can imagine government run media stripping out protesters or burning cars to tell everybody that everything is just sunshine and bunnies.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Perfect Application by Agent0013 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could use it instead of the blur they use on people's t-shirts. I would much prefer this than having that stupid blur.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    7. Re:Perfect Application by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or stripping out the thousands of peaceful middle aged protesters and the hundreds of uninvolved pedestrians being tear gassed to show only the one or two violent people who actually have nothing to do with the protest.

      Next up, witnesses will disappear from police video to discredit them in court.

    8. Re:Perfect Application by davester666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That space is from where the Marlboro 'barcode' was, and it was FINALLY pointed out to the FIA that Ferrari was breaking their no-advertising-smoking-brands rule by having it on their cars.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. by suso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pretty good, but take note that all the examples where objects sitting on pretty flat colored backgrounds. I'd like to see what happens when you try to remove an object in a complex environment. Like removing a single person standing in a crowd.

    1. Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. by smallfries · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at the explanation part of the video. The background texture is tiled. You can see some strange deformation in the regular pattern where the object used to be. Also in the drain example there is a strange crater effect as the camera angle changes.

      It seems like smooth colour graduations work well, but patterned backgrounds have more obvious deformations.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. by DrXym · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Pretty good, but take note that all the examples where objects sitting on pretty flat colored backgrounds. I'd like to see what happens when you try to remove an object in a complex environment. Like removing a single person standing in a crowd.

      There were some examples of that in the clip if you watched closely. The removal drain on a pebbly asphalt caused a weird swirly pattern to occur as the camera moved. I expect the same would be true for live attempts at the same. It probably works best on static things on solid backgrounds that nobody is likely to be walking over. I expect it will be used a lot in live broadcasting, especially sports events.

    3. Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All of their samples (except the brick one) use solid/high contrast surfaces that are somewhat evenly lit. Still kind of cool though, but they should have waited until it's more mature to impress us old timer motion graphics guys.

    4. Re:Cool, but probably still has a ways to go. by RandCraw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right. I'm pretty sure the underlying technology is based on Seam Carving , where a continuous background region is collapsed 'seamlessly' (or an object within such a region is removed). This doesn't work so well when the background is discontinuous, so it's not going to remove logos from clothing. It's also not going to work well on live video, since the object to be removed needs to be identified manually before the excision can occur. But it works nicely on prerecorded media. I'm impressed at how well it works on a brick background.

  3. Do we still believe what we see? by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has some frightening ramifications for how much we believe video. Videos similar to the ones Wikileaks leaked, or news videos "live" on scene, could be doctored in near enough to real time that we consumers might never know it. Scary.

    1. Re:Do we still believe what we see? by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 'Live on scene' is pretty rare already. Almost everything is taped and edited. And even now many people believe what they see as they will have only one (if that) source of information. How many people will actually look at what others have to say? http://aljazeera.com/ as an alternative? Nah, because that is propaganda from the enemy. Better just watch Fox News.

      People do not want to be informed. They want to be entertained.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Do we still believe what we see? by Tom · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is only news for real-time feeds. For anything that is not live (and you can verify that it's live! A lot of what you see labeled "live" on TV actually isn't!), assume that the stream has been messed with, already today. Most of the times, it is "artistic" messing - improving picture quality, editing out distracting background content, cleaning up artifacts, etc.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Do we still believe what we see? by ebuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Video can already be manipulated without restoring to high-tech wizardry. There's been plenty of examples of news reporters "on scene" when they're just in front of a blue screen. Cinema (which has much higher resolution, so it is harder to fake) constantly amazes us with simple tricks like flattening the depth of field, rotating the camera to make small inclines look like cliffs, adjusting zoom while moving the camera to distort depth perceptions, etc.

      And we aren't even getting close to the easier techniques of look-alikes, shooting in constructed sets instead of on-site, etc. Basically if you believe this will shake your faith in video, you're faith in video is already built on a foundation as stable as quicksand.

  4. Journalistic Integrity by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great - it'll start off by making eyesore real estate disappear from "live coverage," then be required as a precondition for live celebrity interviews (not just makeup to cover that acne), moving on to inconvenient points to the story that would take too much time and effort to explain, then images which might "disturb the children" (number of student bodies in Tienanmen Square?), and finally develop to ubiquitous studio-in-a-cameras such that we'll have little assurance of whether live coverage is fact or fiction.

    Of course that's just pessimism speaking. Really I'm looking forward to watching live reports without those obnoxious people waving at their mothers, or holding up witty slogans about taxation.

    1. Re:Journalistic Integrity by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's an optimistic thought — it might make people skeptical of the images they see, which is a useful attitude reagrdless of this technology.

    2. Re:Journalistic Integrity by Defenestrar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ed Murrow was a journalist who practiced integrity. There, I did it again. So what was supposed to happen? Perhaps I should be taken in front of a special committee hunting for non-American behavior. Except wait - they disbanded that one after some punk journalist risked his career and took out McCarthy.

      I actually think this is a pretty neat idea. I think the thing which concerns me is that, given the current state of affairs, the public will have even less reason to trust the press. If the public does not believe that the press maintains journalistic integrity we effectively lose the First Amendment check on government that a Free Press provides.

      For example: if I think News Co. X [NCX] is actually an agent of political party A, and News Co. Y [NCY] an agent of political party B, then I likely won't believe something NCX says good about A or bad about B (and visa versa with NCY). With that as a starting point, it won't be very long before I view all News as propaganda, smear, spin, or entertainment. If enough others in the republic come to the same conclusion, then we have lost two things: the ability for news to force our government to be accountable to the public, and the ability to receive accurate information to base our voting decisions upon (so we have to vote by instinct, or emotion, or some other gibberish...). If an alternative to provide both of these does not exist (accessible to the public at large) the republic will fail.

      Don't worry. Until you hear people using phrases like "I prefer to get my news from Comedy News Show Z" you still have time to pack your bags before running into the hills. Besides, it might not be all bad. Res Publica moritura before Pax Romana.

  5. I thought what I'd do is... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

    1. Re:I thought what I'd do is... by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That phrase was familiar to me, but I wasn't sure where I had seen it... now I remember:

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Laughing_Man_(Ghost_in_the_Shell)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:I thought what I'd do is... by EdZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really. There are plenty of webcams that come with free software that can overlay an image (including the requisite spinning-text-around-face logo of the Laughing Man) over a tracked face in real time, but this software instead edits out a tracked area using surrounding data. I wish they gave more explanation, or any explanation at all, rather than the nebulous magical 'increase the image quality back up'.

    3. Re:I thought what I'd do is... by Securityemo · · Score: 3, Informative

      He learnt to edit himself out completely towards the end, though. Leading to a very big-ham moment with Batou exclaiming "He stole my eyes!"

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    4. Re:I thought what I'd do is... by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Informative

      Catcher in the Rye you meant right? That classic book? Bill Gate's favorite as well (just throwing that line out for comedy).

    5. Re:I thought what I'd do is... by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Informative

      He did it before that, though. When he kidnapped Serano from his own home then he was visible to Serano, but not to his guards. As far as the guards were concerned then Serano was just walking out on his own and nothing was unusual. That would probably be more impressive because he did it to lots of people at once, not just a single person who was chasing him as he left a hotel and casually escaped (IIRC).

  6. Jar Jar by veggiespam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, we can restore my childhood memories and eviscerate Jar-Jar from the last batch of Star Wars movies.

  7. Thwartable by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTFA:"It does seem to be thwarted by reflections though; a cell phone removed from a bathroom counter is still visible in the mirror."

    "Zoom in on the reflection...ENHANCE!"

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  8. The Running Man (Film version) by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    comes to life then?

    Its bad enough people believe lines said by comedians are the actual lines of some high profile people, how can we hope that people will care enough to know if the video they are seeing is not edited? Hollywood doesn't need the tech to make movies, maybe to "fix" reality shows, but I figure politics is where the mileage comes in.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  9. Nomenclature by Posting=!Working · · Score: 3, Funny

    We need a name for this process. I suggest "to Jar-Jar." Examples:

    They Jar-Jared the cell phone and stapler off the desk.
    "Jar-jar the 3-D glasses off the chair."
    Al Pacino released the "Actor's cut" of Godfather 3 and Jar-jared himself out of the movie.
    I'd like to Jar-jar my ex-girlfriend from my brain.
    It was a guy! He Jar-jared his webcam!

       

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  10. Suspected limitations by mattaw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Obvious limitations from the demo:

    1) Objects must be sitting on a consistent(ish) surface with a low rate of change compared to the object. Desk, Chair, Bathroom, Wall, Hubcap, etc.

    2) It doesn't handle strong shadows (or they are not showing us it doing so).

    3) It makes the greatest amount of mistakes with the shadows anyway.

    Please add anything I missed to future posts.

    I would like to see it erase a boat from a choppy sea where there are 5-7 waves for the length of the boat as I expect that to be a pathological case. I would also like to see it erase a discolouration rather than a very different object to see its behaviour. Cool technology though!

  11. Re:Video evidence? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you saying the pixels are wrong? Have you seen a lot of shops?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:Confusion Between Reality and Fiction by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given the nonsense in the Bible I'd suggest he manages it without technology.

  13. Cheep and easy counter measures by one+cup+of+coffee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you wish to be seen, but are being spliced out. You could wear several different colored t-shirts over each other or something similar and then take them off to trick the camera at least temporarily. If you want people to see something that is being blocked out, you would have to probably spray them or it with some kind of colorant, or a bright flash of light might also do the trick, maybe some kind of a portable strobe light. This is just off the top of my head.

    Somehow l feel like like I shouldn't be giving away these ideas, maybe my tinfoil hat is just making my head itchy...

  14. You're right by ebuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Racing competitions, NFL, etc. own the copyright to the original footage. They're not going to license broadcast of that footage to any television station which threatens their revenue model, unless the station is going to pay so dearly that their previously existing revenue stream looks paltry in comparison.

    Even if the TV stations were to put more cash on the table, they still might not agree to such a practice as it gives a large degree of control to a single party (which means more finiancial risk if the party becomes unable to maintain the agreement).

  15. This is just step one. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In addition to dealing with reflections, which I consider just a part of polishing step one, step two will use the position of something in the video as an anchor and substitute the image of something else.

    How far off do you think *that* is? I give it two years to the the lab demo with problems.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Prisoner Zero has escaped... by rlseaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Invisibility is an ancient notion and tampering with video as old as the Lumière brothers. What is new here is the trend toward placing these capabilities closer and closer to the camera. Combine such effects with the face detection algorithm that is already in your phone's camera and the original picture can remove or replace individuals from the scene of the crime. "Ground truth" will be ever more difficult to establish.

  17. Works on /. comments, too by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    1.It works with Slashdot comments, too.

    2. For example, in line 3 of this comment, I make an extremely poignant and insightful comment:

    4. And it's as if it was never there! Powerful stuff.

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!