Slashdot Mirror
Panasonic Launches Beautifying Camera
The new Panasonic LUMIX FX77 camera can take the red out of your eyes and add it to your lips and cheeks. Released last Friday, the camera has a "beauty re-touch" feature that can whiten your teeth, change the size of your eyes, and can apply rouge, lipstick, or eye shadow. From the article: "There has been huge customer demand for such a product, said Akiko Enoki, a Panasonic project manager in charge of developing the camera. 'According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph,' she said. 'So we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.'"
I like to remember the world the way I think it was, not the way it really was. I guess this fixes that, but I still don't like pictures :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Does it have a "Take image at amazingly tilted angle" feature?
Maybe it's Photoshop
Wow! A camera with a built in "beer glasses" circuit!
Its the auto-myspace-angle camera?
Coming soon to a camera near you.
---
I think you mean rouge. As in French for red.
Yep, more of her please.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
David Foster Wallace had it right.
Why would you want rogue applied?
Duck face detected. Please retake photo.
Just because you are ugly is no reason to blame the camera for how you look in the picture.
Remember when Finn had a video call in Neuromancer?
... for the camera to give the error message "Cannot take picture, subject exceeds maximum allowed ugliness parameter"?
For people who want roguish good looks?
Wrong solution.
Most people don't like the way that look in pictures because the picture is poorly taken. Taking photographs is more than just pointing a lens at an object. The brain compensates for a number of things that a camera does not-- the 3D nature of the human face, strange lighting (yellow indoors, strange shadows on the face in the dark, sharp light, etc). When you see the image from the camera it is not "the real image" it is a straight impression of a dumb lens that can only capture a small spectrum of the lighting conditions, and makes no compensations. There is a reason that a good photographer costs money. There is also a reason their camera's cost 10x the amount of a point and shoot and have far less built in helpers.
This is a "lipstick on a pig" solution. If they really wanted people to be happier with their pictures, they would build in some basic rules to the camera to warn people when the contrast is low, when the face is being lit poorly. This would likely result in pretty sterile images, but at least your friends wouldn't look like greased up edward james almos look alikes. (Of course, they could suggest the picture takers realize that the camera is not at fault... but I imagine this may be bad for business)
Makes criminals darker
Makes political figures evil looking,
Give women huge racks.
Adds tentacles to any pictures of a Japanese person,
When taking a picture of Soviet Russia, it shows you.
Any picture taken of Natalie Portman shoes her petrified and covered in hot grits.
When taking a picture of a Sony products, it roots itself.
When taking a pictures of Anyone at valve, it shows them wearing a hat.
When taking a picture of Micheal Bay, it shows explosion in the background.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I want a camera that brings out the warts and all in us. If I were marketting it I would call it the "Cromwell Camera"
- Christopher
Why not just make a mirror which is essentially a screen with a camera and have it do it real time so you can truly pretend you're someone you're not.
Ridiculous concept? Well according to data we've acquired, around XX percent of our mirror clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a mirror"
People need to take a long hard look at their self-images (no pun intended) if they even consider buying this camera.
In pictures, the beginning of our century may be looked back on as the time when everyone was happy (smile detection) and people had perfect looks (retouch).
We look at old photos of frozen lakes and giant crowds and consider them accurate. Tho, it turns out people took photos of the lake being frozen or the crowded streets because it was exceptional rather than that being the norm.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust that deceitful make-up.
According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph, so we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.
Take it from a professional photographer, 90% of the time, the angle and lighting are all that matter between a good and a bad photo.
8% is mistakes and blemishes that can be corrected in Photoshop/Corel with a bit of cloning (probably going to be bloody hard to do it on a camera, even with a properly sized LCD. The mouse is simply necessary here.), Brightness-Contrast-Intensity modding, gamma, and a few other simple steps.
The last 2% are those who are incredibly ugly, and can't be helped...
Anyway, it's pointless for me: I won't buy a new camera, since my Canon 300D is still in perfect order, this feature will probably be incorporated into amateur units, and I can get Photoshop for free. ;)
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Well, I like to retouch photos to make them look as good as I can - I'm not sure if this crosses some kind of line or not... but it is probably a better alternative than excessive plastic surgery if people want to shore up their self image.
I wonder how long until we have an iPhoto and Picasa plugin to adjust older photos? Heck - such a thing is probably already out there! I guess the only thing left would be real-time adjustment of HD video that can be played back on screens in bathrooms so we can do away with those pesky, lying mirrors!
An article about a "beauty re-touch" function without pictures? How useless is that!
I found two examples on the internets and the most obvious difference is a blurring/smoothing filter applied to the regions with skin tones. I'm not convinced this makes anyone more beautiful (the womans white teeth look a bit creepy).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/workshop/5432481125/
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/fx78_fx77/img/touch/retouch_image.jpg
I think I still prefer the brown-paper-bag-over-the-head approach for making people beautiful. That, or beer.
Just go with the picture that came with the frame.
Stanford teaches a course on camera enhancement software. Someday there may be high quality cameras with open Android platforms. People already offer clever apps for the more mediocre smart phone cameras.
+1 insightful. Never thought of that. The world we see in pictures doesn't really represent the world as it was circa 1900.
As for retouching:
- This goes back to what I said in the previous topic: Corporations should not have the right to free speech, without limits. They should only have the *privilege* of advertising, given certain restrictions, such as not being able to LIE to the customer with words or retouched photos (such as erasing the models' knobby knees).
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
huge customer demand? Really? I have never, ever seen even one single person ever make even the most offhanded comment "Gee, I'd like a camera that can apply makeup to the subject and automatically remove hideous blemishes." Not once. Even the most stupid camera users have figured out that's what the software that comes with the camera is for, even if they never heard the term "post processing."
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The studios have been using this tech for years to try to get those dried up old prunes who read the news to look like they're human.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Just take the basic software that is doing it, extend it by a wireless power delivery and print it on a contact lens! Suddenly the whole world is beautiful, your gf looks like Aishwarya Roy to you, and you look like the Superstar "The Robot" Rajnikant to her ....
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Seriously, why write this story and why post the link, without a freaking photo demo?
There's no bright line between retouching photos to match a certain beauty standard and simply removing artifacts introduced by the camera or lighting (correcting color balance by auto-leveling, for instance). Which is this one? Who the hell knows.
I hear all photos come out like this!
Coming Soon: A camera that makes everyone except you in the picture, uglier.
Perfect for facebook and craigslist.
I forget who said it or how it was originally stated, but when we correct for flaws in people, evolution stops and devolution begins to occur.
Hey you insensitive clod, some people make a living retouching those sharp knees.
The days of a photograph automatically being an accurate record never existed. Just look up the work of Henry Peach Robinson or Oscar Gustave Rejlander. Even the very first photograph of a human being (Louis Daguerre, 1838 not to be confused with the first photo taken by Nicéphore Niépce in 1826) was not an accurate as the exposure was so long that only one person standing still (getting his shoe shined) showed up. Going by that picture you would think the streets of Paris were empty.
Photo manipulation isn't so much a lie as it is simply artistic license. It can be used to lie, but only if it's presented as such. Retouching a fashion model isn't lying because no one is claiming that it's a record of reality. Every last aspect of every single fashion shoot is contrived: from the hair, make-up and clothing (which is usually clothes-pinned on to make it look better), to the thousands of dollars of strobes designed to highlight certain features, to the hours of digital post where you give her a digital tummy tuck, boob job, and delete the sweat from her nose. Usually she's then masked and standing in blank white space, on the cover of a magazine, which attests to the fact that it's not real.
It's actually somewhat difficult to get a picture that is an accurate depiction of reality. Just by flattening something onto a screen or piece of paper you lose so much visual information that you are already seeing an abstraction.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
In pictures, the beginning of our century may be looked back on as the time when everyone was happy (smile detection) and people had perfect looks (retouch). We look at old photos of frozen lakes and giant crowds and consider them accurate. Tho, it turns out people took photos of the lake being frozen or the crowded streets because it was exceptional rather than that being the norm.
In the beginning of the previous century (and even during the one before that!), the early cameras needed long exposure times to capture images. This lead to photographers choosing subjects carefully, with a preference for immobile ones. One common trick was to photograph ships in a harbor at low tide, when their hulls rested on the sandy bottom keeping them still. Even when taking portraits, photographers used frames to keep their subjects heads still for the several minutes of exposure time needed. These choices of subject are more a portrayal of the cameras capabilities at the time than the reality of their world.
People on eHarmony, Match.com and even FB start looking concertedly more attractive.
However, still no hope for denizens of Slashdot.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
With all the controversy about size-0 and size-00 models and how they affect people's perceptions of themselves, isn't this just feeding the problem?
Don't like how you look in a photo? Don't bother learning to love yourself for who you are, just use our new cameras and our new digital mirrors, which all change your physical appearance to one that you prefer to look at, and you'll never need to know... (and 50% rebate on our rose-coloured glasses to boot)
*sigh*
And for times when things have gone wrong, horribly wrong, there is always Photoshop Disasters.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Anyone who thinks that "devolution" is a valid concept doesn't actually understand evolution.
Seriously? At what point should we even bother taking the photograph? Why don't they just cut to the chase and have it draw in whatever the heck we want? I have nothing against retouching photo's, but you still have to work with an original... When the original is hacked to shreds in order to reflect who/whatever the software chooses at the source is there even a point to taking the photo?
Sorry, just my stick in the mud moment of the year. I'm all better now.
This signature is lame.
I'm hoping the software has a 'eaten fewer pies' slider.
Its like AutoTune for your ugly face!
How about their belly buttons?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I guess beauty is in the lens of the camera.
Why yes honey, that dress does make you look fat. But this camera will fix it!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The most interesting aspect of this is that they are putting the retouching software in the camera, not as post-processing software done on the PC. This is indicative of how multiple devices are converging into a single device, and how the CPUs in them are becoming significantly more powerful. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of wasting your camera's battery life by having it modify your photo would have been silly. But today, people expect the devices to do things for them. They no longer want the general-purpose PC that lets them do this stuff. Now they just want it to be automatic.
Unfortunately, all the demo photos are shown as postage-stamp quality images on a mediocre LCD panel so you really can't tell what it is doing.
One really good thing here is is that this might promote awareness of how much Photoshop is overused. I find it amazing that so many people think that magazine covers are even close to the real thing. With some critical thinking you can look at the image and see "Gaussian blur here... warp tool there..." Hopefully, after a generation of these cameras everyone will be able to see how fake they are. It might make the Photoshop fad go away. It is so bad that many people ask for a photo to look Photoshopped! They don't want it to look better - they want it to look faker. That's sad.
So the camera can do this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZpsSOwxcw
Words are not telling what they are supposed to say and now... people are not looking how they are supposed to look. I would say we are doomed! What is supposed to be the benefit? Even if you trick yourself with those modified pictures, others are still seeing you with their own perception. Once there, why not put somebody else face and body instead? It is just easier not to take picture of you at all and take the one of somebody you enjoy looking at!
So much for the days when picture accurately reflected the looks of a person. This is utterly ridiculous. When I see a picture of somebody, I expect it to actually resemble them, not some idealized bullshit fake persona that everyone wishes they could be. Seriously, what ever happened to honesty to self and others? When I meat somebody, they know everything about me honestly, none of this bull. Nobody who meets me is every disappointed, or flabbergasted, because I am honest. Unlike these toolbag motherfuckers.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
I wonder if it comes with autotune as well to complete the process...
This is good news for me because I'm about as handsome as Darth Vader without his helmet.
the ol' makeup shotgun???
If "the camera adds 5 kilos", can those be digitally removed as well?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
All we need now is a beautifying pair of glasses, it's kinda re inventing the wheel though, beer has been removing pimples, moles, blackheads and warts from the face of the people you're looking at for centuries.
...used special film to edit the photos of people. It was called BothaChrome.
Why stop there...
If you think human history was going to continue under the effects of Darwinian genetic selection, you really need to spend a while thinking about different timescales.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
I have never understood why anyone would put a pic of themselves on a dating site that made them much more attrative than they are in real life. Aren't they just dooming themselves to a disappointed look when they meet? Or are they so convinced that their personalities will somehow compensate and their potential beau won't notice that their teeth ain't really white?
Or are they so convinced that their personalities will somehow compensate and their potential beau won't notice that their teeth ain't really white?
That really has to be the only explanation. How else could they justify giving people the impression that they're 10 years younger and 100 pounds lighter than they actually are?
This is what real video looks like******http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0fJgYeP0Lc
Anyone who thinks that "devolution" is a valid concept doesn't actually understand evolution.
Maybe not, but I still like their music.
John
Say it with me, vanity camera!