Slashdot Mirror


Rendering Synthetic Objects Into Old Photographs

First time accepted submitter IDarkISwordI writes "A new abstract headed to SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 provides a method for rapid execution of computer graphics, synthesized into photographs with accurate lighting and physics based on limited input from a user and interpretation by their code." The results are impressive; hard to watch the video demo (on linked page) without boggling.

93 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Virtual house dressing by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is going to be very useful for real estate sales. No need to move furniture into an empty house for the pictures.

    1. Re:Virtual house dressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.news.com.au/money/property/beware-of-real-estate-agents-latest-trick/story-e6frfmd0-1226157834885

    2. Re:Virtual house dressing by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No problem. Just use context aware fill to remove the furniture from the image.

    3. Re:Virtual house dressing by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It's just you...

      Although you're right to be suspicious. Those are only the 'demo' images.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Virtual house dressing by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      OTOH they might use virtual furniture to hide problematic things (like wet spots on the wall) behind them.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Virtual house dressing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The scale looks roughly correct but the perspective looks screwed up...reminds me of some of the early 3D PC games.

      With cars they use a healthy dose of fishbowl effect to make the interior of the cars look bigger - and in the case of SUVs, show a view from the windscreen that is either taken from a helicopter or the top of a hill.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Virtual house dressing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      In one of those pics they hid a fireplace. That's the level of intelligence I expect in the Real Estate industry...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. That is indeed quite impressive by No,+I+am+Spratacus! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Especially getting the lighting and the shadows to fit the rest of the image.

    1. Re:That is indeed quite impressive by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      posting to undo mod.

      signed,
      dumbass.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  3. mind boggling by zachie · · Score: 1

    I love it when slashdot news do that to me

  4. Re: by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper. (If it's there, and I missed it, please let me know.) Hopefully someone will make a plugin for this, so we can use it in GIMP, PS, etc..

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  5. This will come in handy... by durin · · Score: 2

    ... the next time someone wants to frame someone else for murder ;P

    --
    Why, yes! I AM new here.
  6. Too real by Wolfling1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, that pretty well wraps it up for anyone trying to prove anything supernatural or extra-terrestrial on earth. Who would ever believe any video evidence now?

    1. Re:Too real by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Good point. I suspect there will be ways to detect artifacts of such changes, but those could probably be obscured by converting to a low-res format. Grainy-smudgy video has always been the friend of woo-woo purveyors.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:Too real by msobkow · · Score: 1

      You mean people believe pictures without wondering whether it's photoshopped?

      True, this is much more advanced technology and seems to be amazingly effective, but a good photoshop editor has been able to fool the public for quite a long time now.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Too real by adolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, this is much more advanced technology and seems to be amazingly effective, but a good photoshop editor has been able to fool the public for quite a long time now.

      The best part about this tech is that it does not require a "good" photoshop editor to sort out the light paths and shadows/reflections/etc manually, but just a person willing to graphically describe the scene using a GUI. After that, arbitrary 3D objects can be more-or-less added arbitrarily with uncanny realism.

      This includes, perhaps unfortunately, realtors.

      (And to the English Nazi(s) reading this: "graphically" and "GUI" are not redundant terms in this context.)

    4. Re:Too real by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That'll work as well as DRM does.

      Cryptography just doesn't work that way - you can't give the keys to someone (in this case, by putting them in their camera) and 'hope' they won't be able to use them.

    5. Re:Too real by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Until some genius^H^H^H^H^H^Hhacker photographs a photograph.

    6. Re:Too real by mangu · · Score: 1

      Until some genius^H^H^H^H^H^Hhacker photographs a photograph.

      Good point. And it dispels any reason to believe film cameras are safe from digital hacking as well.

      Do all the photoshopping you want, print it, photograph it. There, you have evidence captured on film.
       

    7. Re:Too real by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Why not? We believe Gadaffi's dead.

      --

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

    8. Re:Too real by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Maybe if it was live? I don't think this sort of stuff can be done in real-time.

      Star Trek DS9 had something interesting with Cardassian data technology. Data was stored on crystal "rods", like their version of a flash drive. But there was a "write once" rod that can't be altered after data is finished being written to it. Perhaps we need something like this for verified reporting/journalism.

    9. Re:Too real by swalve · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. Probably will also have to have GPS data burnt into the photograph too.

    10. Re:Too real by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Those exist, and have been broken already.

    11. Re:Too real by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Star Trek DS9 had something interesting with Cardassian data technology. Data was stored on crystal "rods", like their version of a flash drive. But there was a "write once" rod that can't be altered after data is finished being written to it. Perhaps we need something like this for verified reporting/journalism.

      If you can read the device, you can alter the data and store it to another write-once device. You need a write-once, read-never device. I suggest /dev/null.

    12. Re:Too real by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      True, but there are fewer and fewer reasons to release grainy video now. Many people have HD capable video camera's on their cellphones. There is no reason for video to be grainy anymore, so low quality video should be the first warning sign that someone may be trying to hide something.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    13. Re:Too real by Kyont · · Score: 1

      I don't think we're that far off from having the processing power to do this in real time, for simple things at least. I know it's a different technique, but we already have real time line markers painted on the field for (American) football broadcasts, and they even look consistent from multiple camera angles.

      I read a sci-fi story a long time ago (early 80s?) in which one of the plot points was hackers (or whatever) hijacking of the outgoing TV signal of a person announcing election results, of some kind of dictator, I think. In this story, way ahead of its time, their software analyzed the person's face and voice patterns on-the-fly from the first few seconds of the broadcast, and then substituted in a fake video signal with the same face and voice announcing different election results nationwide. Hilarity ensues (OK not really, I remember it being kind of dark).

      Anyone in this crowd source happen to know what story this was? Again, I think we're not far off from this being very feasible.

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
    14. Re:Too real by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1

      Canon EOS cameras can do just that (See OSK-E3). Unfortunately it's been cracked so it is no longer very useful.

    15. Re:Too real by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Do all the photoshopping you want, print it, photograph it [sheldonbrown.com]. There, you have evidence captured on film.

      Ah, but can you do that so it doesn't look like a photograph of a photo?

      I suspect that- if done correctly- it would be impossible to tell whether a rephotographed photo had been tampered with digitally- either as an intermediate, or whether it was originally shot in digital.

      However, I suspect photographing a photograph would always have telltale signs that it wasn't an original, even if you couldn't tell the nature of what had been photographed- you still have enough reason not to trust it!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    16. Re:Too real by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You can order prints on photographic machines at any 1-hour photo these days. Just have a negative made from one of those, or maybe they can go direct to negative.

    17. Re:Too real by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Of course it's been cracked, it's a DRM-like technology, without at least a TPM chip to make tampering very difficult it stood no chance. Now if the camera uploaded a hash to a Canon server when the pic was taken that would be different...and even then you can take legitimate pics of a guy walking through the woods in a convincing Bigfoot suit.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:Too real by fatphil · · Score: 1

      You can raise the bar high enough to significantly restrict who can get access to your keys or your analogue path. TLA high. There's nothing to prevent the signing from being done on the sensor itself, it already has a small microprocessor to pump data out, there's nothing stopping it from signing it before transmission. And the field of tamper-proof cryptograhic devices is a fairly mature one. (Though not quite perfect, as the recent secureID fiasco shows.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    19. Re:Too real by fatphil · · Score: 1

      AFAIK only though bugs and flawed implementation. I'm thinking, for example, of the Canon crack last year, which was clearly flawed. I presume the more recent Nikon crack is equally an implementation issue (ElcomSoft as always do say ~ "you should have got experts like us to do your crypto" which implies that there would have been a way to do it right.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:Too real by Goaway · · Score: 1

      There is a way to do it right if you assume nobody will take your chips apart.

      This is bad assumption, though.

    21. Re:Too real by fatphil · · Score: 1

      True tamper-proofing means making it resistant to being taken apart. At the cost of self-destruction if need be. However, it's an expensive thing to even try to do, and still not a guarantee against all possible attacks. (Having a device that self destructs if you even look at it funny wouldn't be successful in the market place.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  7. Weeping angel by zebadee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Right at the end of the video. Now you can have a weeping angel moving through your very own lounge!

    1. Re:Weeping angel by pauljlucas · · Score: 2

      They should have had a TARDIS materialize. That would have been awesome.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:Weeping angel by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Could a weeping angel be used as a Turing test? Or would a camera recording video also lock one in place? What about a long exposure camera?

    3. Re:Weeping angel by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      but any thing that holds the image of a angel becomes one as i recall. they had a video of on in a locked storage container in one episode the image became the angel and infect emily ponds mind. so recording one would probably be bad.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  8. Re:Those photo's look.... by qxcv · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
  9. Wow. by Pence128 · · Score: 1

    If the manual touch-up bits could be automated, this is just about everything augmented reality is supposed to be.

    --
    404: sig not found.
    1. Re:Wow. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      If you have a moving camera, you can already compare neighbouring frames to build a perspective model of the 3d geometry. So yeah, with a fast computer and a wobbling camera, this could be done without human input. Sorry, rotoscopers ;-)

  10. Re: by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper.

    The release is delayed because the software is limited to only a few useful objects at the moment: Buddha Statue, Dragon Statue, Pool Table and Dead Hooker.
     

  11. Re: by IDarkISwordI · · Score: 1

    Often software releases for submission to SIGGRAPH, don't appear until the following year. The number of individuals working on the software is quite limited and it may be too buggy still for release. Another possibility, and very unfortunate if so, is if they intend to market this to an interested buyer, which would likely be MANY.

  12. Re:amazing by Pence128 · · Score: 1

    Fuck you, I'm a dragon!

    --
    404: sig not found.
  13. Needs more teapot! by criznach · · Score: 1

    This photo http://www.mitre.org/about/photo_archives/photos/low_res/whirlwind_f5001.jpg is begging for a larger than life teapot.

  14. Finally! by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

    Finally! Now we know how Dude Perfect makes all those shots!

    1. Re:Finally! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Notice how every time they have an audience in the shot they look bored out of their minds until it goes in? That's because they've watched him miss about 300 times already.

    2. Re:Finally! by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Not so much removing, more like obscuring with a sphere....

  15. Re:Those photo's look.... by SomePgmr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or more appropriately... http://xk3d.xkcd.com/331/

  16. I think we already got there. by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:I think we already got there. by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Wait, is that the R2 unit we're looking for?

    2. Re:I think we already got there. by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Thees are not the droids your looking for..

  17. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper.

    The release is delayed because the software is limited to only a few useful objects at the moment: Buddha Statue, Dragon Statue, Pool Table and Dead Hooker.

    But I need software that can *remove* dead hookers from photos! That's the problem with academia, totally disconnected with the needs of the real world.

  18. Nice try, no sigar by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    The shadows may look "better" but the shade and reflected light on the placed subject still needs work. The palette of the placed object also seems to lack white balancing to the picture.

    As long as someone tells you there's fake in the picture, you can still tell what the fake bit is, without using a computer to spot anomalies. It's cool to see that tools get this powerful, but it's not good enough to fake any sharp observer yet, let alone a decent forensic study with computer aid.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  19. Who needs a computer? by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2

    The communists under Stalin were "fixing" photographs to remove undesirable people for a long time, many years before electronic computers and graphics were invented. Of course, the undesirable people were removed from real life as well...

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:Who needs a computer? by biodata · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia pictures shop you.

      --
      Korma: Good
    2. Re:Who needs a computer? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The communists under Stalin were "fixing" photographs to remove undesirable people for a long time, many years before electronic computers and graphics were invented.

      Even after Stalin's death, they were removing undesirable people from photographs and movies. Except this time, they were removing Stalin. I have seen one case where, in a video of Stalin walking with (I believe) Lenin, surrounded by Soviet military officers, they superimposed the silhouette of a Soviet officer over Stalins face, facing Lenin and away from the camera.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  20. yay auto-shop by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    Modern-day Yezhovs already tremble in fear. With this technology, Syria, China (or soon the US) will be able to disappear people by millions! :p

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:yay auto-shop by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Your link got shopped. Here is a fixed one.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  21. George Lucas... by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...will have a field day with this. Please, someone keep him away from whatever _is_ left of the original Star Wars film!

    Didn't someone once suggest that we refer to these techniques as lucassizing?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:George Lucas... by daid303 · · Score: 1

      ...will have a field day with this. Please, someone keep him away from whatever _is_ left of the original Star Wars film!

      How cool, now we can add JarJar to EP4-6. A good idea, me-sa thinks?

    2. Re:George Lucas... by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

      This is what EP4-6 Troopers are thinking about your idea

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    3. Re:George Lucas... by HamburglerJones · · Score: 1

      Just submitted it to the Urban Dictionary, and attributed it to "A. Miles Davis" (I copied the definition from his Google Plus post): lucasize Verb 1. To take a creation and modify it in ways that make sense to you, but confound everyone else. 2. To retcon a work heavily, claiming prior lack of ability as to the long delay in original product versus retcon(s). The real estate salesmen were enthusiastic about the new computer software which let them lucasize fake furniture into real photos of empty rooms. by A. Miles Davis on Oct 24, 2011

  22. Combine this with this Video by Hermanas · · Score: 1

    Combine the software and techniques in this article, with the software and techniques in this video, and you've got some endlessly useful software.

  23. Software? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

    Where can I download the software? Is it open source? I am afraid it won't be made available, and if it does it will be in a form where you need a few days to get it running. It seems that these kind of solutions developed in the academic world are often sold to commercial companies or made into commercial products.

  24. Re: by daid303 · · Score: 2

    No, no, no. No need for that.

    Just add the dead hooker to a lot of photos, see, that's not a real dead hooker in my photo's, it's added with a computer, see, here is the president with the same dead hooker! Instead of trying to hide the proof, invalidate the proof.

  25. Re: by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    I've only skimmed the PDF (it's way above my level anyway) but I didn't see any notes about license or copyright. It looks pretty detailed... perhaps enough to allow an open-source project to replicate the software. That would be cool.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  26. Re: by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Equal opportunity. Just sell licenses instead of selling the whole package to a single buyer.

  27. Why are we trying to baffle future generations? by damburger · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, peak oil arrives, there is a superflu pandemic, 99942 Apophis impacts and blocks out the Sun, etc. etc. we all die.

    ...then, centuries later, technological civilisation reemerges, and starts analysing data storage devices they dig up. Most of them are unreadable, but they do get fragments of data with which they can start to piece together what happened before The Event.

    And what do they find? Pictures of people listening to iPods at the Battle of Stalingrad and Asimo raising the flag at Iwo Jima.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  28. Seems kind of creepy to me by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 2

    Once we've also got the ability to render realistic 3D models of real people we're going to be in big trouble.

    1. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      More likely it'll create a whole new class of "expert witnesses" who are supposed to be able to tell whether a photo has been faked with this tech. So yeah, you can say "not me"... but to have a decent chance of getting away with it you'll probably need to pay an "expert" to testify on your behalf.

    2. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      That exists already to a degree. It just hasn't caught on yet. As well there is a slightly uncanny valley still.

      Tron 2.0 by Anonymous below. Here is a YouTube video with a similar thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrI5AHYADRg .

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    3. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      It will be. Eye witness testimony is still valid. We trust DNA evidence despite the fact only experts handle the evidence. I don't see this affecting court cases realistically.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    4. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Surt · · Score: 1

      Because there is no DNA evidence, eye witnesses don't exist, and no one has trustworthy cameras?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Because there is no DNA evidence

      Just wait until genetic kits get widespread :-)

      eye witnesses don't exist

      Not always, no.

      and no one has trustworthy cameras?

      It doesn't matter whether the camera was trustworthy if you can't proof that the picture it allegedly took that way wasn't actually manipulated afterwards. Unlike with analog cameras, you don't have a physical negative as proof.

      Maybe we could have cameras which digitally sign their pictures. Then at least faking an original picture would involve reverse-engineering the camera's private key, which is not something most people can do.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Surt · · Score: 1

      The point of a trustworthy camera is that the original image be available from a source with no stake in the outcome of a trial. For example, if a bank's camera captures a picture of a crime, and that photo is made available to the defense and the prosecution, neither side can manipulate the picture. Most pictures of crimes are going to continue to fall into this category.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Seems kind of creepy to me by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Once we've also got the ability to render realistic 3D models of real people we're going to be in big trouble.

      Just imagine all the porn!

  29. Re: by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    That's fine so long as you have the mesh and textures for the dead hooker... I guess you could always add a different dead hooker though to a bunch of photos. The president, the judge, the prosecutor, etc.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  30. Modification by subtraction by john82 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that this approach is able to account for light sources, geometry (perspective) and physical objects in an original image, it should also be able to remove objects and allow for realistic rendering of that loss. Combine that with the capability described in the proposal and the use of photographs as evidence at trial may soon be inadmissible. Or at the very least, a legal team could reasonably claim that a photo had been doctored (whether true or not) and therefore render such evidence unusable by the prosecution.

    1. Re:Modification by subtraction by swb · · Score: 1

      Maybe there will be a new class of "Licensed & Bonded Reference Photographers" who work independent of any single entity and whose only job is to produce reference photographs which are cryptographically signed by the camera and the photographer at the time they are taken.

      The "client" gets a copy of the photo and the cryptographic signature which they can use to verify that the photo is the "original" and not an altered version.

      The cameras would have to be smart, perhaps with the photographer's public key burned into ROM when the camera is bought and the cameras serial numbers and signatures tracked by the manufacturer so that there is some kind of chain of trust that is traceable and more difficult to fake or change.

      Having the camera and not just the photographer's cryptographic signature is important to prevent the photo from being altered and then re-signed by the photographer. It might also be necessary to embed a watermark so that altered photos couldn't be re-shot (and thus resigned) -- the camera would refuse to take a picture of a photo with a watermark.

    2. Re:Modification by subtraction by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      That's a really interesting idea; I hope you get modded up. I bet police departments would want something similar to this for evidence chain of custody, if they don't use a similar system already.

  31. Photoshopping evidence by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Surprised nobody's mentioned how this could affect unscrupulous media outlets and court cases.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  32. A green-screen alternative? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Instead of recording just the actors live and having to rely on CG to recreate everything else, with this we could film all physical objects live, and decorate it with CG, like an updated form of rotoscoping. I, for one, would welcome the demise of green-screen films. CG is still unconvincing, no matter how much money they keep spending on it. I still notice it. every. single. time.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  33. Only works for asian stuff by hey · · Score: 1

    like dragons and Buddha. (Joke. I know its at Siggraph Asia.)

  34. Re: by fritish · · Score: 2

    "I've never seen so many dead hookers in all my life!"

    "Lord knows I have..."

    --
    "Coffee is for closers."
  35. Re: by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Typical case of Whoosh on Slashdot.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  36. Re: by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

    Wait til someone combines random Facebook pics with this plugin.

  37. Version 2: Moving backgrounds by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    This is pretty cool but I'm waiting for version two when they extend it to work on video background plates. Shouldn't be that difficult because tracking is a well studied problem.

  38. Re: by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    That capability was added to both Gimp and Photoshop shortly after a similar presentation at SigGraph several years back. Although if my memory serves me correctly, it made it into Gimp first.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  39. What's the big deal by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm missing something but, for a while now I have been doing this in 3d Studio with HDRI lighting (you would have to make a synthetic HDRI light probe in this case) and render the whole thing in V-Ray. Very realistic.

  40. Re: by black+soap · · Score: 1

    With some Presidents, it would not even be all that unreasonable to have caught him on film with the same dead hooker as everyone else...

  41. Re:Now we'll finally get proof of by E.I.A · · Score: 1

    Alright, this is it. My final farewell to /. and a big FUCK YOU to those who continually mod me as a "troll" every time I apply political humor. Yes, you can fuck off and have your sterilized (lovy Govy) comments to your selves, you sockpuppet cunts. I can only say in parting that you are doing no favors to anyone by censoring comments, and for that time will tell. Here is my /. suicide. And once again, FUCK YOU.

    --
    Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
  42. Re: by i8degrees · · Score: 1

    Resynthesizer, a plug-in for GIMP. The author also has details of the algorithm used published in his thesis paper.