MIT Research Amplifies Invisible Detail In Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Research Amplifies Invisible Detail In Video

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 22, 2012 @07:41AM from the now-many-times-more-invisible-than-before dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MIT researchers have invented an algorithm which is able to amplify motion in video that is invisible to the naked eye — such as the motion of blood pulsing through a person's face, or the breathing of an infant. The algorithm — which was invented almost by accident — could find applications in safety, medicine, surveillance, and other areas. 'The system is somewhat akin to the equalizer in a stereo sound system, which boosts some frequencies and cuts others, except that the pertinent frequency is the frequency of color changes in a sequence of video frames, not the frequency of an audio signal. The prototype of the software allows the user to specify the frequency range of interest and the degree of amplification. The software works in real time and displays both the original video and the altered version of the video, with changes magnified.'"

78 of 114 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Useful for creepy movies? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-22 07:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wish youtube wasn't blocked at work.
Although, if this looks like what I think it looks like, I could see this having a lot of potential in the movie industry as well. Specifically enhancing things otherwise unnoticed could make for some very creepy footage.
Re:Obvious application by BitterOak · 2012-06-22 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Privacy-violating nudity scans.
We already have technology for that: Backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners. You can find them in most major airports.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Enhance! by Bill+Hayden · 2012-06-22 07:49 · Score: 4, Funny

n/t

--
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
Everything by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-22 07:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now every recording device has the potential to become a lie detector.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
1. Re:Everything by Moheeheeko · 2012-06-22 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Or very good at sniffing out those Terminators.
2. Re:Everything by nomel · 2012-06-22 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  They'll just implement a "random wobble" algorithm after the first is found.
Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by mooboy · 2012-06-22 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

For employers, or even police: you could easily detect emotional flushes in someone's face when asked certain questions, i.e., a lie detector of sorts. Also, think poker players with this software built into their "Google Glasses".

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
1. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by Anubis+IV · 2012-06-22 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I was thinking that something like this could be applied rather easily to monitor breathing and heart rates for lie detection purposes. Though I hate to admit I saw it, in the movie Salt, they had a lie detector that didn't require anything hooked up to the user. It'd be neat if that technology could be real.
  The applications for poker are an interesting idea as well. Awesome thinking with that one. I could definitely see this sort of thing becoming part of quite a few augmented reality applications.
2. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-22 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I, for one, would love to see a poker tournament where all of this stuff was legal. It would have to take place on a separate circuit, but currently the top strategies are 'don't act emotional and wear dark sunglasses'. This would take things to the next level, so you might as well throw in real-time simulation outputs, probabilities, heart-rate monitors, histograms, etc, all available to each player in real time. Put a thin layer of lead paint on the backing of each card and you're good to go.
3. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Forget that.
  This technology will be immensely useful for various emergency situations:
  1. Detecting aliens that have taken on human form.
  2. Detecting assassination robots attempting to infiltrate our ranks.
  I'm sure there's many more USEFUL applications than I haven't come up with yet. But you get the point!
  "lie detector". hah.
4. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by Khyber · 2012-06-22 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  You think lie detectors are worth half a shit....
  I pity you and your fantasy world.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
5. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by Anubis+IV · 2012-06-22 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  I already know they are. From firsthand experience.
  Are they perfect? No. Can they be circumvented? Certainly. Should they be admissible in court? No. Are they still useful tools? Absolutely.
  And I pity someone who feels the need to take time out of their day to post the response you did, rather than just keeping it to themselves.
6. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by nospam007 · 2012-06-22 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, I was thinking that something like this could be applied rather easily to monitor breathing and heart rates for lie detection purposes"
  I'd prefer if they directed their energy to finally do a sports watch that could read a precise pulse without that darn breast-thingie.
7. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by mattack2 · 2012-06-22 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  I can't remember which one, but I swear some poker tournaments on TV had heart-rate monitors on the players.. only visible to the viewers, of course.
8. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-22 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  I also can fake such a reaction by thinking of my mother trying to go down on me. This may seem like a troll, but it is fact
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
9. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-22 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I've been saying this about professional wrestling for years. Let them `roid up and actually beat the shit out of one another. The same would work for NASCAR or similar. Let them strap rocket boosters and time shifters to the bastards and bask in the entertainment.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
10. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-22 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  A perfect example: Jimmy Kimmel used a fake lie detector on a child
  
  The results are predictable, but exactly what the parent is talking about
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
11. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by drooling-dog · 2012-06-22 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't looked at it in detail so I'm just guessing what they're doing here, but it's likely that this would only work well for periodic motion. In fact, the examples in their video are just that: pumping blood, breathing, guitar strings vibrating, etc. Of course, you can make anything periodic by essentially playing it in a loop, with a good windowing function...
12. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by doesnothingwell · 2012-06-22 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Want to hide your excitement? Get beta blockers, they're your little sniper friendly pals.
  
  --
  They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
13. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by catmistake · 2012-06-22 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was thinking that something like this could be applied rather easily to monitor breathing and heart rates ...
  There are iPhone apps that relatively accurately detect heart rate... Cardiograph is one that seems to work well as an pulse oximeter, ... and I was about to try to explain what that was... those things that check heart rate with a sensor on your finger ... I read the wiki article... don't ask me how it works... something about arterial globins.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
14. Re:Cool for Interviewers, Card Players by ArsenneLupin · 2012-06-22 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  The truth fairy is hot...
Life imitating art by Overzeetop · 2012-06-22 07:54 · Score: 2

No, that creepy footage in films is what FX departments are for - and they do it far more artistically.
This is bringing all the creepy remote monitoring shit to your local and federal law enforcement departments, along with every other eye-in-the-sky system in use by government and industry.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:Life imitating art by davester666 · 2012-06-22 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, a simple way to detect the vampires walking around among us.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Will be used for porn by cpu6502 · 2012-06-22 07:54 · Score: 2

Here's iCarly.
Here's iCarly enhanced..... you can see right through their shirts! (Watch; you'll see.)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Will be used for porn by dgatwood · 2012-06-22 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Here's twenty years to life.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
2. Re:Will be used for porn by dgatwood · 2012-06-22 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  *shrugs* They probably are by now. Still, snarky comments aren't meant to be precisely correct. That misses the whole point of the snark.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Phillip K. Dick is a genius by A10Mechanic · 2012-06-22 07:55 · Score: 1

If this won't detect replicants, then I don't want it
Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 07:56 · Score: 1, Informative

could find applications in safety, medicine, surveillance, and other areas.
So instead of highlighting areas where something worth looking at is detected, this thing produces a highly distorted, exaggerated version of the motion, adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing -- you can just as well remove the humans from the process completely.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. Re:Oh fuck no! by gblackwo · 2012-06-22 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I understood the point was to be able to have humanless monitoring. The laplace calculations implied that the computer would be very aware if there was a visible frequency that was in the range of a human breathing, or heart rate. If this visible frequency disappeared, then either the subject obstructed itself from the camera, or the motion stopped. This could then set off an alarm- if motion didn't continue within a short time frame.
2. Re:Oh fuck no! by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-22 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, humans decide what portion of the signal to manipulate, although I suppose an AI could be taught to look for various things that might not be obvious to humans. But your concern is exactly the same problem you have with any imaging technique - it always looks at some subset of 'reality' and interpretation is needed to correlate the signal / video / whatever.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Oh fuck no! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-22 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, clearly the demonstrated ability to remotely monitor a sleeping baby's pulse and breathing will have no practical use.
  
  adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing
  This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing. It has no bias or sense or worth. Yes, it can be tuned - by a human operator who will most likely know what they want to have their attention drawn to. How important are a few pixels in the background behind a barely breathing body when you're searching for a hypothermia victim?
  If the concerns you raise had any impact on a particular scenario, the operator can just use their own eyes or switch off the processing.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  All other techniques have DIFFERENT SEMANTICS of the input and output -- at the input the raw video feed that contains only what was seen by the camera, at the output there are two clearly separate layers -- video and highlited/marked up/colored/schematically displayed/... areas where movement (any, or of some particular kind) was detected. Human sees schematically marked up areas and positions, and tries to determine what exactly is happening by looking into the details of the original video in and around them.
  What this thing does, is simulating THE SAME real-life video -- detected movements are used to produce completely fake "drawings" of moving objects that are cleverly disguised as parts of the "real" image. Then human is supposed to process the output as if it is the original video, and "see" the detected movement, however the only details that human will be able to see are those recognized by this algorithm -- everything else will be distorted or, more likely, covered up by the edges of mis-detected "objects".
  It's great for tricks and movie effects, things where amplified bias toward something spectacular is the goal, however in all stated applications the goal is to find all relevant things that are hidden in the input, not produce a spectacular view of the most prominent thing at the expense of everything else.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
5. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  If it was about finding the motions, there would be no attempts to produce a human-viewable video, it would just detect the motions and produce structured response -- "this looks like breathing", "swing set is wobbling", etc. The video output is clearly intended for human post-processing, but while it may be useful for research -- to check if movement detection indeed detected the right kind of movement -- it's unusable for human post-processing.
  It's like removing a security camera, placing an artist in its place, ask him to make a pencil sketch of the area every minute, and send those sketches to the people who are supposed to monitor the camera. Except, artist is five years old and has no understanding how perspective works, or what is the shape of the objects he sees.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
6. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  If the concerns you raise had any impact on a particular scenario, the operator can just use their own eyes or switch off the processing.
  How would he know to do that? There is no indication what is exaggerated/emphasized and what is not.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
7. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing.
  Oh yes, it is! Once you introduced contours detection or image partitioning, you are have decision-making embedded in the process -- that's out of filtering and into AI territory.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
8. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  you are have decision-making embedded in the process
  s/are //
  (incomplete editing on my part)
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
9. Re:Oh fuck no! by pclminion · 2012-06-22 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes, it is! Once you introduced contours detection or image partitioning, you are have decision-making embedded in the process -- that's out of filtering and into AI territory.
  So any computer program that has an if-statement in it, is artificial intelligence. Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
10. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-22 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  So any computer program that has an if-statement in it, is artificial intelligence. Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
  In a signal processing algorithm (what this thing presented as) -- yes.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
11. Re:Oh fuck no! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-22 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  Admittedly I don't know how the details of the algorithm, but would you also call edge detection AI?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
12. Re:Oh fuck no! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-22 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure even I could add a function to stamp a little "image processing on" subtitle to the image. That's if the psychadelic cycling colours didn't give it away. This is research. The little niceties can get left aside until it's ready to roll it out, or after user feedback.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
13. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-23 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Filter that precedes the decision is not AI -- it applies to the whole image iniformly, and contains no conditionals (and for this reason can be SIMD'ed so easily). Once you start establishing cutoffs, start smoothing and centering, detecting contiguous edges and areas, it's AI.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
14. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-23 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  But that's exactly what they are NOT doing! Look at the output, it's completely natural-looking except for objects wobbling as if they are made of jelly.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
15. Re:Oh fuck no! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-24 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  What? What is it they're not doing? They're demonstrating their new method for enhancing changes in a video, and you're complaining that they're not displaying an "image enhanced in post-production!" disclaimer?
  
  Look at the output, it's completely natural-looking except for objects wobbling as if they are made of jelly.
  I thought that was the whole point.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
16. Re:Oh fuck no! by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-24 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  And this is wrong for all those applications because it prevents the human viewer from noticing anything else.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
17. Re:Oh fuck no! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-24 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  *facepalm* I just don't get why you insist on decrying this research as useless. The point is to enhance subtle motion/changes so that the viewer notices them. Yes, there may be times when this could draw the attention away from something else, but if that something is not moving/changing colour then it's probably (giving that the enhancement is being used in the first place) not important.
  You may as well pour scorn on infrared technology because it prevents you from noticing things that are the same temperature as their surroundings, and yet somehow it's still saved countless lives.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
18. Re:Oh fuck no! by pclminion · 2012-06-25 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  No. Those things are heuristics.
Worst Case by TubeSteak · 2012-06-22 08:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

to long-range-surveillance systems that magnify subtle motions, to contactless lie detection based on pulse rate.
This is the first thing they're going to do with it.
All the other applications might come afterwards.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
1. Re:Worst Case by Em+Adespoton · 2012-06-22 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what sort of mashup could be made combining this technology with
  http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/17/1320255/fingerprint-scanner-that-works-from-6-feet
Invented? by Exrio · 2012-06-22 08:05 · Score: 1

Uhm... I didn't RTFA or watch the video (good /.er and Flash disabled, respectively), but that sounds like an off-the-shelf bunch of audio effects pointed to a different array. Even TFS acknowledges this. "Applied to something no one else has" maybe, but hardly "invented". Really this is obvious stuff, but my guess is that everyone else just assumed a typical camera/video didn't have enough SNR for anything interesting to be amplifiable. I know I did when I had the idea of applying my audio filters to video a while ago (which consequently I never did).
1. Re:Invented? by Bill+Dimm · 2012-06-22 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I didn't RTFA or watch the video (good /.er and Flash disabled, respectively)
  If you click through to the article they have HTML5 videos served from YouTube there, so there is no need for Flash. Why Slashdot is still embedding videos as Flash is a mystery to me.
2. Re:Invented? by Exrio · 2012-06-22 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  For the early version: Bandpass hue and saturation signals, then gain, then mix. For the later version: Track values in the spatial domain with subsample accuracy (subsample accuracy widely used in audio for delays and metering), make differential signal out of that tracking, bandpass that signal, amplify, apply as distortion to the original signal (a simple audio dynamics processor essentially does all of that, except in the amplitude domain rather than the spatial domain). Yes, there's more to this than "audio amplifier, except for video". Then again, there's more to audio than amplifiers. :-)
Replicants beware! by dd1968 · 2012-06-22 08:06 · Score: 2

Sounds like an essential component for a Voight-Kampff machine.
Old by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-22 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good lord, hack-a-day featured this over 2 1/2 weeks ago. In fact, there's already a bloody iPhone app!
1. Re:Old by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-22 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm unclear - are you suggesting that Slashdotters should all be reading Hack-A-Day, know the Apple App Store inside and out, or that the information is time-sensitive enough to not be worth posting today?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Old by catmistake · 2012-06-22 19:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In fact, there's already a bloody iPhone app!
  For the love of Pete!! Pulse oximetry is not the same thing! Will ignorance ever tire of dismissively posting wildly inaccurate information to slashdot summaries??!!
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
3. Re:Old by phantomfive · 2012-06-23 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  No. People always ignorantly post things because of the Flynn effect, which is the scientific principle saying that people don't understand their own blind spots. Blind spots come from looking at sunspots because the sun is too bright. Duh.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Fun with analogies! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-22 08:13 · Score: 1

This technology works simularly to the cookie mosnter eye filter, as it selects only the frequency of the most crumbly of cookies, rejecting those that would fail to shower him with crumbs, except that the pertinent frequency is the frequency of color changes in a sequence of video frames, not the frequency of crumbly cookies for rapid injestion.
2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-22 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone else notice the Motion Magnification page was last edited September 12th 2005?
1. Re:2005 by Chrutil · 2012-06-22 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I actually saw this presentation at Siggraph back in '05 and it was really cool. When I saw this one I was wondering if they came up with something new, but it looks like exactly the same thing.
Re:Obvious application by Talderas · 2012-06-22 08:20 · Score: 1

And here I was thinking that we finally had the technology to detect the undead that walk among us. Foolish me, of course this would be used to violate privacy.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Obvious application by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-06-22 08:20 · Score: 1

whoosh

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
older than that by SuperBanana · 2012-06-22 08:32 · Score: 1

I've had an Android app for at least 6 months which can detect heartbeat rates from a person's face.
I'm not sure what MIT "invented" here.

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:older than that by FrootLoops · 2012-06-22 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  I think the novelty is in a new motion tracking technique. The video starts with color change tracking (probably because it's so dramatic) but switches to motion about halfway through. The MIT news report closes with a UC Berkeley professor's comments:
  
  "This approach is both simpler and allows you to see some things that you couldn't see with that old approach," Agrawala says. "The simplicity of the approach makes it something that has the possibility for application in a number of places. I think we'll see a lot of people implementing it because it's fairly straightforward."
Re:Obvious application by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-22 08:35 · Score: 2

So, to review the thread on a quite amazing algorithm, so far we have: privacy-violating nudity scans, application of any video feed as lie detector, government surveillance, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Slashdot. News For Paranoids. Comments that don't matter.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:Obvious application by nschubach · 2012-06-22 08:37 · Score: 2

What if the undead wanted their privacy hidden? Maybe they don't want everyone screaming and yelling when they enter a room and just want to unlive normal lives?

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Obvious application by camperslo · 2012-06-22 08:51 · Score: 1

I suppose with the proper tuning it could function a bit like the software that identifies sunspots, monitors them, characterizes them, and predicts flares or coronal mass ejaculations. (Maybe some of the existing solar software would work on faces/pimples? Page scripts tied to cameras could bring up ads for pimple products)
Sell bras with a jiggle-optimized damping factor? Detect beer/soda that's gone flat?
Long range concealed gun detector by Animats · 2012-06-22 08:56 · Score: 1

This might be useful for detecting people carrying concealed guns. It's known that when people wearing a big dense object step up or down (a curb is sufficient) there's motion that can be noticed. Some cops are trained for this. Now it can be automated.
1. Re:Long range concealed gun detector by Em+Adespoton · 2012-06-22 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Great... with automation, non-trained security will be able to tell that my phone or sunglasses are actually a concealed weapon... while not noticing the sheath knife the guy next to me is wearing.
  I think detecting heart and respiratory rate would be much more useful -- assuming it doesn't take too much calibration, does not require the subject to be stationary, and can be used to sample a mass of people instead of a single sample.
2. Re:Long range concealed gun detector by mr1911 · 2012-06-22 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  This might be useful for detecting people carrying concealed guns.
  Why do you care? Not everyone carrying a concealed firearm has any intent to harm you. In fact, most do not.
  
  Hoplophobia can be cured, but the first step is admitting you have a problem.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
3. Re:Long range concealed gun detector by bruce_the_loon · 2012-06-22 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, if your sunglasses or cell phone weigh as much as a handgun, I'd suggest ditching the 1990 phone and not buying the depleted uranium shades again.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
I knew I saw this before by slew · 2012-06-22 09:46 · Score: 2

I knew I saw this stuff before... Siggraph 2005 http://people.csail.mit.edu/celiu/motionmag/motionmag.html
Does it work in real time? by cstacy · 2012-06-22 10:21 · Score: 1

Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil. Involuntary dilation of the iris?
Re:FINALLY CSI! by theshowmecanuck · 2012-06-22 12:57 · Score: 1

Obligatory:

Enhance 224176
Enhance, Stop
Move in, Stop
Pull out, Track right, Stop
Center in, Pull back, Stop
Track 45 right, Stop
Center and Stop
Enhance 34 to 36
Pan right and pull back, Stop
Enhance 34 to 46
Pull back, Wait a minute, Go right, Stop
Enhance 5719
Track 45 left, Stop
Enhance 15 to 23
Give me a hard copy right there.

Saw it when it first came out. Then talked my buddies into seeing it at the IMAX (at the first IMAX ever, called the "Cinesphere" in Toronto) when it played there a couple of months later. Way back when we used to smoke. There weren't many movies like that before, if any. Freaked them out big time. In a good way. And it just gets better with age. I can't believe fucking ET won for best special effects that year. When you look at it today, it looks like the hokey fucking puppet it was.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Please, do the following... by nherm · 2012-06-22 14:43 · Score: 1

1) Implement algorithm.
2) Set this video as input.
3) If you see any kind of motion before 0:07, then prepare to receive Nobel prize. Does the detected motion occur before the dog runs away? (Also: Profit!)
Uncrop! by Sabriel · 2012-06-22 15:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Red Dwarf - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU
I mean, if you're going to break the laws of physics, might as well go for broke. :)
Re:Obvious application by interkin3tic · 2012-06-22 17:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've found that cynical comments in general get modded higher than more optimistic ones. The assumption seems to be made that if you're saying something bad about something, you know what you're talking about and appear wise. Someone praising something on the other hand, that's either a shill or a naive person. I guess pessimism is contagious.

Uh, and that's dumb and we're probably all going to die somehow as a direct result of that pessimism...
Re:SIDS by FormOfActionBanana · 2012-06-22 23:54 · Score: 1

Totally off topic since the linked videos even specifically mention monitoring for SIDS.

--
Take off every 'sig' !!
Re:Obvious application by sribe · 2012-06-23 14:12 · Score: 1

We already have technology for that: Backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners. You can find them in most major airports.
Yes, but they do not reveal variations in blood flow to various, uhm, body parts--which is what I think OP was getting at....