Slashdot Mirror


Video Inpainting Software Deletes People From HD Video Footage

cylonlover writes "In a development sure to send conspiracy theorists into a tizzy, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics (MPII) have developed video inpainting software that can effectively delete people or objects from high-definition footage. The software analyzes each video frame and calculates what pixels should replace a moving area that has been marked for removal. In a world first, the software can compensate for multiple people overlapped by the unwanted element, even if they are walking towards (or away from) the camera."

124 comments

  1. Summary Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Background has to be static for it to work.

    Nevertheless, an interesting accomplishment.

    1. Re:Summary Fail by Knuckles · · Score: 2

      Background has to be static for it to work.

      Nevertheless, an interesting accomplishment.

      Surely the person has to move far enough across the static background to reveal at last in one frame what's behind the person? I mean, if I'm standing in front of a dwarf for the whole duration of the video, how is the software to know about the dwarf?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:Summary Fail by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      It doesn't know, but if this works like Photoshop's content aware fill, it can convincingly fake the rest of the wall. That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

    3. Re:Summary Fail by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      It doesn't know, but if this works like Photoshop's content aware fill, it can convincingly fake the rest of the wall. That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

      Yeah, figured as much but, it's early here :)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Summary Fail by jimshatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist. For that matter, dwarfs might not even exist at all!
      If you look at the video, though, the background doesn't have to be static. Objects moving over other moving objects can be removed as well. But, yeah, they have to be visible at some point.

    5. Re:Summary Fail by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist.

      True, unless the viewer at some point can examine the scene. (Photos and videos from a multitude of other sources, especially earlier ones. Granted, this works better with backgrounds less ambulatory than dwarfs)

      For that matter, dwarfs might not even exist at all!

      Might. All you know is that you haven't observed one :p

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    6. Re:Summary Fail by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Funny

      But, then, how is anyone else to know about the dwarf. From the viewer's perspective the dwarf doesn't exist.

      I hit a dwarf on the way to work today.

      We got out of our cars to exchange information.

      He said, "I am not happy."

      I asked, "Which one are you?"

      Then the fight started.

    7. Re:Summary Fail by grumbel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Background has to be static for it to work.

      Nope

    8. Re:Summary Fail by Barryke · · Score: 1

      How about the swinging arm of the guy behind the bench? That is background that is not static, yet it is redrawn with the arm motion neatly interpolated.

      Ofcourse a lot of the background should be static, but it nearly always is unless you're looking at movie SFX or sea footage.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    9. Re:Summary Fail by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Zoom and inhance.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Summary Fail by EdZ · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, it does, as the video demonstrates. Their algorithm requires a static background (i.e. a stationary camera) and handles and moving foreground objects as user-selected special cases. If the background were to move, they'd need to either motion-compensate the entire footage first (assuming the camera only changed orientation, and not position, so parallax was not an issue), or perform an exhaustive search over the entire footage (which is the specific situation their algorithm is trying to avoid!).

    11. Re:Summary Fail by Psyborgue · · Score: 4, Informative

      Absolutely false. Check the Pax Planck page.

    12. Re:Summary Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that continuous motion along any axis can be worked out with with a combination of Hough Transform and Optical Flow calculations.

    13. Re:Summary Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That being said, it's my experience that older, manual methods, usually work better.

      Yes, but how fast can you manually remove someone from 30 seconds of video? You're talking about manually touching up over 700 pictures. How many can you do in a day? This software would probably do that 30 seconds in 30 seconds.

    14. Re:Summary Fail by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Why do you claim it's impossible when that's the very thing that's demonstrated in the first few seconds of the video link you responded to?

      I know people don't RTFA, but not to look at the link of the post you're responding to?

    15. Re:Summary Fail by tgd · · Score: 1

      Background has to be static for it to work.

      Nope

      That's still a static background, just the camera position and field of view isn't static. The view of the background isn't static, but the background is. If there were moving people in the background, and you wanted to remove someone in between, you've got a problem (because you don't know what the people were doing when they were blocked).

    16. Re:Summary Fail by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Did his name happened to be Hank?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Summary Fail by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Using the free Windows software from Microsoft, it is trivial for me to stitch many photos together to make a stunning panorama photo. For example I once sat and made one while a boat pulled in to dock alongside me, to pick up a few passengers and then it pulled away. I probably shot about a dozen photos during this short time, all the while the boat was directly within my panorama. The resulting photo looks amazing, like there's 3-4 boats, (with the same people!). In fact I think I had to shoot quickly to achieve such a result, because otherwise the boat would have been erased completely from the 'landscape'.

      Was the water static background? I certainly had no tripod as I swept the camera around me as I shot each frame, while seated on the dock.

      It is amazing what effects interpolation math and a computer can achieve.

      https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    18. Re:Summary Fail by Squatting_Dog · · Score: 0

      Oh....I laughed til I cried!

    19. Re:Summary Fail by show+me+altoids · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is not a Howard Stern reference, it is a Snow White reference.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    20. Re:Summary Fail by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, I altered the reference. Pray I don't alter it any further...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Summary Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Ron White, didn't know you posted here.

  2. A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Researchers have developed video inpainting to remove the character Jar Jar Binks from the Star Wars Prequals.

  3. Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by the_arrow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't the new Galaxy S4 have a similar feature, if I read correctly? Although only for photos.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    1. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to post this too. The Galaxy S4 takes something like 100 frames and then removes any moving thing from it. Was, for me, the most impressive part of last night's big reveal.

    2. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by Barryke · · Score: 1

      I'd really like it to then allow users to chose a specific thing that is allowed to move, to make cinematic gifs.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    3. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 0

      Successive approximation dejitter followed by temporal mode filter. I could throw that together in twenty minutes. Making it run on mobile phone hardware is rather more difficult.

    4. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's your point besides demonstrating your self importance?

      That you're capable of copying people but not coming up with novel ideas yourself?

    5. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I bet it uses the GPU for doing that. These things are sufficiently beefy nowadays.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Almost like the Samsung Galaxy S4? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To argue there there is no 'magic algorithm' to what the S4 does. I'm no programming genius, just a dabbler who can knock out a few functions in C. If I can do it, it isn't hard.

  4. Reflections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I liked the fact that you could still see the pedestrians in the reflections of the display window in the video of the musicians, even though they had been erased from the front end. Like the vampire test, but the other way around.

    1. Re:Reflections by DKlineburg · · Score: 4, Funny

      These are not the vampire reflections you seek. . .

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Reflections by mrbester · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have these people never seen Rising Sun? This was a plot point 20 years ago.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Reflections by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suppose NASA can use this to make it look like the astronauts weren't on the grassy knoll. Oh wait, I'm getting my conspiracies mixed up...

    4. Re:Reflections by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Have these people never seen Rising Sun?

      I've not only seen that book, I also bothered to read it. As usual, it was better than the adaptation.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Reflections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the book too. It was a great big pile of steaming donkey shit.

      For a Michael Crichton novel, about average.

    6. Re:Reflections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just thinking of that, although I read the book instead of seeing the movie.

    7. Re:Reflections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heyyy, come on. Sean Connery's Japanese accent was almost as good as his Russian one...

  5. oh, great by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

    1. Re:oh, great by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rainbows End, by Vernor Vinge. What you described is just the beginning.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:oh, great by Auldclootie · · Score: 1

      Already done in a Charlie Stross novel... people are walking the streets but appear as pixellated blurs... Anonymity in the crowd taken to the extreme... Also reminiscent of Peter Watts - Blindsight. We already knew that eyes are unreliable indicators at best, let's not worry until someone is editing memories...

    3. Re:oh, great by geekmux · · Score: 4, Funny

      So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

      "Hey dude, what's u...Ow! Dude, what the hell, you just ran into me!"

      "Oh hey, sorry about that. I had you flagged as spam. Didn't even see you there."

    4. Re:oh, great by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I would have to flag some as ham, some as bull, some as chicken.

        If it's possible to replace them with avatars, they would all look like supermodels. All of a sudden it is just me and supermodels around me. Actually I begin to like the idea. But they would have to be dressed or I'd be crushed by incoming traffic.

      For programmers in offices they could replace colleagues with naked supermodels. I wonder what that would do to productivity.

    5. Re:oh, great by brillow · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh when you're eyes get hacked and you're unable to see people who don't want to be seen.

    6. Re:oh, great by EdZ · · Score: 1

      And people complain about CCTV. Just wait until they hear about Interceptors!

    7. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously though, it could be a good privacy-enhancing feature for glass to filter out people from your broadcasts

    8. Re:oh, great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Imagine the spam restaurant, a visual spam filter, and Google Glass. Enter the restaurant, order food, eat everything you see. "But you've barely touched the food!" "What do you mean, I've eaten everything!" Epic.

      You could also get rid of the Vikings, if you're not that much into the Nordic stuff. (Just don't do that when they turn violent: You'll never see it coming.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:oh, great by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      So combine this tech with Google Glass and identify people you just don't want to see ever again, and you may end up walking right into them without even knowing.

      We all know it would not removing them but likely replacing them with some attractive person. For /. probably w/o clothes, or if for Reddit, they'd be turned into cats.

    10. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes."

    11. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art to both those johnny-come-latelies; A Scanner Darkly, by Philip A. Dick

      "Let's hear it for the vague blur!"

    12. Re:oh, great by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Already done in a Charlie Stross novel... people are walking the streets but appear as pixellated blurs... Anonymity in the crowd taken to the extreme... ..

      Sounds like the scramble suits in Philip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I actually knew you as a real person, I'd flag everyone as a sheep.
      Hell, even if I did know you as a person, I'd probably flag you as a "special sheep".
      That's because nearly 100% of the population just follows along like good little sheep.
      Almost no-one truly thinks about how the whole system is gamed against them,
      or why they are just good little sheep.

    14. Re:oh, great by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Do you fleece the sheep, or do you butcher them up for dinner?

    15. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glasshouse. also Accelerando (though glasshouse is a sort of sequel to accelerando)

    16. Re:oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linkin Park started playing in the background as I read this.

  6. What's next? by eric31415927 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ten years ago, I predicted a "nudie button," which, instead of removing people from live video, would simply remove their clothing (through interpolation). I do not endorse the use of such a button on your TV's remote control, I merely predict its future existence.

    1. Re:What's next? by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

      I endorse this!

    2. Re:What's next? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      There is an pseudo-app for photo's: Nudifier
      https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nudifier/id554023264?mt=8

      Someone just needs to take it to the next step. :-)

    3. Re:What's next? by only_human · · Score: 1

      Someone just needs to take it to the next step. :-)

      Chatroulette?

    4. Re:What's next? by docmordin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What you proposed isn't that far-fetched, as I ended up having to contrive and implement the equivalent of this, i.e., passive, automated estimation of body shape under clothing, either from a single image or from multiple video frames, for some work I did in action recognition that required a fairly accurate representation of the person's proportions. Others, e.g., A. O. Balan and M. J. Black, "The naked truth: Estimating body shape under clothing," in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2008, pp. 15–29, have come up with solutions too.

    5. Re:What's next? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Make sure always to add inserts under your clothes in the most unexpected (and some obvious) places. Estimate this, mofo.

    6. Re:What's next? by HtR · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the best research project ever! Tell me, when you set up video experiments, what do you use as a control group? Do you just tape a bunch of test subjects walking around naked?
      Wait a second - do you pick your own test subjects, or do you have to take anyone who volunteers?
      JK.

      --
      Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    7. Re:What's next? by docmordin · · Score: 1

      As you noted, the project was fun to undertake, even though it was only a sub-component to a much larger endeavor. I may yet go back, visit it, and submit an extension as a nice stand-alone article.

      To answer your questions, though, I relied on a pool of around seventy subjects, equally distributed across genders and with a tri-modal distribution for age, many of whom were nudists that had heard about the data collection through some friends of mine. I also had a couple of adventurous fellow students and peers sign up to contribute; even my girlfriend at the time had no qualms about being filmed.

      In any event, while there was some inherent selection bias in who I chose, mainly because I needed footage of as many different body types as I could capture, so as to allow the underlying model to generalize well, I do admit to being elated whenever people with certain body types were incredibly eager to help. Granted, I did, at the later stages, have to turn some people away, since I was spending too much time acquiring data.

      For the experiments themselves, people had multiple options for what to wear for the various training phases, aside from the different changes of loose- and tight-fitting clothes that I'd ask them to bring and don. I did my best to provide multi-sex body suits of different sizes, which provided more than sufficient constraints when coupled with manually-derived measurements of quantities such as chest circumference, stomach circumference, and so forth. Others opted to strip down to their undergarments and a fair amount, surprisingly many of them women, wore nothing at all.

      Regardless of what they wore or didn't wear, each subject executed a series of actions, such as walking, sitting down, standing up, skipping, and climbing. I used six pairs of stereo vision cameras to record the events. I had hoped to use Vicon cameras for the ground truth, but the professor that had them in her lab, even though they hadn't been turned on in a year or so, was aghast over my intended application and barred me from borrowing them.

  7. Reflections on the window not removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take a close look you see the reflections of the removed persons still present

    Very impressive though

    1. Re:Reflections on the window not removed by DKlineburg · · Score: 2

      Where the reflections masked? I would think you could remove them too, you just need to select them as well. I'm at work, so am unable to see the videos till I get home.

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
  8. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't there one? Since you know... that's the entire fucking point of this software...

    1. Re:Video by kaws · · Score: 1

      There is one if you really cared to look through the second link provided. There's a nice HD video demonstrating the technique.

  9. Conspiracy Theorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they be thrown into a tizzy? Didn't they already allege the existence of such a software? Now they get to say that this version is purposefully limited to leave reflections of deleted people, so they (conspiracy nutjobs, ahem, theorists) are lulled into a false sense of confidence.

    1. Re:Conspiracy Theorists? by DKlineburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You got that wrong. Now they will say see, we told you this existed. But if this is what they are willing to show us, think how more powerful the government version is that they won't show us? They can remove you from one video walking down the street, and put you in the same scene last week (ATM time stamp) robbing someone!

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Conspiracy Theorists? by dissy · · Score: 1

      You got that wrong. Now they will say see, we told you this existed. But if this is what they are willing to show us, think how more powerful the government version is that they won't show us? They can remove you from one video walking down the street, and put you in the same scene last week (ATM time stamp) robbing someone!

      That isn't doing the conspiracy theorists justice!

      These days there is no need to go through all the work of framing you for a crime and then inventing evidence of it. Oh no.

      Instead, they will simply say you broke a secret law, but can't tell you what that law is (for national security after all), but they DO have evidence, but can't show what that is for more national security reasons.
      A judge will agree that is acceptable, and without seeing the evidence will say it is enough to prove your guilt, and thus you are guilty!

      That way they can more efficiently use the secret alien captured computers from the early 50s for reading your thoughts instead of wasting cycles processing video frames.
      Keeps costs down. Do you have any idea how much CPU time is to rent on secret alien captured computers from the 50s?? Plenty mister, plenty!

    3. Re:Conspiracy Theorists? by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure if you're making fun of conspiracy theorists or making fun of people who call others conspiracy theorists?

      What you describe was put into law by the 2012 NDAA. There isn't even a "judge" required.

      Government says: "You're a terrorist!" The evidence is secret so you have no right to examine or challenge it. You have no right to legal counsel, no right to ever see a judge or jury, and it's off to prison you go for as long as the government says. Or maybe they just kill you, which they also claim the power to do.

  10. And hilarity ensues by Solandri · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:And hilarity ensues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rules 1&2, faggot.

    2. Re:And hilarity ensues by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Heheh, I want to see the video with a swarm of hang-gliders removed. Or Indy-car racing sans cars "And as we enter the final lap the head of Al Unser Junior pulls into the lead..."

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:And hilarity ensues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this rules 1&2? Are you talking about the "newfag" rule change where rules 1&2 is to not mention 4chan entirely? No... Rules 1&2 was meant for habbo hotel, tom green, and other raids. The rule was to not mention 4chan but instead to blame it on ebaumsworld. There's also no indication that this picture is form 4chan unless you were very familiar with it.

  11. so, an end to surveillance cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If we extrapolate this, perhaps we won't be able to trust video as evidence any longer, so there's no reason to have all these surveillance cameras around.

    1. Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we extrapolate this, perhaps we won't be able to trust video as evidence any longer, so there's no reason to have all these surveillance cameras around.

      The corrupt legal system will never allow that amount of common sense to creep in.

      And we're slowly being made irrelevant to do anything about it.

    2. Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video isn't considered reliable as a primary source of evidence unless the video stream is watermarked during the recording. It can be used to direct the police in an investigation and it can support other evidence, but for forensic use it has to be encoded in a tamper-proof format. Most professional video recording appliances do this, and can export their videos in proprietary format (which preserves the forensic watermarks) or in a shareable format such as mp4 or avi. If someone were to edit the original video stream they would break the watermarks.

      There's a good reason professional DVRs cost a lot more than the cheap models coming in from China, and it's not merely the presence of uPnP security holes. Major manufacturers have to be able to prove the chain of evidence is unbroken, just like for other forms of evidence.

      Posting as AC because I work for a vendor of such products.

    3. Re:so, an end to surveillance cameras? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      It's already well established that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable and it's still treated as the most important evidence in any criminal case.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. A course on that subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This course on Coursera describes the basics of that technology. It's in its final week but I'm sure it will be reissued later on. They have other courses about computer vision announced for the next months.

    The course was pretty interesting but you don't really have to do any programming to get a grade (programming assignments are optional). Lucky for me, because I have a job and no time to spend on lengthy programming assignments, but one can't become an expert of that subject just by listening at the lessons and doing the multiple choice quizzes.

  13. finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Trek without Wesley Crusher

    1. Re:finally by only_human · · Score: 1

      or Star Wars without Jar Jar Binks

    2. Re:finally by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Think outside the box - just delete episodes 1-3 inclusive.

      Or nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...

  14. Prior art from 6 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 23C3 in Berlin, someone held a talk on OpenCV's capabilites. Among other things, he demonstrated exactly the application FTA. The talk is in German, but the pictures show pretty much what he's talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1J9CLLHp4

    1. Re:Prior art from 6 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Ammendum: He does not extrapolate movements from previous frames though.)

  15. Stalin by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 2

    Joseph Stalin would have loved this.

  16. Very ancient technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    People have been doing this for far more than the last 5 years. It is a trivial application of so-called 'optical flow' where motion vectors are used to identify independently moving objects within a scene.

    One interesting application (seen, for instance, in the Will Smith film "I am legend") takes video footage of a real environment, and converts the footage into a virtual static 'texture' for the background elements. Artists can then repaint over this 'texture' to add damage to buildings etc. The new texture can now be reapplied to the original footage, so the moving shot appears to show the artistic changes in visual context. Clearly this method will not stand up to the same scrutiny as remodelling buildings in CGI, and inserting them into a virtual set, but it works well for backgrounds.

    Films today frequently use a so-called skybox- a 360 panorama stitched from multiple still photos shot on location. This skybox allows a virtual background to be 'projected' behind the actors (say when they are pretending to be on top of a tall building or mountain) that can track the rotational movement of the camera.

    The idea of element extraction forms the basis of various camera enhanced video games found on the current consoles. Usually, the technique is the reverse of the example in the article, where it is the background that is removed so that the player may be isolated and inserted into a virtual scene.

    Slashdot needs editors that know something about technology, but that isn't going to happen while the owners of Slashdot use the tech stories to draw readers to the constant anti-Iranian warmongering propaganda that appears here almost daily.

    1. Re:Very ancient technology by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...The idea of element extraction forms the basis of various camera enhanced video games found on the current consoles. Usually, the technique is the reverse of the example in the article, where it is the background that is removed so that the player may be isolated and inserted into a virtual scene.

      Uh, yeah, and now that we've revealed that removing someone is "ancient technology" is is exactly this reversed scenario that most should fear today and is ripe for abuse in a corrupt world.

      One day, you think it's cool that you've been "painted" into a video game...until you realize that same technology can "paint" you right into Exhibit A: The murder scene.

      How long before innocent people are framed? Judges can't even understand how the internet works. You think they're going to grasp this and give you a fair trial?

    2. Re:Very ancient technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      easy, just paint the judge into the same scene as evidence it can be faked

    3. Re:Very ancient technology by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      The camera games, so far as I know, still require a background plate to be taken as calibration before the game starts so it can generate a difference mask. Apple's photo booth software on mac also does this, though it only works if your clothing differs enough from the background (otherwise you become transparent). If your background or lighting doesn't change, it works great. This seems to be much advanced than diff mask. shift map or simple optical flow techniques in that they're regenerating occluded bits of people as well as just the background (see gizmag article picture, midway down the page, where the dude's arm was fixed). It also seems to work with a free-moving camera, meaning you don't have to have a fancy camera rig to shoot the footage twice in order to get a clean background. You still have to manually mask the foreground elements, however.

    4. Re:Very ancient technology by cffrost · · Score: 3, Informative

      One day, you think it's cool that you've been "painted" into a video game...until you realize that same technology can "paint" you right into Exhibit A: The murder scene.

      How long before innocent people are framed? Judges can't even understand how the internet works. You think they're going to grasp this and give you a fair trial?

      Already, people are routinely convicted based on bullshit forensic pseudoscience: PBS Frontline: The Real CSI [torrent]

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    5. Re:Very ancient technology by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The photobooth trick is called a 'difference matte' or 'difference key.' It's found in most high-end video editing software, though not always by the same name. I wrote one myself too - http://birds-are-nice.me/video/bluescreen.shtml

      As you can see from my effort, it isn't as easy as you'd think to get good results.

    6. Re:Very ancient technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long before innocent people are framed?

      They already are, and have been for a long time. Illinois dropped the death penalty when it was found that half the men on death row were innocent. Some examples:

      ...Twenty nine at the time of the murder, Brown had the mental capacity of a 7 year old. There was no physical evidence to convict him, only a false confession written by a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) agent. The claim was that Brown dictated the confession to the SBI agent but given his mental state at the time, there is no possibility that he could have given such a detailed confession. Floyd was convicted solely on the false confession and was not given the opportunity to stand trial because he was ruled incompetent to stand trial.
      ...

      In June 2010, Barry Gibbs was awarded the largest civil rights settlement by the City of New York to date of $9.9 million.[15] He received an additional $1.9 million settlement from New York state in late 2009. He was wrongly convicted of the 1986 murder of Brooklyn prostitute Virginia Robertson based on coerced testimony by a witness during the investigation by NYPD detective Louis Eppolito. Gibbs' original sentence was 20 years to life for the murder, of which he served just under 19 years. Gibbs never expressed remorse for his crime to the parole board, on the grounds that he was innocent and had no remorse. Every two years at his review, the board denied his parole because of his lack of remorse. Gibbs was exonerated in 2006 with help from the Innocence Project. In addition, the conviction of former detective Eppolito for his sideline as a mob hit man and the change in testimony by a witness in Gibbs' case helped him.[16]

      ...

      Arrested in 1991 and convicted a few years later, Taylor served 17 years in prison. Taylor did cooperate with the police and even offered DNA samples and willing to take a polygraph test. Police charged Greg Taylor and Johnny Beck for the murder of the woman. Yet police wanted Taylor to incriminate Beck but he refused. With the help of Christine Mumma of the North Carolina Center of Actual Innocence, Taylor was freed. Mumma was able to prove the lack of physical evidence towards Taylor and the flawed process. Also, the SBI failed to report all of their testing results during Taylorâ(TM)s original trial and misrepresented the evidence. Taylor describes this experience as âoeThe perfect storm of bad luck.â

    7. Re:Very ancient technology by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I think you're filtering is a little too strong in your example. Noisy camera? You use a median filter?

    8. Re:Very ancient technology by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Very noisy camera. I was trying to best replicate the conditions typical of a zero-budget production: No proper backdrop, a too-small studio (thus shadows cast behind the actor), no professional lighting, a cheap consumer camera. I ran the video through virtualdub's temporal smooth, that took the worst off. The only places the filter really struggles are the very dark regions - those near-black folds in the trousers, the shadows under the arms - where noise overwhelms the color component. There's a lot of filtering of the mask involved too. I played around a lot with morphological operations before eventually abandoning that approach in favor of iterative refinement: Generate mask, then blur and use the resulting values as 'hints' in generating the mask for the next iteration. That works far better. Runs at a little under 1fps, but it's only a single-threaded test filter, so I could make it much faster if I had reason.

    9. Re:Very ancient technology by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Dark areas, and motion blur - you can see that clearly in the final seconds. It's a binary mask. The solution to this, I feel, is in physics rather than any change to the algorithm: Just set up a couple of those cheap 100W DIY worklights. No more near-0,0,0 blacks, and the motion blur reduced as the camera automatically reduces shutter'* speed.

      * That term is going to be with us long after the physical shutter is gone. It's easier than saying 'CCD sampling interval duration.'

    10. Re:Very ancient technology by Anonymatt · · Score: 1

      I love how you turned your whole personal vibe around there at the last second.

  17. Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best ues of technology EVER!

  18. Common software by thoughtlover · · Score: 2

    Software of this type has existed for a long time. It's commonly used for rig removal, but can be used to remove any object that is 'outlined' for removal. Next-and-last frame comparison is what 'batch clones-out' the outlined object. It's the same tech that Boujou used (vector analysis, per-pixel tracking via next-current-last frame comparison), but that app is/was used more for creating a virtual camera path for a 3D environment... Mokey was pretty good at this type of object removal, too (it's called Mocha, now - www.imagineersystems.com ). This type of software is pretty common and many companies make their own in-house if they have the need, I'd think. Remember how they removed Denzel Washington's character from the remake of The Manchurian Candidate? The real-time aspect is where we're going.. like The Running Man w Schwarzenegger. They used this type of tech in it, but in near real-time. That's scary.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
    1. Re:Common software by dFaust · · Score: 1

      It's interesting you mention Boujou - the same company (2d3) announced basically this software, with some mighty impressive demo videos, at SIGGRAPH about 11 years ago.

      As far as I know, though, it never saw the light of day.

    2. Re:Common software by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I'm just interested if there is any open-source versions of this available. Mainly, I want to remove TV logos and ads from shows I want to save on my PC.

  19. I thought what I'd do was... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  20. Rising Sun by Michael Crichton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the executives do this in Rising Sun? They deleted a rapist's face from the security cam.

  21. Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into by Barryke · · Score: 1

    This would be a cool usecase. I dont mind JarJar so much though, theres lots of stranger things in starwars, but i'd make a good technology demo.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  22. There's an app for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iStalin

  23. Legal implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CCTV no longer valid evidence?

  24. Meh... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I have seen this done in After Effects 5 years ago. In fact I remember a script/template that was floating around that tried to automate it quite well.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  25. Samsung Galaxy S IV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't the Samsung Galaxy S IV have this feature?

  26. what about competing TV advertising? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    the sponsor which pays for the broadcast paints over the stadium ads for the sponsor's competition. for example: in an auto race, the TV sponsor, Budweiser, paints the Miller car.

  27. The Laughing Man by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone reminded of the Laughing Man from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex?

    A hacker who was able to hack the cybernetic vision of others in real-time to make himself invisible...

    1. Re:The Laughing Man by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      God dammit got here too late to quote Catcher in the rie!

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  28. Is this real time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've done the same thing using layers in after effects and re-rendering the video. I'm not sure of a practical use for this technology unless it can save me time. To make this kind of change realtime would definitely be usefull!

  29. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can take someone out, you can put someone in. Think about it.

  30. Electronic BothaChrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody remember the Bothachrome comedy skit?

  31. This is doubleplus ungood for future unpersons. by eegad · · Score: 1

    ** We're sorry, the author of this thoughtcrime has been vaporized. **

  32. Walmart by phorm · · Score: 1

    ...make sure you turn it off before going into a Walmart or KFC etc.
    If that happens, I predict some nerds with Google Glasses gouging their eyes out...

  33. Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    They'd have to develop a similar algorithm for audio though.

    I think I'd find a mute Jar Jar far easier to tolerate than an invisible one.

  34. Prior art. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    I believe this is just an extension of the research done by this guy.

  35. A better approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like this approach better. That was posted on Slashdot back in 2008.

  36. Life After People! Remove the speech, too. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Now I have installed an Active People Filter to remove people from all those Internet videos and movies and DVDs I watch. Along with speech and vocal removal filters for music, speech removal.

    The filters have learned what people look like and do a fair job at stamping them out of still images too.

    Now my life is like a series of paintings in still-life. Sitcoms are rooms of silent furniture and no stupid laughter, the Olympics and football a breathtaking vista of grand spaces and odd sporting equipment lying around.

    I take long walks through the Internet, I am surrounded by the sounds of nature and gallivant in sun dappled glade. All is well.

    Now I am alone in the whole world. And then the silent spell is broken shrilly. Microsoft wants to install updates on my computer.

    My life is light, waiting for the death wind,
    Like a feather on the back of my hand.
    Dust in sunlight and memory in corners
    Wait for the wind that chills towards the dead land.

    ~TS Eliot

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  37. why mention HD? by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do with the number of pixels of the video format? Why even mention the words "HD"? Is this software unable to operate at higher compression formats or smaller aspect ratios?

  38. Re:A boon which is sure to send Starwars fans into by Dabido · · Score: 1

    ... and replace him with walkie talkies so as not to scare the children!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)