Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Movie and TV GUIs: Cracking the Code

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-looking-forward-to-seeing-that-independence-day-virus dept.

rjmarvin writes "We've all seen the code displayed in hacking scenes from movies and TV, but now a new industry is growing around custom-building realistic software and dummy code. Twisted Media, a Chicago-based design team, started doing fake computer graphics back in 2007 for the TNT show Leverage, and is now working on three prime-time shows on top of films like Gravity and the upcoming Divergent. They design and create realistic interfaces and codebases for futuristic software. British computer scientist John Graham-Cumming has drawn attention to entertainment background code by explaining what the displayed code actually does on his blog, but now that the public is more aware, studios are paying for fake code that's actually convincing."

21 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Facial recognition by jodido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking. Yet somehow get through ginormous databases in minutes.

    1. Re:Facial recognition by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't take minutes. It takes exactly as long as it does for the person at the keyboard to look up, make some remark to the main character and then glance back down when the computer goes "beep."

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    2. Re:Facial recognition by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      ...or it takes days, if it's necessary for the story.

      ...much in the same way that one week anyone on the planet can be tracked to inches of their location by their cellphone instantly, by anyone with a computer when the story wants it to be and other people who use perfectly normal non-CIA cellphones (because CIA cellphones are magic) can't be located, ever, under any circumstances, until the story wants them to be located.

    3. Re:Facial recognition by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking

      It doesn't, and it shouldn't but it could do something along those lines by way of feedback.

      I've written a number of systems that have lengthy batch processes that flashes up record information as the system moves through; it doesn't show every record it passes as the screen updates would slow down the system enormously, but it updates a couple times a second and shows for example, every 10000th or so giving them real feedback that something is actually happening without slowing it down at all.

      The progress bars that are time 'calibrated' and do not bear any reflection to actual progress are the bane of my existence; where the process hangs at 50% at stops dead, but the time calibrated progress bar just drifts along to 99% and then eventually reports that an error happened.

      Those updates that actual data is being processed are good user feedback that its actually doing something.

      Of course I don't think facial recogntion is done with a cursor search from the start of a database to finish, the way a system batch processing transactions would be. Instead I imagine they work more like traditional databases, breaking the images down to collections of indexable information and searching the indices; so a record-by-record walk wouldn't be necessary, or perhaps would only be necessary as the final pass through a returned set to further score and sort the results.

      In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.

    4. Re:Facial recognition by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.

      Statistically nobody would even understand what they were on about unless they devoted an entire episode to the concept. Which might be reasonable, of course.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Godzilla 2000 used the whats new in mame txt file by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Godzilla 2000 used the whats new in mame txt file on a system shown at high speed maybe they can just take txt files from anywhere and show them at speed that needs freeze frames to read them.

  3. Leverage, for one, was a masterpiece by Lumpio- · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A brilliant combination of real software and fake GUIs on the same screen - they obviously had a product placement deal with Microsoft, and in one scene they literally dragged a file from SkyDrive into the usual bleeping "FBI Database Lookup" window. I wish I had a .gif of that...

  4. Revolution (the TV Show) by cmeans · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Feb. 27th, Revolution had code scrolling on the screen (yes they were debugging at light speed), but they stopped at a C function that did actually have a runtime bug that matched the story line (an unused/released C malloc). The only thing that spoiled it was that the same statement was missing a semi-colon, so the code wouldn't have actually compiled in the first place.
    Oh well...it was nice to see some code that did actually match what the characters were babbling about...even if there were other things that they did that didn't make any sense what-so-ever to someone who actually understood what they were seeing on the computer screen.

    --
    Give a hand, not a hand-out.
    1. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Actually some compilers(*coughgcc4.7*) in some instance will compile a missing semi colon. They assume the next line is a continuation and funny things happen.

      Of course I can't speak to the instance you are talking about.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by DRichardHipp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The code on-screen was real code from SQLite. The line that contained the memory leak was added by the producers. More information here: http://www.mail-archive.com/sq...

    3. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by linebackn · · Score: 2

      The only thing that spoiled it was that the same statement was missing a emi-colon

      That was the ONLY thing that spoiled it?

      In a show where power is magically inhibited by some fucking nanites, who can also bring back power to stuff that has 15-year old aged batteries or no other power source, can be used as weapons, while at the same time having the ability to heal people, that that have become sentient, that can bring the fucking dead back to life, are being worshiped, communicate through hallucinations, can re-create an entire world in a Matrix-ish type way, and who knows what kind of shit they are going to pull out of their asses next! (Don't know why I watch that piece of shit)

      Are you sure that is the ONLY thing that spoiled it for you?

    4. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 2

      Only part of it came from SQLLite. Other functions came from libfann (Fast Artificial Neural Network Library). I was rather impressed they used code from a neural network, that is completely in line with the story. Good Job, (R)Evolution.

    5. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      I stopped after ep 2. If nothing else, it looked like cancel-fodder.

    6. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Hey! At least all the zombies in the Walking Dead are still mowing all the lawns....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by linebackn · · Score: 2

      Thing is, it started off trying to be fairly realistic. If they had started out from day 1 explaining that these nanites were implemented to collect and redistribute power with some not fully understood tech that might be supernatural or alien, then it would be easier to just sit back and enjoy. But instead they keep everything secret so they can pull out some new WTF whenever they feel like it.

      Take the basic premise and characters, and stuff it in a mind-warping anime, and it would probably work well.

      But as it is, they use real actors... who ironically seem to lack energy. And the plot seems to have no real direction (Turn the lights back on? How is that supposed to work after 15 years of neglected infrastructure?). Whoever writes this stuff just wants to yank around the audience. And it probably will get canceled without a proper ending.

      From my perspective, half the fun of watching any sifi-ish show is exploring the universe they have created, and too much secrecy and inconstancy ruins it.

      On the brighter side, they nuked Atlanta. :)

  5. It's not just movies and TV by idontgno · · Score: 2

    Fallout New Vegas has a man-portable 25mm automatic grenade launcher. It has an on-screen display scrolling what looks like code while the weapon is firing.

    The code? It's a piece of BASH scripting. With a crippling syntax error ("if" without closing "fi").

    If this was the height of alternate-history pre-war embedded software technology, I can understand why derelict car engines can explode in a nuclear explosion.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. Re:Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Blueprints aren't blue paper.

    It's actually a light-sensitive chemical reaction (cyanotype). The back side of blueprints (without the dye) are white. Before it's been exposed to UV and cured, the dye is kinda yellow-ish.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  7. Nothing Beats CSI by asmkm22 · · Score: 2

    The creators of CSI are hands-down either the most tech-illiterate people on the planet, or the best Trolls in the industry. I can't tell which it is.

    Here's a real gem:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  8. Archer Has Gags in it's Background Code by terrab0t · · Score: 4, Informative

    An animator for the TV show Archer popped into Reddit's Linux section to point out an in-joke he'd placed in some code on an extra monitor in a scene. He says he's added many more gags like this.

  9. A Tumblr with fake UI by samuel.progin · · Score: 2

    wonderful http://fakeui.tumblr.com/

  10. Re:Second matrix movie by hibiki_r · · Score: 2

    It was more than just sensical: They were using it to locate a server that was vulnerable to a real exploit for a real exploit for a real(if old) version of SSH1:

    http://nmap.org/movies/

    It's always disappointing when terrible movies mix total nonsense with very real information, as it raises expectations too much. Other examples of somewhat correct lingo mixed with nonsense is the scene in Hackers where they go through real books that actual hackers from way back then would find useful. But even if I bring my old college book on compiler design to work, risk getting called into Human Resources by riding on a skateboard through the building, and telling everyone that we should start hacking the Gibson, it'd still not make any of my female coworkers actually look like Angelina Jolie.

    All those movies, full of lies.