Inserting Artificial Objects into Photographs

http://www.cgchannel.com/2011/10/cool-tech-demo-match-3d-models-into-archive-photos/

by ThomPete • 15 years ago

339 41 15 years ago

nhebb2• 15 years ago

Very realistic. My first thought was that if this can be done without leaving detectable artifacts, then it will inevitably impact the admissibility of photographs as evidence in trials.

wayneyeager• 15 years ago

And, apparently, videography.

nhebb2• 15 years ago

They took a still image and added moving objects to it, but I don't know if they can apply the technique to videos yet (although I'm sure that's coming).

SoftwareMaven3• 15 years ago

And eye-witness testimony should be made inadmissible (and I think may eventually). DNA evidence has a 1 in 200 (ish) chance of being wrong[1]. Hard time to be a lawyer.

1. Source: The Drunkard's Walk. This is the estimated likelihood of a lab error, which by far drowns out the 1 in a billion chances the DNA match is wrong, but the numbers are not reported and not admissible as evidence.

ovi256• 15 years ago

On average, you need 100 people to find two among them with one common fingerprint. Now calculate how many you need to find one among them that has a common fingerprint with a given person, i.e. you.

mckoss• 15 years ago

While humans will be fooled, the researches have not attempted to fool computers. I would think there would be some simple filtering you could perform on the image to detect the inserted objects.

lloeki• 15 years ago

Container-induced information analysis (like jpeg artefacts) can indeed bring a lot of information about manipulated areas.

sp3323• 15 years ago

This is a great example of using humans for what humans are good at (interpreting photographs) and computers for what computers are good at (lots of light modelling).

rmc2• 15 years ago

Can we please not use OTT descriptions like "Mind-Blowing". It sounds a bit... tabloid-y

sp3323• 15 years ago

The title of the video is "Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs" which I think sounds much better.

SoftwareMaven3• 15 years ago

The article linked to uses the title. Better would have been to link to the paper itself (which also includes the video), but the OP was following title submission rules.

phzbOx• 15 years ago

The article was submitted days ago and received no attention at all. I guess Bind Blowing Titles work even on HN.

rmc2• 15 years ago

Looks like it's been corrected to something a little less dramatic. Cool.

tripzilch• 15 years ago

Okay, but to be completely honest I was blown away by the video demonstration, so it did deliver on the promise ;-)

vsl2• 15 years ago

As technology progresses, it seems like only a matter of time before all photos and videos can be perfectly modified to suit whatever purpose. At some point, perhaps movie stars will do no more than lend their likeness (airbrushed of course) to productions.

anigbrowl6• 15 years ago

It will be a case of '3d killed the video star,' in many ways. We are already approaching a point where the acting and the appearance are two different things; actors like Andy Sirkis and Doug Jones are not very well known to the general public, but have played starring roles as larger-than-life monsters of the screen. Although it is not yet economical, it is already quite possible to take one person with excellent acting ability and map on the appearance of someone else who is more visually appropriate or attractive.

jxcole• 15 years ago

Read the linked paper, it's actually very good. It looks like they used good science in testing this:

"From our study, we conclude that both our method and the light probe method are highly realistic, but that users can tell a real image apart from a synthetic image with probability higher than chance. However, even though users had no time restrictions, they still could not differentiate real images from both our method and the light probe method reliably."

rbanffy3• 15 years ago

I love the extensive use of teapots. On a previous life, I had one (a physical one) on my desk.

sp3323• 15 years ago

It's the standard Utah Teapot https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Utah_teapot also the Stanford Dragon makes several appearances https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_Drag...

rbanffy3• 15 years ago

Never had a dragon, but I was very fond of my "teapotahedron"

jQueryIsAwesome• 15 years ago

Papers: http://kevinkarsch.com/publications/sa11.pdf

Looks like film makers and others will save a lot of money in decorating scenarios.

icefox• 15 years ago

Same thoughts here, it might make low budget special effects possible?

Stasyan• 15 years ago

Funny thing is that this was posted 3 days ago : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3111258

and it only got 5 points

And the link was to the page of one of the guys who did research.

???

agazso• 15 years ago

Yeah, but it wasn't "mind-blowing" then. Good titles are important.

anigbrowl6• 15 years ago

Happens all the time. The new and front pages are too busy so worthwhile articles often get overlooked. But it is good to repost as you did, I will usually look at the original and add an upvote.

6ren• 15 years ago

Yes, e.g. the recent "Quantum Levitation" was submitted 5 times before the successful one: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Quantum+Lev...

TechnoFou• 15 years ago

That is very impressive. I used to do a lot of photorealistic modelling using mental ray or vray in 3ds max, andt he level of precision of this is quite frankly extraordinary. This could very be a game changer in the 3D industry.

5hoom• 15 years ago

This is true.

Camera matching usually requires a lot of forethought and preparation of the physical scene, involving thoroughly surveying the location & obtaining light-probe data so that an accurate 3d model of the scene can be produced and the inserted objects lit correctly.

This could make composing 3d/practical images a trivial exercise, very nice.

spydum• 15 years ago

pretty cool... i can see this being used as a pretty slick "try before you buy" feature for an online furniture/home goods store.

defdac• 15 years ago

I see they use Luxrender. Any one dares to take a guess at what algorithm they used? The animations seems noise free so I guess particle/photon mapping? IGI perhaps?

Inserting Artificial Objects into Photographs

Related Stories