Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
FX Show Nip/Tuck said it best (Score:4, Insightful)
"Beauty is Symmetry, and you have none"
One of the main characters in the plastic surgery show Nip/Tuck made that comment. It seems as if TFA applies said comment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Beauty is Symmetry, and you have none"
One of the main characters in the plastic surgery show Nip/Tuck made that comment. It seems as if TFA applies said comment.
I found the beautification piece interesting, and yes, symmetry and proportion are very important. Bigger girls that are still in the right wast-hip ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio) are perceived as attractive, and the same goes for other body parts. The research in the article focuses on face symmetry, and some of the subtle
I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up (Score:5, Funny)
All I got back was an email that read "ROTFLMAO!"
Re:I sent them a pic of my face to be touched up (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
So in summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So in summary (Score:5, Insightful)
that was exactly what I was going to write :) But the first guy sort of defeats that rule, he's actually a little broader in the face than the source image.
A simpler rule would be 'add symmetry', mirror the left half of the face (or the right half, flip a coin).
Adding a smile also goes a long way towards making people prettier, in fact a smile really is the best make-up.
Parent
Re:So in summary (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see this tool becoming very popular with the Myspace crowd once they realize the limitations of the current "hold camera above head level" method [officialda...source.com].
Parent
Re:So in summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Careful inspection reveals that the woman's lips have been broadened, also.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The algorithm seems to be highly dependant on gender. For example women aren't allowed to have a broad chin, men aren't allowed to have a narrow chin. So what it does is enforce gender stereotypes, which is probably what the majority base their perception of beauty upon. Sad but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Well something like that, if you made it too thin it would also be ugly, there is some median symmetry, which if you deviate from (too large/too small) you get ugly. There is some statistical ideal each part of the face can have before it deviates too much.
Just like too fat vs too thin (i.e. starving kid in africa vs a fat person).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not add symmetry.
Follow the golden rule.
dating sites will love this (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how soon they will be offering the "attractiveness improvement" service to the photos of their subscribers. I don't think they have enough CPU power to improve mine, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why the hell would I need their services at all? I always just send a picture of Fabio like normal people do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For the reverse process (to make other people look more attractive), I've developed my own tech. I call it Beneficial Ephemeral Eye Reticulation googles. Basically, a pair of B.E.E.R. Googles make even the attendees of a Linux kernel hacking conference look aesthetically acceptable. If only I could make the effect a lasting one...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who would want it? Surely, even butt-ugly people realize that eventually they'll have to meet their dates in person, and not being recognized is not going to be a desirable outcome. All those "more attractive" results look nothing like the original person. If I wanted to lie about my appearance, I'd sent a picture of Jean Claude Van Damme or something.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a subtle tweak to Look Better it could be quite important. First impressions and all that. When they meet you in person, okay, maybe you don't look *quite* as good, but the chance that they'll realize it's due to digital manipulation is basically zero - and, honestly, getting the other party to meet you in person is half the battle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With this kind of technology you will never want
Strange 3D photo pairs (Score:3, Interesting)
I rotated the pairs of adjusted faces so they were left to right (and the faces were on their sides), and defocused my eyes as if I was looking at a 3D stereo pair of pictures to see what would happen. The slight differences made the portraits appear to me as if they had been photographed in 3D. The places that had been changed were subtly evident as a misalignment -- in the eyes of some, for example. I realize this is a fudged 3D effect, but might there be some use for it?
---
I write pointed political and business short stories at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, any two similar pictures can get that effect if you focus on them as though they are one. I occasionally use it to cheat on "Find the 10 differences" puzzles, but I don't really see much more use for it. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was having problems with epilepsy, my doctor sent me to an eye clinic to train my eyes to work together better. This training involved numerous exercises working with those magic 3D pictures and polarized glasses. There was one thing on the computer where you could see a bird with one eye on the screen, and a box with the other eye. You then had to get the box around the bird (It would chirp at you when you got it.)
Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (Score:4, Insightful)
The first two are meh-worthy, but the last one approaches magic-grade technology. Wow!
Re:Ghost of Clarke seen skulking nearby. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for posting that. I try to pay very close attention to Siggraph, I'm not sure how I missed that paper. Fascinating stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-- it's a marketable, easy to use technology that would be of huge benefit to typical consumers, yet chances are good it will never be commercialized.
I've noticed that a lot of SIGGRAPH papers will either only work for a small subset of inputs you would want to feed it or need a properly controlled environment to work and might need a lot of tweaking to get looking correctly. In my opinion, SIGGRAPH papers depend on demonstrating excellent best cases while mainstream consumer products require that the worst case be also acceptable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. No, really, wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You can say that again, the first two seemed like little more then an image warper combined with a facial recognition system. But that enhanced video one just about had me shitting myself with the things they managed to pull off.
real footage? (Score:4, Insightful)
when cheap, easy, video editing allows this then supposedly real footage: news, family videos, wedding snaps will lose all veracity.
after every girl wants to look good for her wedding...
and before somebody says "it will never happen" this is only a logical extension of red-eye removal.
Re:real footage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the feeling from you that you trust it now. I find this confusing myself. Considering that an apparently large portion of Slashdotters very much consider themselves rationalist who do not believe things without proper evidence, it seems weird to me that many simply believe what they see in the news. These past week (maybe 2) there were at least two cases circulating around the internet where it had been observed that CNN has used footage from one event, trying to pass it off as that of another event. And that's pretty low tech.
News reports should be only be as trusted as logic can be applied to the report.
Take for instance the recent story of a Russian sipper shooting at a reporter. A few questions came to my mind:
News stories should be treated as untested pieces of evidence -- in most cases at least. The advancement of technology will only make it more difficult to tell truth from fiction.
Parent
Re:real footage? (Score:4, Informative)
What kind of sniper takes a shot and misses?
The kind that isn't a formal and TV depicted sniper. The kind that isn't a sniper at all.
Rather just some goon soldier or citizen with any old rifle from a fair distance away. Just becouse the media calls it a sniper, doesn't make it so.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?
Umm, the kind that had only one bullet? :)
Re:real footage? (Score:4, Insightful)
> What kind of sniper takes such a shot and misses?
No one is perfect. Long distance and wind variations can cause a miss.
> What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?
The smart sniper. There was no way a second shot would have hit. Everyone was moving around too much.
> How does one tell the affiliation of a sniper?
If they shoot at you, you can be sure it's the enemy. The sniper would have easily figured out which side the potential target was on.
> Do they sign their bullets or something?
Signing the bullet would have screwed up the ballistics. Snipers are extremely anal retentive when it comes to their rounds. They usually use hand loads and they buff the round to remove any imperfections.
FYI, a close friend was a sniper for SpecOps.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You trust it now? Are you new here?
Lists of Siggraph (and other) papers (Score:5, Informative)
I'd call this karmawhoring, but seeing as the editors didn't even bother linking to claimed list at 'waxy.org'... lists of Siggraph papers have been kept by Tim Rowley and Ke-Sen Huang for years. You can find this year's list at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html [googlepages.com]
And an overview of all years at:
http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/ [googlepages.com]
This also includes lists of papers presented at other events such as Eurographics.
For even more fun, visit the papers' authors sites; they often also publish papers at seemingly unrelated events that contain some interesting computer graphics gems.
One Possible Use (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. Or at least not yet... The skills etc involved in making the image manips look good are still far more expensive than the skills of porn performers. (well, most anyway)
Beauty (Score:2, Interesting)
The revolution will not be televised (Score:2)
In fact, it managed to get so different that got titled Clone Wars.Now you know why the president is so different in real life from what you see in TV.
wow (Score:2)
I'm still waiting to be able to buy a plenoptic camera [slashdot.org]
Interesting stuff... (Score:2)
Seems to me they could take this a step further and implement a sort of convolution matrix, but instead of modifying neighboring pixels, they'd be making subtle modifications to facial features.
Pure genius (Score:2, Funny)
We took this spectacularly attractive blonde chick and wrote software that "automatically" turned her neutral facial expression (or slight scowl) into a smile. While we were at it we improved the symmetry of her face. Now she's gorgeous! We're brilliant!
But that's not all. We also took this African American guy and automatically plugged in a different African American guy's face that had the exact same pose. We're Gods I tell you!
Now do you still trust those Bin Laden videos? (Score:2)
It rather looks like an uglyfication. (Score:2, Insightful)
I could not decide, which versions looked better. I only recognized that they ere mostly non that good looking on both fotos.
Then I looked closer, because I know a bit about the methods behind it. And they did some big errors, like copying the one side of a face to the other, when the face did not look perfectly straight into the camera. This gave some weird results. Some faces even looked quite unnatural (especially, but not solely the focus on huge foreheads.
P.S.: I'm happy that I now since the last month
Easy. (Score:5, Informative)
Making faces more attractive is easy. All you have to do to get a reasonable increase is to make them more symmetrical.
If you want yet another increase, there is a set of ratios for distances between features that uncannily applies to pretty much everyone who is widely considered attractive. Shift everything closer to those ratios, and you'll get a big improvement.
Want more? Fix skin blemishes.
Between the three of those, you can make incredible strides. I would highly encourage any interested to watch "The Human Face".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see the face beautification software applied to fifty of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood. I'd like to how much more beautiful they get, but also if some of them lose their unique look that makes them attractive to some.
Digital beer goggles. (Score:3, Funny)
Now she can look as good the morning after as she did the night before!
does anyone realize the implications of this tech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Video does lie now.
Can video ever be trusted again where evidence is concerned?
Complicated Software (Score:5, Funny)
See the following example for how I was able to increase the attractiveness of an already attractive Hooters girl using only Microsoft Paint. (exported via Fireworks for filesize optimization)
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9474/hooters4si8.jpg [imageshack.us]
Re: (Score:2)