Erasing Objects From Video In Real Time 175
Smoothly interpolating away objects in still pictures is impressive enough, but reader geoffbrecker writes with a stunning demonstration from Germany's Technical University of Ilmenau of on-the-fly erasure of selected objects in video. Quoting: "The effect is achieved by an image synthesizer that reduces the image quality, removes the object, and then increases the image quality back up. This all happens within 40 milliseconds, fast enough that the viewer doesn't notice any delay."
Perfect Application (Score:5, Insightful)
We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.
Do we still believe what we see? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has some frightening ramifications for how much we believe video. Videos similar to the ones Wikileaks leaked, or news videos "live" on scene, could be doctored in near enough to real time that we consumers might never know it. Scary.
Re:Perfect Application (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality the networks wil use it to blur out any logo's from companys that do not sponsor the show. F1 cars will be red instead of filled with sponsors.
I thought what I'd do is... (Score:5, Insightful)
... I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
Re:Perfect Application (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt that would work, unless the racing teams could get money some other way. Who would sponsor a car when your logo won't be visible on it? The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.
Re:Perfect Application (Score:3, Insightful)
The race organizers would probably require networks that buy rights to air it to not scrub logos.
I'm pretty sure they already do.
Re:Journalistic Integrity (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an optimistic thought — it might make people skeptical of the images they see, which is a useful attitude reagrdless of this technology.
Re:Confusion Between Reality and Fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the nonsense in the Bible I'd suggest he manages it without technology.
You're right (Score:3, Insightful)
Racing competitions, NFL, etc. own the copyright to the original footage. They're not going to license broadcast of that footage to any television station which threatens their revenue model, unless the station is going to pay so dearly that their previously existing revenue stream looks paltry in comparison.
Even if the TV stations were to put more cash on the table, they still might not agree to such a practice as it gives a large degree of control to a single party (which means more finiancial risk if the party becomes unable to maintain the agreement).
Re:Perfect Application (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Journalistic Integrity (Score:3, Insightful)
Ed Murrow was a journalist who practiced integrity [wikipedia.org]. There, I did it again. So what was supposed to happen? Perhaps I should be taken in front of a special committee hunting for non-American behavior. Except wait - they disbanded that one after some punk journalist risked his career and took out McCarthy.
I actually think this is a pretty neat idea. I think the thing which concerns me is that, given the current state of affairs, the public will have even less reason to trust the press. If the public does not believe that the press maintains journalistic integrity we effectively lose the First Amendment check on government that a Free Press provides.
For example: if I think News Co. X [NCX] is actually an agent of political party A, and News Co. Y [NCY] an agent of political party B, then I likely won't believe something NCX says good about A or bad about B (and visa versa with NCY). With that as a starting point, it won't be very long before I view all News as propaganda, smear, spin, or entertainment. If enough others in the republic come to the same conclusion, then we have lost two things: the ability for news to force our government to be accountable to the public, and the ability to receive accurate information to base our voting decisions upon (so we have to vote by instinct, or emotion, or some other gibberish...). If an alternative to provide both of these does not exist (accessible to the public at large) the republic will fail.
Don't worry. Until you hear people using phrases like "I prefer to get my news from Comedy News Show Z" you still have time to pack your bags before running into the hills. Besides, it might not be all bad. Res Publica moritura before Pax Romana.