Google Launches Search By Image 109
kai_hiwatari writes "At the Inside Search event being held at San Francisco, Google has announced a new addition to its search features — Search by Image. The Search by Image feature is something like Google's image search application for mobile devices — Google Goggles — but for the desktop."
Re: (Score:2)
Both are good for?
PR0N. Stalking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
What's your real name, and what are the credit card numbers you've used online?
I mean, since everything on the internet is public and all...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe my point was, and if you took a second to reflect on it, that you should treat everything as public because it CAN be, very easily.
I got your point just fine. That's why I inquired about your name and CC#. Both are (presumably) on the internet, but clearly they are more private than you've made them out to be.
Much easier than keeping that picture you had taken back in the 80s of that hottie you doinked.
Or your credit card number, or name, or countless other bits of info that somehow manage to remain sufficiently private. I don't disagree with the idea that one should consider privacy when entering information online, but the claim you made was too broad.
Re: (Score:2)
credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.
You've got a lot to learn about SSL if you believe that...
Now let me close by redirecting your own words back at you:
but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....
Re: (Score:2)
It does this by encrypting all data between the two points. Which is, if you have ever bothered to perform a packet capture, all in plain text unless encrypted.
Since I believe you do not know what you are talking about since you didnt explain it, or have the balls to because you werent sure about it, I suggest you learn about SSL.
Basic question for yah... go ahead, google it.. Ill wait
SSL stands for
Re: (Score:3)
That's a beautiful story.
Too bad that it depends on the fairy-story of well-vetted certificate authorities and/or DNS integrity, etc.
Have fun!
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about what SSL does, not its probability of redirection hacks and certificate corruptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Commenting on the assertion:
"can only be transmitted by sender and received by intended receiver"
That is a statement that almost implies SSL in mutual authenticated mode, which is between static entities. Outside of that context, the statement still represents SSL in a way that is misleading. It encourages a greater level of trust in the technology than warranted - which tends to result in a user's relaxed vigilance.
Wifi was barely conceived of, when SSL was first proposed by Netscape - let alone public a
Re: (Score:2)
Thus my quoted statement is still true.
Just so you understand, I know what you are saying, but it is not what we are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.
I realize you are trying to be clever, but you're not really making any sort of point. What does encryption have to do with whether or not you've entered something into the internet? By your logic, if you use https, you're not using the internet? So https://www.facebook.com/ [facebook.com] is private?
but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....
Like I said, trying to be clever. Just not doing a good job of it.
Re: (Score:2)
the credit card number was never sent over the internet. an encrypted block of text was.
That encrypted block of text is your credit card number. If it wasn't, how do you think Amazon, or whoever, is able to make use of it? All encrypting it does is makes it more difficult to eavesdrop. But there's no way around the fact that you are submitting it into the internet when you make an online purchase.
HTTP over SSL/TLS is all about preventing eavesdropping. The internet host you communicate with still has to decrypt the stream to make use of it. The OP wasn't talking about how your data can be peek
Re: (Score:2)
You overestimate the value others place on your opinion. Have a nice life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean "higher resolution versions of images you already have"
Re:tineye.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Some background: Running a service like TinEye costs a lot of money. How do they do it for free?
TinEye has a major business besides free image-matching for the public. They provide private image-matching services for stock-photo sites like Getty Images (not saying the Getty uses them, but they could.)
The stock-photo site loads their entire collection into TinEye and TinEye finds everyone who is using the picture or a derivative of it. Then the photo site can sue the people who do not have a license to use an image.
Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.
Re:tineye.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.
Actually, Google's search is about extracting ad views from its users.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a major difference between the new Google Image Search and TinEye:
Yeah, one of them's got a fucking stupid name, and it's not Google.
Re: (Score:3)
TinyEye only searches for exact image matches (including cropping, size and color changes), which has some use if you stumble across an image and want to find its origin or look for people who might violate your copyright. Google search seems to go further and search for the actual thing on the image, not just the image itself.
Re: (Score:2)
They *claim* to only do exact image searches based on the data found in the file you are searching for but what I've discovered is that their search is a bit more intense than they let on because I've searched for images and have found images that might only match 50% of the file I was searching but were most definitely related to that image. I've also found images that weren't remotely related so I'm certain they have something else going on that they're not telling everyone about.
Re:tineye.com (Score:4, Informative)
TinEye matched a painting from Google Street View (Score:2)
TinEye searches much more than exact images.
I just took a screenshot from Google Street View in The Museum of Modern Art [google.com]. From the screenshot I cropped out a painting (and didn't even change the perspective) and searched at TinEye which resulted in this search [tineye.com]. Colour me impressed. Once again, my image is just a screenshot from a photo taken non-orthogonally at a painting.
TinEye is also extremely useful to help understand a photoshop meme :-)
Not copying (Score:5, Interesting)
Google had the same functionality as TinEye in Google Labs for at least as long as TinEye has been around. They (weakly) integrated it into their main site in 2009 as a "Find Similar Images" feature. Google goggles (and this) does a lot more than TinEye, because it can find different images with similar content, while TinEye only finds the same image with minor cropping and filtering applied. And academia has been publishing papers on images search for years before either company made anything.
The difference is that TinEye found a niche business model for the (relatively) simple image search that it had, and developed it into a very useful tool for the limited capability it had. Google on the other hand, decided what they had wasn't good enough for their market, and kept working on it in the background until it was good enough.
Neither is a rip off of the other. They are just different approaches to different problems, both of which borrowed from prior research as well as adding their own improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Google had this feature long before tineye? Just that they had taken that option off for some reason. Now they have re-introduced it, albeit with probably better or different algorithm.
I uploaded ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
it's high-tech, but as any geek knows, the vast majority of fuckable chicks still dig the neanderthals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this would be an interesting way to find long-lost porn. Think about it. You have an old jpg from 10 years ago. Upload it to Google and you find others from the same set, who took the photo, etc.
I'm sure you're the first person to think of this. Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We got balls!"
Poor Video (Score:1)
That video was poor. It was full of animated graphics and few actual results. The actual results didn't even find many matches.
Also, how is Google's version better than TinEye's? Nothing they've said about Google's search goes further than TinEye's. I've used TinEye and it's worked well enough; much better than what was shown in that marketing video.
Google, I'm not impressed. You should do better.
Point-n-grunt (Score:1)
They should call this technology point-n-grunt. Now I don't even have to worry about articulating my wants into words.
In all honestly thats pretty cool though, I've been expecting this for a while. Congrats on the cool new technology Google. *holds up picture of a a party hat and confetti*
Re: (Score:2)
i already have such an extension for tineye.
Effect on TinEye? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather they got integrated. Tin Eye does a wonderful job, but they don't have the sheer capacity Google has for absorbing the entirety of the internets every ten seconds.
Facial Recognition (Score:2)
This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off. (I'm surprised that there isn't a dangerous search mode that only shows results that would be blocked by safe search.)
Re: (Score:1)
(I'm surprised that there isn't a dangerous search mode that only shows results that would be blocked by safe search.)
You aren't the only one. Maybe a "pick your range" option. Some sort of sliding scale, you set high and low limits?
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off.
That may be the case this week, but with facial recognition already built into Picasa (and it works fairly well) and with other companies (facebook) threatening to unleash it on the web, we can only guess how long Google can hold off a full fledged facial reco system, at least for public figures, and probably with an opt-in, but eventually for any face at all.
The tools are there already. The privacy issue and their often mocked clinging to the "don't be evil" motto is probably the only thing preventing goo
We all know (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, supposedly it will not be facial recognition, at least not yet.
It will probably be swamped by porn.
Don't bother linking to Google (Score:3)
Great article. Not only does it get "TinEye" wrong (Tiny Eye? Really?) but it also fails to link to Google.
It's supposed to be part of images.google.com [google.com], although it's not working for me currently (the camera icon doesn't show up in the search box). There's help on how to use this feature here [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Great article. Not only does it get "TinEye" wrong (Tiny Eye? Really?) but it also fails to link to Google.
It's supposed to be part of images.google.com [google.com], although it's not working for me currently (the camera icon doesn't show up in the search box).
Are you surprised that TFA is wrong? (The repeated reference to "Tiny Eye" didn't give you a hint?) It hasn't launched yet. It launches in a couple of days...
Re: (Score:2)
The Google demo video only showed places, art and animals, not people. As far as I know Google has the tech for that already, but not enabled due to privacy concerns. There is however PicTriev [pictriev.com] for face search, which however seems to be relatively low quality.
Do they keep your image? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do they keep the image and add it to their collection or do they toss it away?
Re: (Score:1)
Just for fun, I'm only going to use images I've taken with my 3DS. Even if I have to open them in paint and photograph the screen.
Re: (Score:1)
Note that images you upload and image URLs that you search with will be treated and stored in accordance with Google's privacy policy.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Needles? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, because Google was the first search engine ever.
And suddenly... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe they should have made it more like a big truck that you can dump stuff on. It might handle the load better.
Re: (Score:2)
So exactly how many nipples are there on the Internet?
42 obviously. They're just copied a lot.
About time (Score:2)
Sometimes you have a picture that you want to know more about, and so far the only option was to take a picture of your screen with a smart phone. A desktop based image search should be much easier to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:1)
Useful for finding Creative Commons images? (Score:2)
Didn't RTFA, but ... (Score:2)
Is this being done by a hash of some kind, or by some form of image comparison? The first method would be efficient but will only produce exact copies. I'm not aware of any variation on the latter method that isn't incredibly system intensive with large numbers of images...
Re: (Score:2)
So in todays terms, its simple, fast and can do the US population based on how much you can spend on hardware. Would the math would get stuck or scale in bad ways? - just hire good people and add hardware? The world of faces is yours
Other options might be based on what extra data an Adobe is asked to save.
I read it, but it was light, so I tested... (Score:2)
I've just done a test with (1) a small section of a public image of sushi, with all metadata removed and (2) a photo I just took of some bananas on a white background.
(1) correctly identified what it was, gave me websites using the full original image, full marks, 100%, v.g.
(2) Showed me chopping boards, boxes, a violin... anything where the image had roughly the same colours in roughly the same portion of the image.
So I conclude that it is both. The hash is extremely effective, as you might expect i
I uploaded a pic of your mom (Score:2)
and it crashed with the message "Number of matches exceeds allocated memory."
Finally (Score:1)
Uses of Image Search (Score:2)
I uploaded a photo of mine--not available on the net--and Google showed me six photos that are visually similar with differing subjects. I like it.
My hope for the future is that a photo I take of some unusual connector will return info on what it fits. Similarly I would like to identify other objects through their photos when they lack other info such as model numbers.
Stalkers, rejoice! (Score:2)
See a person you'd like to get to know better? Snap a pic, run through the service, and find their details.
Possibly more fun and profitable uses of matching random faces to names would be jury tampering, background checks for employees, finding Ex's of whomever you're dating, blackmailing married men leaving a strip club or adult book store, finding where the TSA agent who just groped you lives...
Re: (Score:2)
See a person you'd like to get to know better? Snap a pic, run through the service, and find their details.
Possibly more fun and profitable uses of matching random faces to names would be jury tampering, background checks for employees, finding Ex's of whomever you're dating, blackmailing married men leaving a strip club or adult book store, finding where the TSA agent who just groped you lives...
I'm glad I don't live in your mind, it must be depressing as hell.
Later today (Score:2)
Not ready for prime time (Score:1)