Live or Memorex? 299
Jett points us to an article in free! and another in Broadcasting and Cable, describing how CBS News digitally inserted ads into their New Year's broadcasts - the same technology that adds ads into live sports broadcasts. The technology to undetectably alter a still photo has been around for a long time, but only recently has the capability existed to alter live broadcasts in real-time. The CBS News director suggests that a good, ethical use of this technology would be 'blocking out objectionable signs or covering up a competitor's logo'. How can society cope with a world where seeing can not equal believing?
I would be more interested... (Score:1)
--- Brian
Re:Broadcasting costs money (Score:1)
Re:Broadcasting costs money (Score:1)
Re:First Down Line by Princeton Video Image (Score:1)
Re:digital images of mars (Score:2)
Lander craft settles down onto a huge Coke logo, other billboards are featured in the background, most of the mars landscape is obscured. The first astronaut steps of the craft onto the surface, gets half way through something like "One small step for man..." etc before being cut off by some CGI babe running into the screen handing him/her a can of Coke(tm) say "After a 2 year flight, I bet you could use the refreshing taste of Coke(tm)."
One last thing:
errr... wouldn't the existing guidelines prohibit this, or do these people always need to have things made 'specific' and spelt out for them. I can't help but think that some people are just a bit thick.--
Simon
whose truth (Score:1)
It will soon be mighty easy to manufacture evidence against someone and frame them. So what if lots of people know that this capability exists. The onus will be on the accused to prove they were framed in this manner.
Handy dandy link (Score:3)
And since the line is added by the broadcaster, there isn't just one company doing it. Each of the 3 broadcasters has their own system, I think.
ESPN (and MNF) use SporTVision [sportvision.com] for example, not PVI.
Implications (Score:2)
I can see it now, bank robber bursts in, kills everyone, and walks out with all the cash. Security video shows the whole thing including his face with no mask. Goes to trial.
Brother-in-law testifies that they were watching 'when butterflys attack' on FOX. Defense claims that the footage was rigged, just like on the evening news because the police hate people who watch fox. The police claim that the home video of him watching the show and getting sprayed with beer in a vain attempt to win $10,000 is faked, just like the evening news.
After extensive interviews, eye witnesses across the street testify that they saw a man with three legs and a purple beard run out of the bank and escape in a giraffe drawn sled.
Case dismissed.
This is really sad.... (Score:3)
What annoys me more is how much ads are being forced upon us in all aspects of life; tv, movies, the net, magazines, even in college textbooks. TV is the worse right now; it used to be that the end credits for most shows were just shown in full screen, no problem, but then someone got the idea to splitscreen them, to allow an ad to run along side the credits. This idea expanded everywhere, and now nearly no show has anything happen during the credits (one of the few I can think of is Frasier or Whose Line is it Anyway?). I remember one time a local station tried to do the same thing during the end credits of Voyager, which UPN had already splitscreen, such that one could not hear the preview of next week's episode, nor read any of the credits as they were 1/4th of the screen.
Why do we need ads pushed in our face as much as advertizers think we do? I'm sure I'm not the only one on /. that generally makes shopping purchases based on reviews and reports, rather than "I saw that on TV!". I would also suspect that up to 50% of such Americans are like that as well, being trained consumers rather than drop-of-the-hat buyers. Unforunately, I suspect that this group does not include the target of these commercials: the 15-21 and 22-30 demographics. These people tend to spend more on impluse purchases, as thus will be more prone to an ad than others.
And very much unfortunately, we have no way to stop this forced advertizing. We are the low end of the entertainment food chain, when it comes to consumers. The stations know they have our eyes, and the ads know they have our wallets. We have no real place to complain to except the FCC (as Americans, at least), and I'd suspect such cries would go unheard. Until we are at a point where there are 6 minutes of show vs 24 minutes of commercials.
Hopefully, what occured above may spark something, whether a law suit between two rival TV networks, or something pointing out that the press can no longer be considered to be biased. One question that might be asked is what version of a live shot might be archived away in the stations' vaults, the original or the modified? Can you imagine the shear power that a network press room might have if they can present their archived version (the one that was modified in real time) and use that as evidence in a major governmental scandal? Sure, there are telltale signs that the picture was modified, but technology will only get better to a point where you can't tell.
I do hope that the network media realizes they have journalistic morality to think of here. Even something as innocent as changing a sign to be an ad for yourself can lead down the road to trouble.
Re:First Down Line by Princeton Video Image (Score:3)
Presumption Analysis (Score:3)
Contracts generally exist to clarify assumptions, not introduce utterly unexpected clauses--for example, a parking lot *can* disclaim liability for random damage caused to your car, but *can't* make the claim that exceeding one hour parking causes ownership of the car to transfer to them.
Contracts reflect the surrounding legal environment; they rarely completely rewrite it. The leeway granted on contract negotiations appears to usually be connected to the equivalent levels of power between the two negotiating bodies--the less legal force one party has in relation to another, the more the validity of the underlying contract is controlled by the legal environment. (Thus, the recent dismissal of an employee's noncompete clause which stated they couldn't work for a year in the same industry--this would have destroyed the employee but done no harm to the employer, thus the judge declined to enforce.)
This applies directly to the re-editing of video streams in that there's a presumption by the viewer that what they are seeing is a representation of the facts. The yellow first down line represents a fact that is in conceptual existence but lacks physical representation. This is a use of the technology to aid comprehension. However, the surreptitious modification of video streams to replace advertising and/or objectionable content is different--there is no underlying shared context being expressed, rather the value that the viewer places in what they see within in a given scene is redirected towards whatever the production crew desires.
Now, it obvious that the production crew can decide the backdrop as a whole--indeed, computer generated news desks are not entirely rare. But they're represented as such, and come replete with their own credibility wins and losses. Similarly, a correspondant appearing to report from the Middle East is spawning the presumption that, "They must know what they're talking about because they're actually there when I'm sitting on my couch *here*".
We attach value and credibility to the backdrop of any news report--even the simple tagline for an AP Newswire story gives the location of the author(if not his or her name).
To replace advertising, or any content in a non-obvious manner(pixelation of objectionable content is obvious, and explicitly changes the context of the display) is to borrow the credibility one holds for an environment and secretly sell it to the highest bidder.
That's not fair, and not even a 1.5 second blurb at the beginning of a broadcast can escape that fact. It's lying to the customer. That's not fair. Show some kids a walking, talking, thinking Teddy Ruxpin bear, and when they grow up provide them invisibly manipulated cities and scenes to believe in?
Hell, at least they're consistent.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Simply put... (Score:2)
I suppose inserting ads is borderline, since at least the alteration is obvious. Same for sticking the score in the corner of the screen. But other than that, I see no potentially ethical use for this sort of thing.
Nothing new here (Score:4)
The media has also been guilty of image manipulation before. One of the popular magazines was caught during the OJ Simpson trial. They doctored up a picture of Simpson and gave him a couple days beard growth, darkened shadows to make him appear more menacing and so on. They were definately trying to manipulate the public. It was done to sell more magazines but it was done at the expense of the publics perception of Simpson.
Watch any interview on TV, most of the cutaway shots to the reporter are done after the fact. Often the questions are reshot later to give the reporter a heightened air of professionalism. Have you ever contrasted the way a reporter speaks to the way the typical person speaks? Some of it is professionalism but a lot of it is a cheat on the part of the producers.
So, this is nothing new. It's reprehensible but you shouldn't trust the media any less over it. You should always be looking for the hidden angle which is the only way you'll be able to form your own opinions.
Technology faciliting Censorship (Score:2)
Is this an admission of censorship from CBS? Are they admitting that the news is watered down and censored to meet the needs of whoever is paying the most in sponsorship and advertising that quarter?
I watch the news. I need the news. I enjoy the news. I don't need someone elses idea of what the news should be.
I know this is a little muddled but I know what I mean!
Re:Technology faciliting Censorship (Score:2)
All censorship is wrong and an insult to our intelligence as it supposes that we are all too dumb to make up our own minds.
"Ethical use?" (Score:2)
Now, a "live" shot of a war could be doctored to not show any of "our" troops dying - hell they could edit the footage to change the outcome of things...and it would all be done in the name of "protecting the people" - Bullsh**. It's lying, plain and simple.
And "blocking a competitor's logo" is *not* ethical, at least in my opinion. Blocking ALL logos and ads would be OK if it was a consumer decision, but we don't need TimeWar^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAOL deciding that every ad on cable TV is an AOL ad, and brainwashing people that way.
This isn't to say that this technology doesn't have good, legitimate uses. It's just that in our society the way it is today, the power of this WILL be misused, and it's the people who will get the short end of the stick, not the companies, corporations and media.
Digital signatures (Score:2)
But of course just yesterday there was a GPL'ed software release to do realtime video editing, and anyone with enough kilobucks to spend can do better.
There are third party services out there that will timestamp and PGP sign your data, but that's kind of pointless when the latency involved in video editing is less than the latency involved in sending hashes to the timestamper's server and getting them back.
Kinda Like The TidyBowl Man (Score:2)
This is not a big deal folks... (Score:2)
All this talk about government conspiricies and doctoring footage is REALLY funny coming from a technical crowd. Beforehand, did you REALLY believe all those special effects in X Files??
You don't even have to calculate camera paths anymore to match moves against the camera - software does the math for you (See MatchMaker at my companies website). You can also automatically build 3D models from 2D motion footage, WITHOUT extra cameras and such.
You can fool a lot of people with virtual sets and motion capture, but an expert will [hopefully] always be able to tell what has been faked. The editing and compositing process always leaves some destructive signs of work, even if they are not visible to the eye. Relax people... I'd be more afraid of those transcievers they want to put in your driver's license so they can track you, only when you go through those express toll-booths of course ;-)
This message was posted with Mozilla M12, and wow it's looking good!
A president and a naked lady (Score:2)
Belief != Trust (Score:2)
It's censorship though, but if you watch/read/listen to any news media you're being given someone else's view of the facts anyway, is editing censorship? Yes, no, maybe.
You cannot believe what you see - that's not new. What is new is that modifications are much harder to detect than previously, say, the classic example of the shot of Lenin preaching with the then out of favour Trotsky replaced by a lump of wood.
Can you trust what you see? That's the real issue. Can you trust your news provider to give you as many facts as are pertinent. After all, you can read two newspapers, but you can't watch two live actions feeds with as high a level of discrimination.
If you can't trust the image - and unless a strict code of conduct is used to indicate when manipulation is used you can't trust the image - then you must be able to decide whether you can trust the provider.
Too Far (Score:2)
But saying "Goebbels would be proud" goes beyond that. It implies a similarity of motive in the development or use of this technology. I don't see why Goebbels would be proud of inserting ads into a TV broadcast, unless, for example, they were conveying vile propaganda.
We're not just talking about some PR guy here... (Score:2)
No, that would be the "deceptiveness" of a media tactic. Its evilness depends on the purpose or message inherent in that deception. It's not a comparison of deception: Goebbels used other, more subtle ways to promulgate evil and destructive propaganda besides outright deception. Furthermore, Goebbels is not just some PR person: again, comparing someone in the media with Goebbels is perhaps the ultimate insult, so I'm curious what brought this on in the article heading.
From the goebbels-would-be-proud dept.? Huh? (Score:4)
Can they be sued for this? (Score:2)
If I were the owner of a building who had chosen not to have a billboard and one was plastered on anyways for the evening news, I would want to sue.
But would either have a case?
Wondering,
Ben
Re:What you see... (Score:2)
No, I'm not paranoid. I know that whatever they can do, they won't agree on what to do.
It's been a while since "seeing" was "believing" (Score:2)
It's been a while since you could really believe what you saw.
Consider this: Print out a "memo" from your boss saying you should get a raise. Include a scanned image of your boss' signature. Don't claim it to be the original, just a copy you made on the inkjet-based fax machine. Or, pick up one of those photo printers, and digitally stick your ex-wife's head on Hillary's body.
For that matter, think about those psychic hotline ads. People believe them all the time, even though it seems painfully obvious that they don't have to be psychic, they just have to have a copy of the script. And yet, they make money hand over fist.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
is all lie! (Score:2)
Boojum
What I meant to say (Score:2)
Boojum
Its use in football (Score:2)
But its use to alter news coverage is fraud. It's misleading for CBS to think they alter Times Square just because they want it to be their "studio".
--Jim
First Down Line by Princeton Video Image (Score:3)
Their web site doesn't say anything about how the first-down line technology works; I've been wondering how they place the line, and whether any technology is needed on the field to make it work. Anyone have more details?
--
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:From the goebbels-would-be-proud dept.? Huh? (Score:3)
Open Source reality?? (Score:2)
Well, maybe the proliferation of internet access and connected wireless devices will be good in this resepect as well. We'll be able to take advantage of omnipresence, and draw our own conclusions. For example,
It was priceless to me to hear directly from people in Seattle (via
The military actions in Bosnia were heard of through the people there, on usenet. People who had bombs going off down the street were writing about it, and the world on-line had the option of knowing things first hand.
The dissemination of the truth, by private individuals, is not foolproof. There's bias and ignorance and assumption. But I suspect that it will/does work much like the opensource development process. You just can't tell a lie when there are other people, who know the truth, listening and able to speak. Just like you can't sneak a virus, or a back door, into a piece of open source code.
Disagree (Score:3)
Being able to distort reality towards any means is very impressive. For example, showing a local businesses logo on one of the boards of an international soccer match would make the company appear larger than life. Putting a M.A.D.D. logo in place of a Budweiser one would raise the cause to a higher status. Being able to elevate any agenda to a more prominent position than it holds, and thereby really placing it in the forefront of people's minds, is very Goebbels.
Goebbels was one of the greatest marketting geniuses of history. He managed to sell genocide to the masses, he justified it and made people believe it was the right thing. He made it into something people rooted for, or at least wouldn't speak out against. Not even Microsoft has been more successful. Goebbels did his job, right or wrong is not at issue. Much like Johnny Cochran did his job defending O.J., right or wrong was not at issue.
If anything, the Goebbels reference is a warning, and as such, it's the most effective reference that could be found.
Broadcasting costs money (Score:3)
It costs a lot of money to do (national and local) broadcasting. This is where advertising revenue comes in. All the customer has to pay for is the TV set, and the electricity. If it were not for advertising, we would have 15 minutes per hour of pledge breaks, or worse yet, we'd have to pay a premium (over cable or satellite service fees) to the broadcasters.
A different system, where we are billed for time spent watching a particular station, might be better. First off, content might be better, since it would actually be 'our' money paying for what we spend our time watching, and we'd be more discriminating. Second, products might actually be cheaper and better, since they wouldn't carry the cost of advertising in the price tag, and would have to sell themselves on their actual merrits instead of cute or cleaver advertising (Bud, Weis, Errrr). Third, we'd spend less time watching TV, since it would cost money to do so, so we would do more valuable things, like reading, coding, and actually raising our kids. There's also the fringe benefit of not leaving the TV running when you leave the room.
The whole face of marketting would be different, since merit and value would be the predominant sales point, instead of image...
But that's not the system that is in place. It's not the system that has been shown to work well for those who are in control of it and who benefit by it.
My SYSTEM (tm)
I sure hope AOL Time Warner doesn't read this post before I file for a patent... [sigh]
I am not sure about this... (Score:3)
You see, this is nothing new. Every since the first monkey[1] picked up a bone and thought to itself, "tool." We have had trickery, backstabbing, conning, and deception. Humanity suffers from an incredible amount of want, the want of more possessions. Humanity will do just about anything, including defacing his/her personal reputation and good worth, simply for a few more possessions. Not all is bad of course, ever since deception, we had the ones seeking out the deceptors and uncovering them for what they are.
It has been a game of tag since day one. What we are seeing now is the very evident cycle where the greedy have found ways to circumvent what used to be an unstoppable barrier of truth: Namely, photographs and the moving picture. For years these two technologies bared life for what it really was, and could even be used as evidence in courts of law.
What we are seeing is essentially no different than a gang of crackers circumventing new software bugs, and the developers coming up with new patches to fix the bugs, albeit at a much slower pace. We are already to the point where everybody looks twice at a picture. Simply everything is run through a computer now, and sometimes it is getting very tricky to spot the evidence of computer tampering[2]. Now we just need to readjust to the fact that video, even live video, is becomming just as vulnerable to dupery as a pre-shot film. Nobody has placed truth in pre-shot film for a very long time now[3], and soon people won't place so much validity in live film.
This isn't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing, it simply is the way things are. We had, for about 60 or 70 years, a very good medium for 'prooving' things. Before that there was just paintings, sketches, and word of mouth. We may have to go back to that, we may come up with something new and revolutionary, who knows! Times change, people just need to realize that change is not evil.
With all of that being said, I'm going to go back a tad and state my opinion. I think this is excellent news. The ability to manipulate moving pictures in real time brings us one step closer to an entirely new, and interactive form of entertainment. Sure, it will bring along with it the sleazy car salesmen and whatnot...as do all new technologies. I prefer to look at how such developments will aid humanity instead of dwelling on the abuse, the abuse can be ignored. Turn off your television and do something constructive for a change[4]. It isn't that difficult.
.:. Starface
------------------
[0] There seems to be two arguments going on. One against advertising in general which is a tad bizarre if you ask me, the other is pro/con real-time manipulation.
[1] Or, perfect, wonderfully created being. Whatever your cup of tea is.
[2] I worked at a job where it was my description to 'fix' photographs. I know the tricks of the trade, there are alot of adverts and photos out there that are tampered.
[3] See here [hollywood.com], for an excellent demonstration of that.
[4] Try literature and a cup of Earl Grey.
Re:This is really sad.... (Score:2)
With the advent of:
- the remote control
- 5 billion channels
- internet access
- technology which can alert you when a commercial is over
we are not watching commercials and the marketing people know this. Why pay for commercial time that people won't watch? This is why we see split screens during the credits or ads embedded into the stadium or even some TV shows themselves.Which may bring us back to why do companies advertise? To get the name out to the people and sell an image. People are busy and sometimes do not have the time to compare quality or price. During these times, who do you buy from? A name which is familiar. Why is AOL so popular? Because people know you can get on the internet with it easily. At least that is what they say.
Why buy any pain medication such as tylenol or advil when the generics work exactly the same and are cheaper? You may not, but millions do.
Quite simply... (Score:2)
Listen to what your mother said; Don't believe everything you see on TV. And the same goes with photos.
The only way in todays world to believe what you see, if you are an extreme skeptic, is to see and touch it yourself. I recently went to Madam Tusades(sp) and realized that seeing alone isn't enough :). But even seeing and touching may not be enough. (Fakes of famous pieces of art for example) Actually, its pretty much impossible to be 100% completly sure of something if you are an extreme enough of a skeptic.
To adapt a quote "Reality is in the eye of the beholder".
This is disgusting and horrific. (Score:2)
I hate it.
It should be illegal for anyone to altar in any way an image used to portray a real event. I don't even like having the TV weather reporter superimposed on the map -- I prefer a simple voice over. Even cropping photographs is skirting a fine line of propriety. The only exception I would make is for markups conspicuously added for illustation after the raw image is shown (e.g., during football game replays).
I hope it isn't too late to stuff this genie back in its bottle. As we have been shown ad nausemu, the maintstream press will pick a quick buck over the unvarnished truth every time. Because we cannot afford a tyranny of corporate thought police any more than we can a governmental one, we must not allow any altered images in news or event reporting.
And if it takes a ruling by the FCC or even the Supreme Court to force the media to give us the complete picture, then make it so!
P.S.
RE: the Netherlands, that includes showing billboards in news broadcasts. Those advertisers paid good money to have their ads put in plain sight. If that's what the scene looks like, that's what it looks like. Showing us the whole truth includes showing the ads that decorate the scene.
Personal Ad Blocker (Score:3)
It seems like Mann has done pretty much research in WearComp, If some want to know more just visit his homepage, or Unv. Toronto.
not thick (Score:2)
Pope
real billboards still "work" (Score:2)
Pope
Oliver Wendell Holmes saw it coming... (Score:2)
He rather brilliantly foresaw many of the issues that would arise from this and none of his prescience is diminished by our ever increasing faculties for making the real false and the false seem real.
Does anyone here know the essay I'm talking about? I cannot remember the title, so I'm finding it hard to locate. In particular, if anyone knows of an on-line source and can provide a link, that would be great. You simply would not believe how "on the money" he was, and he wrote it over 100 years ago now.
Re:Formula one (Score:2)
It doesn't seem to work as an idea. Cigarette advertising can't appear on TV in Britain, but that doesn't mean we've blanked out the logos of all these cars for the last few years. It just means that when the cars are within our jurisdiction - as in the British GP - the cars run with different branding. Winfield became Williams, Mild Seven became Moto Sport, West once memorably became East
The different markets justification I can certainly see, but the cigarette advertising one doens't seem to hold water. And this is VERY expensive...
Greg
Re:Can they be sued for this? (Score:2)
Or, from a different angle, the owners of the building could sue on the grounds that by placing a false ad on their building, the news organization is implying that the building owners are endorsing the product/show/whatever, when in fact they are not.
Then again, IANAAC*, so don't take my word on it.
*I Am Not An Ambulance Chaser [freedomforum.org]
Re:Disagree - History of Public Relations (Score:2)
Goebbels was a great propagandist, but he wasn't as cutting edge at the time as people make him out to be. (Take a look at the American propaganda during WWII.) His work was built off of the work that the American government did in World War I, and the books of Edward Bernays, the man who is considered the grandfather of public relations.
I highly recommend reading the books "PR: A Social History of Spin" and "Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and Public Relations."
Seeing never really has been proof enough. (Score:3)
Remember the Gulf-war? A lot of what was presented through CNN was in fact pure propaganda.
A kuwaitian girl crying, saying that soldiers from IRAQ defiled an orphanage.. pure propaganda, not true.
Of course, IRAQ did it to an even greater extend.
The same happend in Yugoslavia. People were shown all the monstrous acts by NATO.
Of course there were some horrible things that happened. But when you only present the worst acts of war, on none of the more gentle, you have already fooled your people.
Of course.. this technology could leed to an even greater abuse of "reality". Seeing opposition do things they never really did. Scary...
Re:Stolen Ad Space... (Score:2)
However, this technology won't work with animated billboards and it may force the companies spring for that. Another thought, you can buy ad space on the boxer's shorts for some prize fights. The ad is constantly moving and changes shape in regard to the boxer's movement. It is impossible for the near fututre to remove something like this.
Good thing (Score:2)
Perhaps not outright lying but subtle truth bending has been going on for as long as newspapers then radio then newsreels then television existed. Yet people still blindly assume that these things are reported "as fact" or that they're unbiased renderings of "the truth".
Maybe once everyone can see that the pictures on their telly in the corner don't even match up with the view they get when they drive to walk down the same street they'll start to seek other points of view on a story. Maybe people will start to WAKE UP.
Just put the two together (Score:2)
New tools for an old problem (Score:3)
While this sucks, it doesn't change the base problem: we are at the mercy of the media to report the truth. This has always been the case. A reporter can write and cut all they want to make the story sound as they please. The studio can further enhance and cut to fit their agenda. They can also choose which stories to run.
Every reporter is biased; they are only human. A good reporter keeps the bias out of the report as much as possible, but they may not file a report for a story they don't think is important, may report with an unintended tone of voice that projects their opinion upon the listener, etc.
Editors have the same bias problems; in addition, they are under pressure to keep viewer's interest so that advertising can be sold. Therefore, they have a tendency to report shocking or glamorous stories that keep people glued, but may not be representative of what is really going on in the world.
In the end we have to simply trust them or not trust them. Everyone has certain news sources that they trust and others that they don't trust.
Hopefully people will always want a trustworthy news source and there will always be an entreprenour willing to fill the niche.
digital images of mars (Score:4)
mars polar lander. "see, NASA isn't all that bad
after all".
bah!
where will this stop? why not just have max
headroom report the news from the surface of
Neptune? we rely on news to be REAL and in NO
PART FAKED.
i guess it's time to start wondering about the
validity of everything *except* that which we
behold with our own eyes...
Analog faking == digital faking (Score:3)
"If they say it on TV then it must be true" (Score:2)
---
Re:This is really sad.... (Score:2)
They show clear-skinned teenagers using noxema; beautiful women playing volleyball and drinking beer; People off-roading in their SUVs... it's all to make you want the product. And it works.
No one is ascribing magic powere to advertisers here. They're just doing their part to make products look glamorous to consumers, so that they'll want to buy them. It's not mind-control, it's suggested incentive.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:This is really sad.... (Score:2)
Look at just about any modern ad-campaign. Commercials portray people who are better-looking than you, having more fun than you, with cooler friends than you'll ever have (I'm not making fun of you in particular, it's just the point of perception in advertising). By association, people subconsciously feel that if they buy this product, they too will be better-looking, have more fun, and get to hang out with really cool people.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:What you see... (Score:2)
The film has undergone significant doctoring. Frames have been removed, altered, and made into composites, and the film speed has been tampered with in some places.
The lesser known Orville Nix film, taken the same day, shows the exact same footage (from across the street). However, a frame-by-frame comparison makes the doctoring of the Zapruder film quite obvious -- they do not follow each other in parallel at all.
Check out Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman and Assassination Science by James Fetzer. To see the Orville Nix film, get a copy of The Assassination Tapes from New Frontier Productions.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:This is really sad.... (Score:3)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Old ideas new tech (Score:4)
Babylon 5 (a science fiction show that aired in syndication and later on TNT) did an interesting take on this where a reporter interviewed various people on the show, and they actually used the same technique as a subtle que that the news company was not on the level (this later turned into a plot point when the same news company was under the thumb of an oppressive Earth government).
Same here. This technology will be used for ads first, but the much more valuable tool will be doctoring the news so that it's "acceptable" for mass consumption. Yahoos in the background of street footage will be edited out. Protesters in a rally that have nothing to do with the main story will be removed. These things will all seem reasonable at first (unless you think about it too hard)
The danger is that once the mechanism exists, it will tend to be over-used. The news we see already feeds on itself, downing out events that don't fit the demographics. What happens when the drive is to have the news look more and more like what you're expecting after having switched channels from another station? One edit feeds another, and eventually you'll have "a dramatization" tags at the bottom of every news screen. Or maybe you won't even have that....
Formula one (Score:3)
That way they could bypass national anti-smoking regulations and each team could sell more space per car.
Tom
Re:This is really sad.... (Score:2)
> Yellow strip across the field to show where the
>first down yardage is during the real time broadcast.
And is that super cool or what? It just knocks me out to see guys walking around on that line, with the camera moving and everything. Luv it!
RP
Re:digital images of mars (Score:4)
i guess it's time to start wondering about the validity of everything *except* that which we behold with our own eyes...
Except that studies have shown that human memory is incredibly inaccurate. First, people tend to draw instant conclusions about what they are seeing and then edit their own memories to fit their conclusions. Second, studies have shown that a skilled interviewer can cause a person to alter their own memories, either adding or removing information, or changing information. In the case of false memory syndrome it has been shown that people can become convinced that events happened to them that never happened, or that things didn't happen which actually did.
In a frightening short period of time, what a person believes they saw happen and what actually happened can become incredibly different.
I suspect that we are going to start seeing the need for embedded signatures in video and still photos - say, a hash code at the end of each frame, signed by the camera that created the video or photograph. Even that wouldn't be foolproof (I edit a video, then play it into a second camera which re-records it, and writes it's own signature onto it.) It would be a big step forward.
--
I don't agree with it. (Score:2)
The problem is not knowing if it will or will not happen. If Advertisers knew it would happen, they would not pay so much for stadium adds, and the stadium would probably charge more for coverage, which seems fair.
I have noticed for a while my cable TV company replaces some of the add breaks between shows with there own. I have oftain wondered if the advertiser knew they would lose coverage... or if the station knew....
It could however be claimed it was a good thing... as media companies can localise the ads for say the super bowl to each state it was broadcast in. However advertisers buy slots knowing that they will get national/international coverage.
Probably this is a thing that requires some regulation, as it seems at the moment its buyer beware!
James
Max Headroom (Score:2)
Bravo was recently (they may still be) rerunning the old Max Headroom series on Sunday afternoons. It's scary how well it holds up. (Well, except for the very 80's costumes - but then again, even the mohawk haircut is making a comeback...)
"Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV? Don't know the answer? Hmm. Successful, isn't it?"
Re:About the credits (Score:2)
Re:Trust - Is it live, or is it the Future Crew? (Score:2)
hum... (Score:2)
They have another word for this...
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
A new case for Junkbuster! (Score:3)
Just like Junkbuster: an Open Source system to bust all the ads.
On the other hand: Half(+) of my screen would be blank during many shows...
Re:Nothing new here (Score:2)
This is one of the most importent changes we could make to our culture. They do make some attempts to teach critical thinking now, but it is gernerally too little too late.. it would be especially great if you could teach critical thinking to children in that preschool ultragulable phase where they believe anyhting there parents say.. and learn religion.
The big question is "how do you teach critical thinking?" I don't know much about the real research on this, but Caral Sagan says that the solution should be for science to be taught as a history of mistakes and correections instead of a collection of facts. It wouldn't hurt to teach people quantum mechanics at a younger age since quantum really pushes you to accept the experemental method (at least it did for me). Unfortunatly, I don't know that any of the above are useful for teaching kids since they require a lot of additional information, but I still think that it should be possible to develope a program to teach the scientific method to preschoolers.
It is worth mentioning that you can teach preschool kids a hell of a lot (improve memory, increase creativity, etc.), but you must maintain the teaching as they grow up of the benifits are lost. Head start for example brings inner city kids up to the preformance level of subberban kids, but if the other inner city schools do not continue to foster the program then they slip back. This means that we need a critical thinking program installed at all levels of education.
Jeff
Even worse in Canada... (Score:2)
Furthermore, they are starting to superimpose fake blimps, with logos for Canadian companies, in sky shots of the stadium. My mother thought it was so cool that an auto insurance place had their own blimp at a recent game. She was shocked to find it was computer-generated.
I cannot simply escape this by watching the CBS or Fox network versions on cable, because CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC) rules regulating a certain percentage of Canadian content mean that when I switch to the CBS or Fox station, they are replaced with the Global feed! This means we can't get any of the American commercials when both a Canadian and American network are broadcasting the same show. When commercials are the only aspect of programming that some people will watch (e.g. most of the women in my family do watch the commercials during the Super Bowl), we have to haul in an old TV, hook up the antenna, and tune to a poor broadcast signal simply to see Bud Bowl XXXVIII.
I have been thinking of creating a Boycott Global Web site all about this--they also received some pretty negative press last year about the billboard replacement stunt. Any Canadians in with me?
Re:Image Alteration has it's uses. (Score:2)
but to blot out 'objectionable' signs ETHICAL? jeez.. it looks like censorship, it smells like censorship.. and it probably is. Actually, the rule is a little more complicated and since I am not a lawyer I cannot explain it much further. But indeed in most programs you cannot prominently show a product name, and this is actively enforced. You want a commercial as a company, then you buy a commercial, not some guy who makes your favourite soap-series.
//rdj
Pointcasting billboards (Score:2)
How about this: Just as they do national / regional / local TV commercials, they can replace the local Atlanta boards with U.S. / northwest / Seattle boards in broadcasts seen in the metropolitan Seattle area? They may as well, since Seattle will be watching the series on TV instead of at their fancy new stadium, troll troll).
Or even better: Now that TimeWarner Cable has access to everything its AOL subscribers have bought on-line for the last year (and every website they've visited), sooner or later maybe they can start replacing those bulletin boards with ones of interest to your household! Imagine visiting Ford's website [ford.com] one afternoon, then that weekend settling down to watch a ballgame only to see ads for Explorers and Tauruses (or Jimmy's and Bonnevilles and auto insurance companies) plastered all over the stadium. Hell, they could do that for the regular advertising, too! Ghod help you if you're watching the game with your S.O. and ads for divorce lawyers, escort services and rubber fetish 1-900 numbers start showing up.
Just a paranoid raving. Or I'd think it was, if stuff like this didn't actually start happening every time I turned around...
--
Re:The big deal (Score:2)
I agree with your points about advertising getting more complicated - but OTOH it might also be good for small companies, because the ad space in stadiums, etc. would get cheaper if fewer people would see these ads.
What I meant (and how I understood this sentence about competitors) was different: Often, you see news coverage where many people point microphones at some politician. These often have logos on them, and thus serve as ads for radio or tv stations. So tv station a could decide to block out all logos of other tv stations that appear in any footage they make themselves. Or even replace the logo. This is what I think would not be such a big deal - but it would be pretty annoying to those other stations. And I wouldn't call that ethical
And on the second point: I was thinking more about weekly magazines (and tabloids) than magazines like National Geographic. And (at least here in Austria) they do change pictures. No important stuff ("this picture is proof that
Re:you can't trust pictures, anyway (Score:2)
So the problem is not so mucht *that* they change stuff (which they have to), but *what* they change, and if you can trust them not to change the meaning.
you can't trust pictures, anyway (Score:3)
Second, I think most of us know that pictures cannot be trusted, anyway. This has been true for a long time for photographs (especially on magazine covers), and is also true for most media reports (they can be edited without you being able to tell). And one thing that has been possible in TV since the beginning --- and which is much more effective --- is to reorder parts of an interview, for example, or to leave stuff out.
So I think this boils down to the old question of trust: Do I trust the media (or certain tv stations, papers, etc) to not manipulate the facts? It's now possible to do more stuff, but that doesn't mean we were safe from manipulation until yesterday.
(and I apologize for my troll posting yesterday - I was in a very, very bad mood.)
Re:One benefit... (Score:3)
Multiply this by the scoreboard, outfield fence, facades and other vertical surfaces and you can begin to see that there's too much potential money to be made for anyone to leave this alone. Not that I think it's a good thing, but I think it's the way things are.
--
Re:Here is a full explanation of how it works - co (Score:2)
It's obvious that they aren't trying to make it look like part of the field, for example, when the ball is intercepted and the line promptly fades away.
--
Re:Image Alteration has it's uses. (Score:2)
However, I'd suppose that anti-advertising rules have exceptions for things like that. They sound like a really good idea to me, except that they'd be almost impossible to introduce in the USA.
--
Re:A president and a naked lady (Score:2)
Later...
Anti-trust suit waiting to happen? (Score:2)
Re:digital images of mars (Score:2)
idiots
Re:you can't trust pictures, anyway (Score:2)
Ever watch 60 Minutes? I swear, every damned interview they show.. Cut to interviwerer, cut to interviewee, etc.. The way they shoot it practically implies they've gone and rededited it for content. The same for most ads that involve testimonials. Gah, this is why I don't watch TV anymore. People feel that they can get away with manipulation of information to further their own ends.
Prove that they are wrong. Ignore ads. Buy only what you need, and rarely buy "wants" unless it would really help you. Become a human being, not just some advertising or "prolfeed." (plug Adbusters [adbusters.org] culture jammer headquarters, or here [adbusters.org] for a direct to their homepage without mouse-over intro version)
---
Re:I don't agree with it. (Score:2)
The thing is you pay to get cable TV into your home. What does this buy you? The channels comming in are often subsidised by the local retailiers paying the local cable monopoly to stick in their ads. In the case of a local TV station and a remote one (like CanWest Global and a US Fox affiliate), they just duplex the Global broadcast to both channels. So clearly the cable people are making money from this...
So why are we paying? We're paying for advertisements!
I wish an ultimate subscriber based system would finally appear. I'm betting that the 40$ I pay per month for Cable TV would be reduced to 20$ if I just paid Space [spacecast.com] for the rights to watch Babylon 5, and some of their movies, as well as the Comedy network for some of their shows. The only problem is that the cable company's monopoly would disapear, as they would receive zero adveninue. Sigh.
---
Let's simply do what we do best (Score:2)
Oh, and CBS, if you're reading this, I'll be getting my news somewhere else tonight.
Seeing NEVER was believing (Score:2)
There never has been ANY reason to believe that video told truth - it's just like an eye witness, only one totally biased point of view. And now an eye witness with selective
Image Alteration has it's uses. (Score:3)
I'm not sure how advertisement laws in the US work, but here in the Netherlands, it is illegal for stations to show footage that contains advertisements.
Signs of Coca-Cola and other brands have to be made unreadable (Pixillated). The technique used here is just a bit more subtle, making it appear as if it never was there in the first time.
As for advertisers not getting their 'paid' room, I disagree. They have their spots on buildings and billboards, and paid for the people there to see them - not for the chance that they
One last thought - Anyone remember seeing Arny in 'The Running Man'? Near the end of the movie, the outcome of the fight is altered, digitally, to make it appear as if he lost, by altering the live feed to the viewers... The next step?
You already can't anyway (Score:2)
a) almost entirely owned by a handful of individuals and corporations
b) entirely biased to the agenda of whatever corporation is represented, which can chage at a moment's notice
c) so entirely filtered for content and reality by the time it gets to us that the vast majority of its meaning is already lost.
We're not just watching what's happening, we're being told what's happening, and we're seeing it through the eyes of the controlling corporation and the individual they've sent out to report back to us what is happening.
There is so much crap on TV these days approaching TV *with* a critically thinking mind is almost too much work for the minor bits of usefulness you can glean out of all of the marketing and bullshit.
The question for the 21st Century should not be "What is art?" but "What is news?" Welcome to newsertainment, the opiate of the future.
Here is a full explanation of how it works - cool (Score:4)
How it Works
The central computer in the 1st & Ten system examines every frame of video in real time (i.e. 30 times per second) and determines which pixels to change to yellow. These are all the points in the image where an actual painted-on-the-field first down line would be visible, such as grass along the line that is not obscured by a player or referee. It determines which pixels to change based on very precise information about the camera's view, a 3D model of the field, which camera is on air, and a palette of colors for the field and another palette for players.
Pixels along the line with colors from the field palette are changed to yellow unless that color is also in the palette for players. Player colors and other colors not on the field palette are left unchanged. This makes the virtual line visible where the field is visible and hidden where the field is obscured, just as a real line would be.
Each camera in the 1st & Ten system, is instrumented with very precise encoders for pan, tilt, zoom, focus and extender (1x or 2x doubler). A computer at each camera reads the encoders and transmits these readings to the Sportvision production truck 30 times per second. Another computer in the truck gathers readings from all the cameras and transmits a consolidated data stream to the central computer. These readings and the 3D field model go into a geometrical calculation that determines which pixels in the video frame would be in an unobstructed view of a real first down line.
Yet another computer determines, also 30 times per second, which camera is tallied (on air). It does this by comparing the video streams from each of the 1st & Ten cameras to the program video. This computer allows for graphics, such as the constant time and score box, that are not in the camera view but are introduced into the program video. The result, camera 1, 2, 3 or none of them, is transmitted to the same computer that is consolidating data from the three cameras, and it adds tally to the data stream going to the central computer.
The final computer has only one simple but crucial task, draw the yellow line in video 60 times per second (every field, not just frame) and send that to a linear keyer to superimpose the yellow onto the program video.
Need more [sportvision.com]
Re:Nothing new here (Score:2)
I totally agree. I think in Canadian high schools, you are required to take some sort of class on "reading media" (any Canadians care to comment?). We could really use something like this is the US. That really goes into the category of learning to think for yourself, which our school system most definatly does not support. Those in power certainly don't want a bunch of young people becoming politically concious.
It's too bad that most people think we truly have a free press. That in itself really helps those who run the media to be able to control public opinion.
What you see... (Score:5)
What would JFK's assisination look like with a shooter added in?
What would the missle strikes in Africa look like with incriminating evidence added in?
Or maybe a president and some young woman?
I know these sorts of images are already present to some degree, with many people believing in faked images or others believing images have been faked (the moon landing and Mars faces come to mind), but technology such as this has the potential of allowing someone like Ted Turner or the military to wield power over what we know.
Yes, I am paranoid. But I know what I can do, and I am not as smart as they are.
Re:First Down Line by Princeton Video Image (Score:2)
The Philadelphia Eagles, The Jets?
Reduction of media influence (Score:2)
We haven't had photographic evidence for very long (Score:2)
(For purposes of this discussion: "Photography" includes the eventual addition of film and videotape.)
Some of us have become complacent in a world where we believe the absolute truth conveyed by photographs. Yet for years photographs have been cropped and retouched. I work with a lady who has spent the last 30 years doing pen and airbrush retouching wedding photography. Her work has gone way beyond simple blemish removal, to the point of simple cousin removal. ^_^
What we are really doing in looking back on an era. For a short time human civilization could rely on photography as a permanent unbiased record of events. That era is over now.
It was nice while it lasted.
--
One benefit... (Score:3)
welcome to the Matrix (Score:2)
I think I think that the networks should do this stuff all they want, 'cuz it's cool and will lead to a more fun Matrix...
But they should simultaneously lose "freedom of the press" protection. It is time to stop treating them like they are the defenders of truth since now they are just doing with video backdrops what they have been doing all along with the content: creating myth and crass commercial entertainment, good things, but not worthy of high-falutin' principled philosophy.
Instead, they should have to label their packages like Twinkies:
Oh yeah, and cable operators should be allowed to mask their ads over the networks', and then if somebody wants to give me a free TV, it should be allowed to put their ads over the cable operators', then my free "active" contact lenses could put... why not? :)
How will society cope? (Score:3)
There has been a great deal of commentary dealing with the fact that the alteration of images is not a new idea, but very little on how society will deal with the new technology that allows real-time video alteration. And though no historical scholar of merit, I believe we can already see precedents in past technological advances.
When The Great Train Robbery was first shown, people were alarmed when a man on the screen turned towards them and shot a pistol. Reportedly, certain men in certain theaters actually drew their weapons and shot back. This was a new technology, new trickery of the eyes; unused to it, people were gullible, and some could not separate reality from technology's alteration of reality.
Flash forward. We have many many movies with guns. Yet the news is not full of stories about people whipping out semi-automatic weapons and shooting back at the screen. Why? Because we have become accustomed to the technology.
With every technological advancement there is an initial "wide-eyed acceptance" that takes place. "Ooh! Shiny!" But luckily (?) people have short attention spans, and they adapt to their situations. Dishwashers do not illicit comments like "What is that thing? It does WHAT?" Simple line drawing animation no longer fools people into thinking that dinosaurs are actually still alive. And, given time, not only will people not believe the little digital ads inserted into live broadcasts, but bunches of slackers will sit on couches and make fun of them for being poorly rendered.
As with Any Technology... (Score:2)
Americans have already seen the technology in question put to excellent use. How else would we know how far our favourite football team has to go for a first down? Of course, this same technology can completely alter the "reality" of a picture. This is especially questionable for news events. From the description in this article, it seems like CBS is seriously walking the line for a couple of reasons:
Look Live ?? (Score:3)
Once the virtual images are superimposed over the actual live picture, whether of a football game or in a news story, the virtual images appear to viewers at home to be as real as anything at the scene. People who walk in front of landmarks replaced by virtual billboards appear to television viewers to have walked in front of the electronic billboard, making it appear completely real.
Just like the above, she wasn't really there, she was standing in front of a blue screen in a studio in New York. The networks put a spin on the practice and called it " Look Live", It got some attention for a couple of weeks. In one camp they had the ethical journalists stating that it was not right and on the other they had the execs saying that it added flavor the news.
This is not too much different. Placing any kind of "Look Live" or "Look Anything" behind a live news broadcast is misleading. As far as placing the first down marker etc. on sporting or entertainment programming would more than likely be ok.
But is the news entertainment??
Seeing isn't believing (Score:2)
We all know that seeing is hardly believing (seen any "war" news lately?), but we naturally tend to believe in images anyway, particularly if they are moving and in color.
If the images get tweaked all the time, our level of confidence might drop to a more reasonable level...