paper [pdf]: http://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPR_2019/papers/Akkayn...
I’m not sure how they’re finding the optical properties of the water; there’s something about using the darkest pixels in the image for calibration that I didn’t quite follow.
Secondly, if you think it's "blindingly obvious", read the paper linked in the parent's comment. Even a quick skim will show you're wrong.
In conclusion: yes, you missed something.
Good job, dude
Looks like they are going to monetise this technology at some point given the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. This is not wrong. But it feels like a PR exercise dressed up as something academic which is a little creepy.
It is also notable that in Canada (almost?) all large research universities are public institutions: University of Toronto, McGill, Queen's, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, etc. I imagine the calculus would have been different if the university was itself a private corporation.
Some professors have “hard money” jobs where the university covers most/all of their salary; startup packages that are meant to help you get a grant are pretty common, as are fellowships or TAships for students.
However, I don’t think most universities cover much of the actual research expenses.
As for the patent, most places offer a split with the inventor, and may not patent everything; they have a right of first refusal though.
It is if the research was paid for by the public.
It's not like Instagram are going to pass the cost of licensing on to users.
But if the taxpayers who funded the research have to license the technology to use it, that's just robbery.
Maybe this is "robbery" (which is not what that word means), but you still get the benefits of living near open space (no car-owners living there, trees turning CO2 into oxygen, bees pollinating your flowers), etc. All in all, it doesn't seem too bad. (It is $26 a round, btw.)
Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits.
> Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits.
I did not claim that the downside of granting patents to universities is so large that universities should not exist at all. Only that it would be better and more just to not grant them patents based on publicly funded research.
I think the whole point of that project is that yo udon't need a chart.
I would have strongly preferred static images in the article and an interview video buried below.
I agree they should have gotten to the punch line and show results rather than the doctor swimming.
A calibration image(s) can be made before each shot. Possibly the resulting image correction can be integrated in to the camera too.
The laser wavelengths are a substitute for the color chart. The laser angle means you get a reading at each distance (ie in the image, each point on the laser "line", corresponds to a distance.)
Sure, a red laser looks red. But just because you only see 50% of the brightness of the light of a red laser doesn't mean the absorption of all red colors will be 50%. Seems a lot better to use some very mixed source of light.
Edit: already been done: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07392
Isn't the blue shift of a known color already a measure of the amount of water between the object and the camera- and therefore its distance? Knowing the true color of a fish, a seaweed or the sand isn't already enough to infer distances and color-correct?
(1) often with pretty bad results, but consider the variety of scenes and object above water compared to the average underwater scenario.
I am pretty sure that in most cases those colours are well known.
With regular colour correction things have a slightly different colour regardless of how far away they are from the camera, so the task is way simpler.
I wonder if the algorithm would become better if not only did author did the swim closer but also took pictures of different path distances and angles simultaneously and map images together. Maybe it will reveal some of the editing work on hazy objects took a little more liberty and will produce more accurate images.
I don’t think that last bit is automatable with just glasses.
We already use filters all the time on normal camera photos (e.g. Low Light ML on pixels). As long as it's correcting the colour for us to be able to assess it better, and it's accuracy is reasonably high, than it is gravy.
For me, haze removal, water removal are like white balance. To me it’s not manipulation.
That is, it's supposed to make the photo be like the one you would take if you were to lift a part of the seafloor onto a boat and photograph it.
It does matter because it's infinitely quicker to do it that way. It's like saying a modern calculator and an abacus are the same because they let you add/sub/&c numbers
The issue isn’t whether a machine or human is making the edits though. It’s really a question of what is the actual accurate image. Unfortunately that’s probably more of a philosophical rather than technical one. For example differing camera lenses will add their own distortions of “truth”. We also have different perceptions of colour from person to person. So how do you define “accurate”?
In my personal opinion what really matters is whether the subject is fair. By that I mean: are the filters changing the context or altering the perceived facts of the image? Or are the filters just an artistic choice. This filter definitely falls into the latter since the subject is still very obviously under water albeit presented with greater clarity. You’re not changing the context of the image but rather the presentation. So it’s hard to argue that as being “photoshopped” (in the context that term is typically used).
Made me wonder how unique this technique is or if they’re just using bog standard movie editing tricks.
Actually it does, it works similar to the water, just the effect is weaker in the air. That's why sky and distant mountains look blue, the atmosphere scatters blue light.