EDIT: gee guys, the smiley should tell you this ^ is not a serious complaint. I thought people might actually be interested in reading the actual paper v, since project page link has been inaccessible. Sheesh.
Site is down but this is the Siggraph paper: http://www.ece.nus.edu.sg/stfpage/eletp/Papers/sigasia09_pho...
I have downloaded the binaries (also requires openCV1.1, recently updated OpenCV2.0 doesn't work) and have made some progress, though it's very clunky and the instructions are, um...lacking. http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencvlibrary/files/
"Photorealistic image composition from simple sketches"
Which one would you rather click on?
PS: It was in the days I started here. Fair enough, it has been a while.
It’s ironic :)
Then why put the link at all?
Edit: I'll also believe it if anyone on this site claims to have seen same.
Reminds me of a company I worked for they were working on a video compression and the video source the developers had was a security camera.
The compression was optimized for bookshelves and hand waving.
These are the best two conferences in computer graphics, and the bar to get in is extremely high -- reviewers are very very tough and submitted papers have to not only be technically accurate, but also very polished in writing and presentation (and video).
That being said, a lot of these kind of systems have been coming out in the past few years, and it's a little hard to judge how successful they are due to the enormous amount of work required to reproduce results (their releasing a binary is commendable).
My own personal feeling is that this system probably works quite well for "common" things in their database, but there might be many small artifacts in generated images. Also, if you start trying to include stuff that's not well represented in the database, then the artifacts probably become quite severe.
A few times in the past few months the question of whether "all the good stuff" has been discovered or whether there's no progress left to be made came up, and computer vision has been one of my go-to examples of a field that has just been booming lately. Interestingly, digging in shows that it's still not "AI", just as you don't see any "AI" here, but there's still been a qualitative sea change in the past few years. I think the fact that a $1000 machine is now unbelievably powerful has been a real boon for the field.
But there is a similar disconnect that looms between the rudimentary intelligence of simple organisms and the more sophisticated intelligence higher mammals. Many researchers have noted this taken the insight that with a simple set of rules you can get complex behavior. This has lead to something of a revolution in ML, robotics and neuromorphic engineering. If this analogy holds, then it may be that the distance between weak and strong AI will be bridged in the same way that the distance between single celled organisms and primates appears to be bridged: by iteratively building complex systems on top of simpler building blocks. There simply won't be a secret sauce to be found, but each layer of complexity will allow for increasingly sophisticated behavior.
So technically, it was a Data Mining class I guess.
There are existing projects that pair an image composition function with a tagged image database (like this one: http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/photoclipart/). This project sounds like it adds a fitness function so that it can find an output image that looks good.
Now, as hard as what's been done on the algorithms side, someone has to figure out a usable user interface for these tools, so that regular people can play with them.
It does include 5 executables totaling ~140k. I am not quite brave enough to run them but I did run them through strings, and a cursory inspection suggests either that they're either attempting to do what they're claimed to do or they're the best disguised malware in history.
World domination is in our sights <evil laugh>
Image processing is full of things that sort-of work, that are impressive but not fully reliable.
The official site of the plugin is definitely down. Its probably overloaded by all the people who are interested in checking it out. ;)
De Niros character is a Hollywood producer, hired to produce a fake war in Albania to distract from a sex scandal before an election. At one point, he's directing news footage by shouting something like "there's a girl in front of a village, it's on fire .. hmm, no, more smoke.. her hair is too light. Can she have a cat? Show me cats" while having a technician type in the request and watching the result appear in real time.
However, I wonder about this technology being used for evil (custom porn). =/
probability of mis-matched images seems like it would be incredibly high
This innovation seems to be a shortcut mechanism based on pictographic gestures, where they also take the position, relative size into account. This is very nifty.
I cannot see how this would be faster than traditional Illustrator/Indesign workflows of selecting the elements from dropdowns, dragging to correct location and dragging the handles. If you use their sketching method, you are probably going to have to fall back to 2D drag'n'size methods post generation
The program could be extended further to recycle old movies, and to replace the actors heads with new one.
I have to start writing a business plan for this right away. Please send me a message if you want to join in on this.
So for movie purposes, you could save a lot of time using a (more polished) version of this to prepare your storyboards - shoot pictures of your selected or desirable actors, background plates that look like your desired locations, and major props. Draw stupid sketches and voila, you have rough photoboards. In conjunction with some other imaging technologies, it has massive possibilities. There's a saying that a film (especially a low budget one) lives or dies in pre-production; the more decisions you can make before you begin shooting, the less expensive the production process is and the more predictable and cheaper your post-production will be. Sure, quite a lot of Great Art happens on the spur of the moment, but serendipity is rare while dithering is common, and expensive. Adobe, for one, is pushing strongly to bring the use of their tools forward in the production process, so that the film is sketched out before shooting takes place and directors can spend more of their time 'filling in the blanks'.
What you mention (going from this to an actual movie) is obviously not practical now, but I'm happy to say that it's being reduced to an engineering problem - the fundamental technology to do most of what you describe already exists, and it's a matter of making it usable and timely. I will venture a guess that we'll be able to do this in clunky/very expensive form by 2015, and by 2020 it will be possible to make an entire feature film this way that looks about as good as a mid-90s low-budget sci-fi film - say, Escape from LA - at home.
tl;dr although this has been presented as an entertaining toy, with thematically-organized material there's a lot of near-term commercial potential.
| |+Obi-Wan| |
| -------- |
| ------------- |
| |+Qui-Gon Jinn| |
| ------------- |
| ----------------------------- |
| |s/Jar-Jar Binks/Halle Berry/g| |
| ----------------------------- |
Copyright and privacy issues are my greatest concern though. For example, could you imagine seeing yourself as a digital model on some corporate website--doing something you never actually did. That is a scary thought in my opinion. I wonder if you could input your own pictures into the system and have it perform the same procedure though (I loathe the pen tool).
Ever notice how many Americans use "like" as a preamble to a reenactment of a scene from a TV show, or an event, or even an abstracted, generalized occurrence? "It was like..." then on to the enactment. People wouldn't speak like this if it wasn't for ubiquitous video entertainment.
In David Brin's Uplift trilogy, uplifted sentient dolphins sometimes "spoke" to each other by mimicking echolocation returns and beaming pictures and scenes directly into each other's heads. If software like this gets good enough to compose scenes for us on the fly, it will drastically alter the way we speak, just as television did.
The images will not look as good, or as clean as a regular photoshopped image, I doubt that automated image editing is that advanced right now.
The examples they gave, is probably the best that was available, I bet on average, the results don't look nearly as good or clean.
But hey, I could be wrong.
Get me a picture of the president, put a girl in a red dress in his eye-line.
Get me a picture of evil dictator - add some WMD in the background.
At the moment you need an intern to do this be much better when you can do it yourself.
photoshop + 1h of work = worthless image
this snake oil thing + 1h of work = so-so usable image