We've seen some decent video alteration in our day, but this new research project by some folks at the University of Washington has the potential to turn the entire concept on its head. Using some rather advanced algorithms to analyze video and photographs of a the same scene, the software can meld the two into something slightly better or even dramatically different. In effect, it's Photoshop for video, since it brings your Photoshop chops to bear on video effects: edit up a still shot or two of the scene, and then meld that with the video, and your edits can be seamlessly integrated into the scene, without all that nasty manual labor required by Shake or After Effects. It's not the end all be all yet, since the tech only works with static scenes so far, but the researchers are working to rectify that. While video evidence hasn't been a sure thing for years, it's always been significantly harder to fiddle with than still shots. With that barrier removed, we might be in for a whole new generation of video that lies and a reality we can be none too sure of. Oh, and really good looking indie flicks. Sample vid is after the break.
posted August 16th 2008 8:24PM
I bet the sort of people that hate most HDR photos will hate this effect on videos (ie: me, a bit :)
Also, they say making "efforts are being made to lift the restriction" of it only working with static scenes. To me it looks to be mainly based on the fact the most, if not all, of the scene is static, not merely a solvable restriction.
HDR has a specific use, for example to show all the detail in a scene where there are both dark and light sections like the example in the article. The problem arises when people gain access to a HDR program and overuse the technique, not even knowing why HDR is necessary in the first place.
Just like how an expensive mouse and a fancy mousepad doesn't actually make you a better gamer, fancy programs are no substitute for real composition skills and knowledge of basic photographic theory (in this case: unless you want a silhouette, never shoot with the sun behind your subject).
that mean's uw could edit a football game and claim that they won even though they lost... wow. don't know how good it'll be. maybe when it's good enough you can't really trust videos anymore since they can be edited. hopefully there is a consortium looking into creating secure raws that can used as proofs and can't be altered but can be converted leavings raws as a proof.
A. not for moving subjects
B. there is a thing called people, they tend to remember things
C. football? of all the evil that could be done with this, football?
amazing - I look forward to the future of video
THIS is the reason I spent the extra money for a quad core cpu, now as long as this is a (realatively) affordable program I'm sold.
This is the better than the current best thing since sliced bread!
They could make next-generation video cameras snap high quality photos every few seconds to allow the user to apply any of these given effects later on when editing... And this can be done with ease too if they can develop it right.
So we can make better lochness monster, ufo, and bigfoot video recordings?
my thoughts exactly
Amazing. The number of times I could have used this... The shocker for me was how it is able to create a depth map from ordinary video or photographs. The other technologies I've seen, though not married together like this.
BTW, any cameras out there take/generate HDRI images with a single snap?
fuji s3 pro and s5 pro both take HDRs in one snap.
Uh... guys, don't know if anyone else noticed, but doing the depth reconstruction that is required for mapping the photos appropriately to points in space requires a set of calibrated stereo-vision cameras, which means that in order to do this you'd need a dedicated stereo setup. Point being you won't be able to download some software to let you do this with a still camera and crappy camcorder anytime soon. Still cool, though.
If the camera is moving, it can generate stereo. If the camera is still, THEN you would need a stereo camera.
Apparently one of the guys at Adobe's "Advanced Technology Labs" is one of the main guys behind this project. Perhaps we'll see this in a future version of After Effects?
I wonder if you could FAKE an airplane crash to a building in real time...
Any ideas ??
HA HA!
WAAAAHHHHH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
...
You're silly.
if only this was available in 1963...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs
Wow. And I already feel like I can trust the news.
Does the Xacti still allow you to take high-res stills whilst recording? If so, I think we just found our camera...
In king arthur (movie) lead actress has big boobs on promotional poster but in movie she has small ones (perky though)
with videoshop she can have big boobs on promotional poster as well as in movie.
Awesome!
Guys, this is nothing new, its even available commercially and widely used!
Imagineer systems has been selling MOKEY for 5-6 years and it removes stuff, even moving peopleaand will paint in whats missing.
The foundry in the UK have been selling FURNACE for advanced discreet/Autodesk systems also for 4-5 years, and does all of this plus WAY MORE.
Nothing new here, not even the depth cueing, you dont need stereo cameras, it just maps the fastest moving pixels closer and the slower ones farther to the camera, no rocket science but PARALLAX.
oh, and tracking and reconstructing the 3d wall from the camera motion, been done for 6 -7 years, go check out boujou.
All this tools are used daily in post-production nowadays ;-)
Imagineer's software can do a lot of what is being recognized as "new"... but, I think this issue is that this software technology will now be public domain... and, when you look at the cost of Imagineer's and Furnace's cost... public domain software could indicate a future lower cost and a resulting more broad base useage of this ability that to date has been used by only those who can afford very expensive software.... which makes me feel a little bit quesy when I think about spending the money on Imagineer's software.
I might also note... that the developers definately do have something many have not noticed... their video stabilization method seems be able to stablize on a z-axis (depth movement toward and away from the camera is reduced or eliminated).
Oh fuck. Why do people bother? Automated systems will never do aswell as things such as after effects and shake. I use after effects heaps and this dosen't even compare.
This reminds me of the end of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate". Where they swap Denzel Washington's features with someone elses.
The second they combine this with mind reading and writing technology, we are all screwed.
Screw the video, the narrator voice is either a really flawed human or a very well done voice synth - I hope for the latter!
Scary stuff, you can easily manipulate uninformed people with these technologies.
that blows my mind!
I emailed the guys who wrote it, and the main writer Pravin emailed me back with this:
Unfortunately all the code for the project is research quality code and is currently in no shape to be released. Unfortunately we are also busy working on new research projects so there isnt any immediate plans to work on releasing this software. All the details of the algorithms used in the project have already been published in our paper. We were hoping some professional company like Adobe would create a product using our ideas. But that hasnt happened yet.
They should send it to some asian company, that'll teach adobe.
Just being able to estimate depths from a single video is amazing. Everything else it does on top of that blows my mind. I'm impressed.
NOTHING is real anymore :[
Can this add/remove russians from parts of georgia too? That's handy for the news, not that they would EVER do that of course, well maybe all the time, but not more than that! I'm sure.
Wait, so if you get divorced, you can remove your previous significant other from wedding videos to make a film that looks like you're crazy and talking to thin air with everybody cheering you on and congratulating you?
Unless you claim you were demonstrating the first iphone and headset of course.
"Alot" is NOT A WORD! Is "afew" a word? Is "abunch" a word? Is "ahundred" a word? NO! Hint: Hit the big button at the bottom of your keyboard after the "a" kids.