It's a technique called "Diminished Reality" and for those who don't want to watch the video, the program takes the original video, reduces (diminishes) the quality, removes the artifact then increase quality and improve the result over and over.
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 Posts: 567 Location: The 1930s.
Posted: 12 Oct 2010 04:00:46 pm Post subject:
This looks amazing, and not that complicated to do. Is there a program all ready out, or will we have to wait? I might try something like this in photoshop/GIMP later... Nice find overall! _________________ -Sirrico
I would like to know how they manage to just go back and increase the quality back to it's original after decreasing it, though. Is that really something you can do like that? _________________ Shaun
I think maybe what it does is, copy the image somewhere safe, lower quality, remove artifact, increase quality using original image's quality, and continue doing that until it's finished. Just a guess. I want this program btw _________________ http://tanner.myserverathome.com
Joined: 01 May 2006 Posts: 5108 Location: SFBA, California
Posted: 12 Oct 2010 07:40:10 pm Post subject:
merthsoft wrote:
I would like to know how they manage to just go back and increase the quality back to it's original after decreasing it, though. Is that really something you can do like that?
If they can, then CSI isn't a lie after all. _________________
Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 55773 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted: 12 Oct 2010 07:51:53 pm Post subject:
merthsoft wrote:
I would like to know how they manage to just go back and increase the quality back to it's original after decreasing it, though. Is that really something you can do like that?
No, it's not really. Either they're oversimplifying for the sake of the video, or something shady is going on. Where's the scholarly paper so I can look at the science behind it? _________________
IIRC the ability to do this is based on the fact that most images are redundant, allowing you to shrink an image, re-enlarge it, and modify it based on the lower-quality content to look nicer without a visual loss in quality. _________________ People think computers will keep them from making mistakes. They're wrong. With computers you make mistakes faster.
-Adam Osborne
I would like to know how they manage to just go back and increase the quality back to it's original after decreasing it, though. Is that really something you can do like that?
They can do it because they have the original quality image. They can re-sample with the source, thus allowing them to get back to the original quality. They are probably using the same techniques as the GIMP plugin or photoshop feature that does a content-aware remove in still images. Not all that surprising somebody did it with video - which is just a collection of stills after all (looks like photoshop does a better job, too :/ )
@Kerm: ENABLE THE FULLSCREEN BUTTON!!! I HATE YOU FOR NOT ALLOWING FULLSCREEN!!! Seriously, fix that already, what the hell? _________________ There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 55773 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted: 12 Oct 2010 10:19:39 pm Post subject:
Kllrnohj wrote:
merthsoft wrote:
I would like to know how they manage to just go back and increase the quality back to it's original after decreasing it, though. Is that really something you can do like that?
They can do it because they have the original quality image. They can re-sample with the source, thus allowing them to get back to the original quality. They are probably using the same techniques as the GIMP plugin or photoshop feature that does a content-aware remove in still images. Not all that surprising somebody did it with video - which is just a collection of stills after all (looks like photoshop does a better job, too :/ )
Well, then they should say they're using adaptive resampling (cf. the Healing Stamp/Brush tool in GIMP and whatever its equivalent is in Photoshop) than claim some hogwash about "enhancing the quality." What are they, CSI?
Quote:
This is *WAY* more impressive IMO
[video]
Agreed.
Quote:
@Kerm: ENABLE THE FULLSCREEN BUTTON!!! I HATE YOU FOR NOT ALLOWING FULLSCREEN!!! Seriously, fix that already, what the hell?
I didn't realize that that was my fault. O_O _________________
I've told you it was before. Ever notice that every other site allows you to fullscreen an embedded video? Didya think that was voodoo magic or something?
Heck, the embed code Youtube gives you allows for fullscreen:
Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 55773 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted: 13 Oct 2010 12:23:09 am Post subject:
Yeah yeah yeah, I never really noticed it enough to get past wondering why people always linked to videos with embedded fullscreen forbidden. Let's get back on-topic. _________________
Joined: 01 May 2006 Posts: 5108 Location: SFBA, California
Posted: 13 Oct 2010 02:38:47 am Post subject:
Kllrnohj wrote:
This is *WAY* more impressive IMO
I'm not _as_ impressed, but the first time I saw it I was. I watched it again and noticed that the legs of the Baywatch Runner never changed. They look normal on his original, but when he's beefed up they look like he's been in a wheel chair for twenty years; Joe from Family Guy.
Both are great, and both have their flaws. But that 40ms turn-around, being able to keep the object removed even as the camera changes perspectives and distance, and how light weight the program seems to be is astounding. _________________
Yeah yeah yeah, I never really noticed it enough to get past wondering why people always linked to videos with embedded fullscreen forbidden. Let's get back on-topic.
Fix it.
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'm not _as_ impressed, but the first time I saw it I was. I watched it again and noticed that the legs of the Baywatch Runner never changed. They look normal on his original, but when he's beefed up they look like he's been in a wheel chair for twenty years; Joe from Family Guy.
True, it is much better at subtle manipulation than drastic ones, but the ability to track a marker-less person in a video? That's pretty darn impressive.
Quote:
Both are great, and both have their flaws. But that 40ms turn-around, being able to keep the object removed even as the camera changes perspectives and distance, and how light weight the program seems to be is astounding.
How long does Photoshop or GIMP take to remove an object from a still image 1280x720 in size? As in, is that 40ms even impressive or just par for the course? They are also essentially the 3rd people to do this, so it isn't impressive at all. Unless I'm missing something, just take each frame of the video and run it through the GIMP plugin (which is open source), you wouldn't need to do much work at all. _________________ There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 55773 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted: 13 Oct 2010 06:04:10 pm Post subject:
elfprince13 wrote:
The reshape thing is pretty intense, though I'll be more impressed when it doesn't take bluescreening to do it.....unless that basketball shot wasn't?
I'm a little unclear on that. They seemed to be implying that it was live, and the way the background warps on the leftmost one makes me think it's not [green|blue]screened. _________________
The reshape thing is pretty intense, though I'll be more impressed when it doesn't take bluescreening to do it.....unless that basketball shot wasn't?
I'm pretty sure that was showing that it can work WITH a [color]screen, I don't think it required one. After all, they manipulated a baywatch shot. _________________ There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 55773 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted: 13 Oct 2010 09:10:52 pm Post subject:
As Kllrnohj correctly points out, the Baywatch one was definitely not bluescreened, and as I pointed out, I don't think the basketball shot was either. _________________
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
![[t]](/forum/templates/Cemetech6/images/twitter.png)
![[t]](/forum/templates/Cemetech6/images/fb.png)
![[RSS]](/forum/templates/Cemetech6/images/rss.png)
PH34R |\/|3
(looks like photoshop does a better job, too :/ )