4 ms·

Play deepfake on a TV, point signed camera at it.

by anbop 7y ago

gambler 7y ago
Have you ever tried this? The quality will be awful. As far as I'm concerned, the need to use a real camera to capture real light is sufficient to thwart creation of truly convincing fakes.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >Have you ever tried this? Yes. It used to be the industry standard method for recording TV programmes prior to the invention of videotape recorders. If you know what you're doing and use the right equipment, the generational quality loss is very minor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope
  - gambler 7y ago
    >It used to be the industry standard method for recording TV programmes prior to the invention of videotape recorders. Back when everything was analog and low-resolution, had noise and artifacts anyway, sure. Do you have a video that compares modern digital 1080p with its best "Kinescoped" version? You have to deal with parallax, mismatched frame frequencies, pixels and differences between natural light and whatever spectrum the source monitor produces. I have never seen a recording of a screen that looked anywhere close in quality to the original in 1080p.
    - buildzr 7y ago
      We're talking about faked videos here though, often of things where the quality is already quite questionable. If it shows something that looks 480p good enough and gets the green checkmark it's game over for this concept of video verification. No one needs perfect 1080p or 4k video to believe politician or celebrity is sleeping around. If it gets it to the point where it takes years of experience with this to figure out what is and isn't fake... I doubt that's any better than the situation without such a video verification system at all. In fact, I'd argue it's worse due to the fake seal of approval being given to the video.
    - taneq 7y ago
      > Do you have a video that compares modern digital 1080p with its best "Kinescoped" version? As an informal comparison, check out a downloaded "cam version" of any recent movie compared with a DVD rip. If you ignore the occasional noise or interference from the crowd, the quality can be quite good.
neuronexmachina 7y ago
I think the point of cryptographic signing wouldn't be verifying that it was recorded with a camera, but that it was recorded with a specific camera.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  I wonder if future studio cameras will need water cooling lines to dissipate the crypto heat
petters 7y ago
You can have the camera record metadata as well, like focus settings and super speed. That will make it harder.
- fwip 7y ago
  And you can build a camera that lies about this.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    Not quite as you can't necessarily clone the keys from an existing camera without some difficulty, however you can say, replace those sensors with your own inputs fed using a cheap microcontroller you wrote the firmware for. There's a time and effort investment but it's not exactly high...
  - vokep 7y ago
    True, but today you also can hire a lookalike to some target person and record footage of them doing something terrible, or edit footage carefully enough that the edit cannot be detected. Deepfake makes it less expensive to create fake video of someone, special signing cameras could make it expensive again in the face of that.

Play deepfake on a TV, point signed camera at it.

by anbop 7y ago

Play deepfake on a TV, point signed camera at it.

Have you ever tried this? The quality will be awful. As far as I'm concerned, the need to use a real camera to capture real light is sufficient to thwart creation of truly convincing fakes.

jdietrich 7y ago
>Have you ever tried this? Yes. It used to be the industry standard method for recording TV programmes prior to the invention of videotape recorders. If you know what you're doing and use the right equipment, the generational quality loss is very minor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope
- gambler 7y ago
  >It used to be the industry standard method for recording TV programmes prior to the invention of videotape recorders. Back when everything was analog and low-resolution, had noise and artifacts anyway, sure. Do you have a video that compares modern digital 1080p with its best "Kinescoped" version? You have to deal with parallax, mismatched frame frequencies, pixels and differences between natural light and whatever spectrum the source monitor produces. I have never seen a recording of a screen that looked anywhere close in quality to the original in 1080p.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    We're talking about faked videos here though, often of things where the quality is already quite questionable. If it shows something that looks 480p good enough and gets the green checkmark it's game over for this concept of video verification. No one needs perfect 1080p or 4k video to believe politician or celebrity is sleeping around. If it gets it to the point where it takes years of experience with this to figure out what is and isn't fake... I doubt that's any better than the situation without such a video verification system at all. In fact, I'd argue it's worse due to the fake seal of approval being given to the video.
  - taneq 7y ago
    > Do you have a video that compares modern digital 1080p with its best "Kinescoped" version? As an informal comparison, check out a downloaded "cam version" of any recent movie compared with a DVD rip. If you ignore the occasional noise or interference from the crowd, the quality can be quite good.

neuronexmachina 7y ago

I think the point of cryptographic signing wouldn't be verifying that it was recorded with a camera, but that it was recorded with a specific camera.

cwkoss 7y ago
I wonder if future studio cameras will need water cooling lines to dissipate the crypto heat

petters 7y ago

You can have the camera record metadata as well, like focus settings and super speed. That will make it harder.

fwip 7y ago
And you can build a camera that lies about this.
- buildzr 7y ago
  Not quite as you can't necessarily clone the keys from an existing camera without some difficulty, however you can say, replace those sensors with your own inputs fed using a cheap microcontroller you wrote the firmware for. There's a time and effort investment but it's not exactly high...
- vokep 7y ago
  True, but today you also can hire a lookalike to some target person and record footage of them doing something terrible, or edit footage carefully enough that the edit cannot be detected. Deepfake makes it less expensive to create fake video of someone, special signing cameras could make it expensive again in the face of that.