3 ms·
> “The distortion and inconsistencies in the background are a tell-tale sign of a synthesized image, as are a few glitches around his neck and collar,” said dig
by sradman 6y ago
> “The distortion and inconsistencies in the background are a tell-tale sign of a synthesized image, as are a few glitches around his neck and collar,” said digital image forensics pioneer Hany Farid, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
and:
> Artist Mario Klingemann, who regularly uses deepfakes in his work, said the photo “has all the hallmarks.”
As an amateur photographer who only* knows enough Photoshop to quickly enhance images, I find these two statements completely unconvincing. This type of he-said-she-said news article makes me uncomfortable. TTBD: Truth To Be Determined.
* Edit: I know nothing about deep fakes but I expect "fake faces" to have "hallmarks" in the face.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoI'm also not convinced; the fake is convincing enough for most people, also given it's unlikely a picture like that will ever be displayed at more than 100px large.
- WhitneyLand 6y agoWhat do you think is unconvincing about them and in what way do you believe that expertise in Photoshop has any relation to this technology? At best Photoshop can play a role in covering tracks of evidence or artifacts of this much more sophisticated approach to faking identifies. It’s not to say the developers and scientists at Adobe are lesser, it’s that it’s not the same tool or problem that’s being solved. Put crudely Photoshop can let you draw a mustache on someone’s photo. This is about inventing a photo that never existed before.
- interestica 6y ago> in what way do you believe that expertise in Photoshop has any relation to this technology? They weren't expressing expertise in Photoshop. They were saying that basic use of it is the extent of their expertise. > What do you think is unconvincing about them Them being the 'experts' - they did nothing to convince other than say "I'm an expert in this thing."
- twak 6y ago> It’s not to say the developers and scientists at Adobe are lesser adobe research scientists are crazy-strong in the area of deep/neural graphics[1]. Perhaps we should disentangle adobe research from photoshop? [1] https://research.adobe.com/publications/ https://research.adobe.com/publications/
- chrisoverzero 6y agoThe article continues into the link at the bottom, which goes into great detail: https://graphics.reuters.com/CYBER-DEEPFAKE/ACTIVIST/nmovajgnxpa/index.html https://graphics.reuters.com/CYBER-DEEPFAKE/ACTIVIST/nmovajg...
- sradman 6y agoThat is more helpful, thank you. I'm still unconvinced since the discrepancies described are easily explained with optical depth-of-field as well as resizing and sharpening algorithms; the basic photography kind of stuff I'm familiar with.