6 ms·
Very realistic. My first thought was that if this can be done without leaving detectable artifacts, then it will inevitably impact the admissibility of photogra
by nhebb 15y ago
Very realistic. My first thought was that if this can be done without leaving detectable artifacts, then it will inevitably impact the admissibility of photographs as evidence in trials.
- wayneyeager 15y agoAnd, apparently, videography.
- nhebb 15y agoThey took a still image and added moving objects to it, but I don't know if they can apply the technique to videos yet (although I'm sure that's coming).
- vyrotek 15y agoThere is a company which puts ads on objects in videos. Seems like a step in the right direction.
- anigbrowl 15y agoTrust me, that's a trivial extension. It's more time-consuming to do these things on video, but on the other hand one can also extract a ton more information from the scene if the camera or objects within its purview are in motion.
- skeletonjelly 15y agoI've seen videos of this already. I think Maya was the software?
- istvanp 15y agoThis could be a huge step for augmented reality if the process can be applied in real-time without any user input. It could improve on other research that's already out there like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCEp7udJ2n4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCEp7udJ2n4
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoAnd eye-witness testimony should be made inadmissible (and I think may eventually). DNA evidence has a 1 in 200 (ish) chance of being wrong[1]. Hard time to be a lawyer. 1. Source: The Drunkard's Walk. This is the estimated likelihood of a lab error, which by far drowns out the 1 in a billion chances the DNA match is wrong, but the numbers are not reported and not admissible as evidence.
- ovi256 15y agoOn average, you need 100 people to find two among them with one common fingerprint. Now calculate how many you need to find one among them that has a common fingerprint with a given person, i.e. you.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoBut if you know the lab has a one in ten chance of screwing up the processing of my print, how can I trust the one in a large number of a match. The screw up may cause a one in five chance of matching with anybody. Error rates are hugely important yet completely ignored in court.
- rbanffy 15y agoAs long as the original evidence is preserved, you can always collect material again and re-run the test.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 15y agoError rates are hugely important yet completely ignored in court. Not actually true. This is not to say that courts get it right all the time, but it's not particularly newsworthy when they do. Attacking the chain of custody and alleging contamination or false positives are standard techniques in challenging forensic testimony, both biological and digital. The cases where the forensic evidence is legitimately challenged and those challenges are ignored or overruled are often dramatic and newsworthy, but the rate of miscarriages of justice is falling because courts today are much more aware of these issues than the courts of (say) 20 years ago. Unfortunately news reporting of trials and appeals is so utterly awful that people tend to assume the exceptional is the norm. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem, just that the courts are more cognizant of the issue than more people appreciate.
- mckoss 15y agoWhile humans will be fooled, the researches have not attempted to fool computers. I would think there would be some simple filtering you could perform on the image to detect the inserted objects.
- lloeki 15y agoContainer-induced information analysis (like jpeg artefacts) can indeed bring a lot of information about manipulated areas.