4 ms·
I wonder how hard it would be to develop/train a machine learning method that ingests a photo of anywhere outside and maps it to corresponding satellite/aerial
by MontyCarloHall 3y ago
I wonder how hard it would be to develop/train a machine learning method that ingests a photo of anywhere outside and maps it to corresponding satellite/aerial imagery.
We are of course very good at object recognition from still images. We are reasonably good at inferring depth from a single still image (monocular depth estimation [0-2]).
Combining these, we should be reasonably good at determining relative positioning of identified objects in 3D, and thus computing their overhead 2D positions. Imagine discretizing overhead x/y positions, essentially yielding an image where each pixel corresponds to a 1 meter square looking down, whose color is the inferred identity of what occupies it.
For example, in the linked album cover, we could infer that a street occupies a set of pixels with coordinates S = {(x1, y1),...(xN, yN)}; a building occupies pixel set B1 = {(xb1, yb1),...(xbM, ybM)}; another building pixel set B2; etc.
Now, we are also reasonably good at object recognition (and MDE) for overhead imagery [3]. This would let us build a giant set of overhead object identities inferred from the entirety of satellite imagery. The tricky part would be efficiently indexing this, such that the overhead coordinate sets inferred from the ground-level image could be quickly (and fuzzily) queried in the satellite data. A brute-force approach would essentially convolve the overhead object coordinates inferred from the ground-level image over every region of the satellite imagery, at every possible angular orientation (and likely several different scales, since MDE is often imperfect at inferring absolute depth), but this would be impractically slow.
I would bet that intelligence agencies have had this capability for some time now.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705123000515 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095070512...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-20909-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-20909-x
[2] https://keras.io/examples/vision/depth_estimation/ https://keras.io/examples/vision/depth_estimation/
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/17/2719 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/17/2719
- apocalyptic0n3 3y agoThere was an article about that on HN in the last few weeks. I struggled to find that specific post, but I think this is the same story. https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/15/pigeon_model_geolocation/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/15/pigeon_model_geolocat...
- MontyCarloHall 3y ago>The model [uses] semantic geocells – bounded areas of land, similar to counties or provinces, that consider region-specific details like road markings, infrastructure quality, and street signs >The model can['t] pinpoint exactly where a street-level photo was taken; it can instead reliably figure out the country, and make a good guess, within 15 miles of the correct location, a lot of the time I could imagine that a more qualitative model like this one could be used to restrict the search space of a more quantitative model akin to the one I (very roughly) proposed.
- egman_ekki 3y agoI think Google Maps is doing something similar where it sometimes asks you to take photos/a video of the street you’re walking on to detrmine your location more precisely (I think it happens when the GPS is not giving good enough precision).
- operator-name 3y agoYou may be interested in a lesser scoped project that Rainbolt played against: https://youtu.be/ts5lPDV--cU https://youtu.be/ts5lPDV--cU
- TylerGlaiel 3y agonote that when they went and analyzed that AI they found out it was using the smudges on the google car camera as a sort of fingerprint (as those are consistent for the many pictures taken by one camera) so that AI would almost certainly not do well against pictures taken from different sources