It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photoshop's Upcoming Content-Aware Fill Feature Looks Like Magic

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
HI ALL

SOLD!!!

Oh My Lord I just have to have this, it will help with my denial of aging for a start....

Mint

Have the best day

themuse




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
NASA's personal photoshop tool.. the truth is coming!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Thats all possible to do before this is released, it just takes a bit longer.

As a graphic artist this tool will be excellent.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
A question for those who use PS ...

When tools such as these are use to manipulate an image do they leave something of a digital trace behind?

I guess what I am asking is, if an expert was presented with the image after it's been altered in this fashion, would they be able to tell by analyzing it?


There are a couple of techniques you can use to detect editing. For instance shadow disparity, principle component analysis (i.e. JPEG compression artifacts; so if you have details about the camera perhaps from the EXIF and it turns out to be a low-quality CCD camera /w a shoddy CMOS sensor; then it should be imprecise and generate lots of noise with very few blocks that are totally uniform in color), error level analysis (i.e. identifies how much of the image changes during a JPEG resave), and there are other ways a person can dig into an image to see if there was tampering.

Also if the persons a complete neophyte they likely don't realize graphic tools often saves information about the application that made the last edit. So it will literally say `photoshop` in the binary blob representing the image.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Pros
As a Graphic Designer, I must say it's about time! This will save designers a lot of time(fooling around with the healing brush, patch tool, blur, smudge, layers, etc) and make things easier when fixing up /doctoring photos.

Cons
I think most of the general poplation knows that magazine covers are very manipulated, and a good amount of photos found online about mysterious creatures, ufos and such...are too.
Though, may cause a stir with people who don't know about this.
Potential incriminating photos? Maybe...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


Darn, something else I must learn. (poo)
Either that or give up searching for the truth since now its created magically.
:: wondering if I should still look for that picture now!::



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
A question for those who use PS ...

When tools such as these are use to manipulate an image do they leave something of a digital trace behind?

I guess what I am asking is, if an expert was presented with the image after it's been altered in this fashion, would they be able to tell by analyzing it?



Also if the persons a complete neophyte they likely don't realize graphic tools often saves information about the application that made the last edit. So it will literally say `photoshop` in the binary blob representing the image.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Xtraeme]


Is that true with this new imaging? can't the info be saved w/o the program edit? Just curious.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hmm not bad, but looking at it its hardly infallible.

I used to use an old texture generating software that basically took pieces of the pic you gave it and it then worked out how to break it up and then reassemble it so that it was tiled and contained the elements of the original. It worked well but was hardly the best, and it was often hit and miss.

From the looks of it this is similar in premise, especial in the desert road example you could see where it used a bush and created two copies of it next to each other. In the swirly cloud example where it extended the image out, you could see where parts of the original image was reused by the algorithm.

Photoshop's had a tool like that for a while (i think its the band aid, I rarely use it personally), this just appears to be much more ramped up advanced version.

And no it wont make hoaxing easier, or harder to spot. Hoaxers are lazy, and being lazy with tools like this means they wont remove the recognizable defects these tools make regularly, that others would spend ages touching up later. Algorithms are great but when a piece of software tries to get creative, it tends to be limited, and no where near as imaginative as a human would


Nice tool though, I could definitely see myself using it for extrapolating detail like in the third example.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
kill it! kill it with fire!

clearly this is wizardry. i fear what i don't understand. this must be stopped.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
As an artist this blows me away! This will definitely speed up my work but also like to see what it does to my own digital paintings, instead of just photos. I cant wait to get this!

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Optix]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I see this as a useful enhancement to an already powerful program. Professional and amateur photo manipulators alike will benefit. I am not so sure that by using it in a "sinister" way it will lead to an increase in fake UFO photos myself.

For starters, the price point. I own a basic standalone seat of CS4 which was approx. $700.00. Also, hoaxers tend to marry existing images. Lastly talent. Most anyone can drive a car, just not in the Indy 500.

Here are some nice examples of work by Pros:

www.webdesignerdepot.com...

Reminds me of an old joke. Ansel Adams and Ernest Hemmingway were in a bar.
After many beers, Ernest says to Ansel, "That must be a very fancy camera you take all those magnificent pictures with." Ansel replies, "And that must be some fancy pencil you write all those wonderful novels with." They both laugh and continue drinking.

That's all I got.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


There are ways to remove it, but most people don't bother.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
not to derail this thread but add it with this...




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TrainDispatcher
 


OMG. That needs it's very own thread. Utterly amazing.

Inasmuch as Photoshop excels at manipulation of static images, add
motion tracking, rotoscoping and keying etc @ 24 or 30 fps.

Thanks for adding. Not derailed in my book.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I am a Photo Shop expert, I have been doing this type of work for over 5 years. The technology has advanced, that a job like this once took a couple hours - now can be completed in a couple of minutes.

But Corel PaintShop Photo Pro can also perform these modification at a more reasonable price.

A true "artist" always has more then one brush.Corel PaintShop Photo Pro

Check this link


[edit on 26-3-2010 by fisheye]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by fisheye]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
WOW...anyone who has ever used Adobe should have thier jaws dropped right now. That new tool changes EVERYTHING! and lets be realistic, if we're seeing a video of this now, IM pretty sure the government has had at for a few years already. The general population WILL NEVER have the equivalent of governement technology. They will always be ahead of us. Makes their jobs easier. I like to use the anology of "They keep us with flintlock rifles while they have automatic weapons, then give us automatic weapons when they get lazers".



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Whenever someone uses photoshop. it removes the cameras exif data.
wich tells you the time it was taken, the camera brand, model. what setting it was on. shutter speed. iso. etc.

when you edit a photo in photoshop. and then check the exif data. it will say edited in Photoshop cs3/cs4/cs5/ coral. etc.

many hoaxers wont notice this. because, well they are usually idiots.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TortoiseKweek
That is just mind blowing... I'm at a loss for words. How well will this stand up to scrutiny though? I'm thinking that it can't be completely seamless, and there must be a way to forensically detect it?

If not, we're in for a hellavu ride. Everything from fake UFO's, landscapes, etc.

Job well done Photoshop guys


As wonderful as this software is, it isn't seamless. The fill and patch tool needs to take shapes and colors from existing places on the photograph. If you notice that one pattern seems to be repeated more than once, you can spot where the photograph has been manipulated. I patch things the hard way at the moment. I've been using Photoshop for years now so I have some experience in the field. If you look at one of the videos where he's removing the factory from the picture, you'll notice that the tree pattern repeats where the factory used to be. To me it's blatantly obvious that the picture has been touched up. Maybe to the untrained eye it might pass, but not with me.
The software has come a long way for sure, it's amazing and it makes things that used to take hours take seconds, but it's still not perfect.

My biggest concern is that too many photos these days are touched up. I remember being in College in 2002. My Photoshop professor was talking to us about National Geographic photos, and revealed to us that many of them have been touched up. In some cases animals would be placed into different backgrounds, other animals would be removed from the photo and so forth. National Geographic is a very prestigious magazine with loads of beautiful pictures. Now we know why. It's not only that they have amazing photographers, it's also the fact that the pictures are manipulated to look perfect.

Does it make a difference to the person looking at the photo? Well, to be honest it's nice to look at pretty pictures, but if you can't trust a picture in a National Geographic magazine, what pictures CAN you trust? Are photographers teaching us the wrong things about animals or people when manipulating photos? Is the information that's missing important to us? Is it damaging to us to look at touched up photographs when we perceive them as truth? Should it be noted somewhere in magazines that certain photos have been touched up? I wonder. The biggest industry touching up their photos are fashion magazines. It's incredibly difficult to tell what's real and what isn't in a fashion ad. Of course that's another topic for a different thread.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Well, they demonstrated with things that you'd not really notice what it was doing. The clouds were the niftiest part imo. But grass, scrub, etc.. not terribly surprised. As someone said.. could you undress a person? I doubt it. What it's going to pull from? Probably the area around the person. They'd probably end up looking like the wallpaper on the wall behind them.


It's probably great on repeatable objects as you saw.

I don't see how this will advance hoaxing for say, UFOs for example. Removing objects is not usually the issue with UFOs, it's adding them. This particular technology while perhaps able to assist in cleaning up some ufo photos, I don't see how it will make the UFO itself seem any more real than it is (or isn't).



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Whats funny is most people dont realise the private sectores of big coperations would have access to this YEARS ago.

just like they were using 3Dmax8, and creating max9 at the time i was using max6.


The public is always the last sale *in tech anyways"



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join