Best part is at 0:53. A low-resolution side view of her head turns into a perfect front view of her eye. If they can change the camera angles of a still image why not make it point at the killer? The CSI motto: "Computers is magical."
This reminds me of the (otherwise great) computer game Blade Runner. You had these camera images where you could barely see two people through the doorway. Then you zoomed in, and the camera sort of went through the door and rotated so that you could see their faces. It was so obvious that I almost wondered if you actually controlled a camera that flied around in the shop.
and whats crazier is the fledgling technologies and seperate softwares in the works that all eventually will be able to reprocess, extrapolate, and stitch (however accurately) images ... its not going to be science fiction forever, despite our current incomprehension. ... we have a program to resize pictures that lets you expand or decrease and not lose features, we have a program to make 2d into 3d.. theres photosynth...there's the program that *GASP* can render unseen portions of a face from a single picture....and other things, all of which ive seen on the sift.
but yea ..not yet. you damn cynics.
dont become the people who laughed and said the earth cant revolve around the sun!1 don't fuck wit science.
>> ^vairetube: but yea ..not yet. you damn cynics.
There is not, nor will there ever be, a computer program that can extrapolate a guy in a t-shirt carrying a basketball from less than ten pixels of a reflection in a person's eye.
In Blade Runner, he did some crazy extrapolating from a photograph. Not only was it set in the future, there was no telling what kind of resolution or future technology was used to actually take the photo, so it's not quite as laughable.
I like how the Sift's *Geek Squad shows up every time for these videos. You guys realize that most people actually do believe this shit, don't you? Just because you and your geek friends know this is bullshit doesn't mean that Joe the plumber knows it. Of course you and your geek friends probably know plumbing better than Joe does too.
it could Max... and it would be wrong...you mean accurately extrapolate. i believe you would be correct.. you can't make something from nothing.
i am willing to bet something equally as mind boggling, however, will be performed by a computer before i see the end of my days. its a matter of the data available to the machine and the machines themselves.
really what we're talking about here is insanely increasing the resolution of the original photo to begin with, so the manipulation software isnt the issue... maybe you have video technology that takes multiple levels/layers/scenes and can on demand get that data... thats more of an issue with the recording technology then analyzing.
but, you're right... NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NO WAY if we're talking about software.... or.... maybe there is and you don't know it yet... as illogical as it may seem.
yer basically right, but don't say no... think of a way.
Now all he has to do is point the spoon in the direction of the suspect's house, and use a camera to magnify and x-ray the reflection on the spoon till they find him.
Cheap security camera should do it (resolution might not be too good though).
vairetube: Yes, there's a lot of cool research in computer vision, computer graphics, and computational photography. But it's pretty simple to say, in an information theoretical sense, that this CSI stuff is impossible.
Yes you could hallucinate plausible image content (super-resolution), but clearly that's not appropriate for a forensic setting.
But in this case we have a quantized, noisy, low resolution signal and the reflection in the eye could have been generated by any number of incident signals and it wouldn't make a difference in the recorded video signal. The information just isn't there.
"The resolution isn't very good. However, I just managed to add about 45 gigabytes of information to a VGA CCTV still image by sheer MAGIC and IGNORANCE."
TV is for fat stay-at-home moms who don't know anything about what a computerbox typewriter is.
I second the fact that vegas isn't as bad as this.
From what I can tell:
CSI Vegas: Sticks to actual possibilities to solving crime, doesn't do anything retarded for storylines, and has actually invented a couple new techniques from the show that are now used by CSI. Mostly seems to be based around the science behind the CSI. Also, William Peterson kicked ass.
I actually have a random clip of the show of an analyst using the machine to break down the materials of.. something. can't remember.
CSI NY: Seems to try to be off the wall, trying to re-invent certain things that could be used by CSI (As we see in this video) but they never actually work out, and it leaves you feeling both like a genius, and a retard for watching it.
CSI Miami: The entire show is based around sunglasses of justice.
If they sew enough of this stuff into existence, maybe the actual criminals will be so paranoid when they commit crimes that they will think everything is a clue. They will be so busy trying to fix the forensic stuff, they'll forget about the obvious stuff and leave leave behind the "Big Obvious Clues" - Like a "leather glove" of something...
>> ^Almanildo: This reminds me of the (otherwise great) computer game Blade Runner. You had these camera images where you could barely see two people through the doorway. Then you zoomed in, and the camera sort of went through the door and rotated so that you could see their faces. It was so obvious that I almost wondered if you actually controlled a camera that flied around in the shop.
yea based on a scene from the movie, which works because it's THE FUTAREZ
At the 4:59 point in the link below, you can see a version of the scene.
>> ^HollywoodBob: I don't know what is worse, that they put this garbage into the shows or that people who watch really believe that these things can be done?
There is something even worse. The college students who decide they 'want' to be in criminal justice because CSI is so kewl omg I want to be exactly like Sara Sidle!!!111!.
This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by pipp3355.
Stumble This
!!!!!!!!11111oneoneoneeleven
I haven't seen CSI up until now, but now i'm sure this was the last bit i ever watched from it. what nonsens.
*slams head on table repeatedly*
With that being said, the original CSI (Vegas) is awesome and they'd never do that.
Didn't you know that every time something happens you don't understand a wizard did it?
Well, a wizard, or Jesus.
It would have been funnier though if he accidentally grabbed his Swiss army knife by mistake!
but yea ..not yet. you damn cynics.
dont become the people who laughed and said the earth cant revolve around the sun!1 don't fuck wit science.
but yea ..not yet. you damn cynics.
There is not, nor will there ever be, a computer program that can extrapolate a guy in a t-shirt carrying a basketball from less than ten pixels of a reflection in a person's eye.
In Blade Runner, he did some crazy extrapolating from a photograph. Not only was it set in the future, there was no telling what kind of resolution or future technology was used to actually take the photo, so it's not quite as laughable.
In a TV show set in the present, it is most certainly a Wall Banger, and perhaps even a Dethroning Moment of Suck.
Yes, I've been reading too much TV Tropes.
i am willing to bet something equally as mind boggling, however, will be performed by a computer before i see the end of my days. its a matter of the data available to the machine and the machines themselves.
2d into 3d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA
http://make3d.stanford.edu/
content aware resizing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qadw0BRKeMk
3D morphable face models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
facial recognition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6I0k7UofR4
and related replacement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZMrNYSa9pI
photosynth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0
and finally... a realistic use of photosynth on CSI....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0suot89qXY4
so maybe you can rejoin the fan club.
really what we're talking about here is insanely increasing the resolution of the original photo to begin with, so the manipulation software isnt the issue... maybe you have video technology that takes multiple levels/layers/scenes and can on demand get that data... thats more of an issue with the recording technology then analyzing.
but, you're right... NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NO WAY if we're talking about software.... or.... maybe there is and you don't know it yet... as illogical as it may seem.
yer basically right, but don't say no... think of a way.
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/news/hasselblad-announces-new-50-megapixel-camera-and-upcoming-645-sensor.aspx
--------> http://www.gigapxl.org/
good day!
Cheap security camera should do it (resolution might not be too good though).
- Kip from Napoleon Dynamite
Yes you could hallucinate plausible image content (super-resolution), but clearly that's not appropriate for a forensic setting.
But in this case we have a quantized, noisy, low resolution signal and the reflection in the eye could have been generated by any number of incident signals and it wouldn't make a difference in the recorded video signal. The information just isn't there.
TV is for fat stay-at-home moms who don't know anything about what a computerbox typewriter is.
They reversed the image. Would totally work. The field of "corneal imaging" is really taking off. I'm getting a bachelor's degree of it as we speak.
From what I can tell:
CSI Vegas: Sticks to actual possibilities to solving crime, doesn't do anything retarded for storylines, and has actually invented a couple new techniques from the show that are now used by CSI. Mostly seems to be based around the science behind the CSI.
Also, William Peterson kicked ass.
I actually have a random clip of the show of an analyst using the machine to break down the materials of..
something. can't remember.
http://www.videosift.com/video/CSI-Vegas-Do-your-dance
CSI NY: Seems to try to be off the wall, trying to re-invent certain things that could be used by CSI (As we see in this video) but they never actually work out, and it leaves you feeling both like a genius, and a retard for watching it.
CSI Miami: The entire show is based around sunglasses of justice.
If they sew enough of this stuff into existence, maybe the actual criminals will be so paranoid when they commit crimes that they will think everything is a clue. They will be so busy trying to fix the forensic stuff, they'll forget about the obvious stuff and leave leave behind the "Big Obvious Clues" - Like a "leather glove" of something...
This reminds me of the (otherwise great) computer game Blade Runner. You had these camera images where you could barely see two people through the doorway. Then you zoomed in, and the camera sort of went through the door and rotated so that you could see their faces. It was so obvious that I almost wondered if you actually controlled a camera that flied around in the shop.
yea based on a scene from the movie, which works because it's THE FUTAREZ
At the 4:59 point in the link below, you can see a version of the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MiDsD6N65Y&feature=related
I like how they zoom in on the baseball in the end, just to make it even more obviously ridiculous.
I don't know what is worse, that they put this garbage into the shows or that people who watch really believe that these things can be done?
There is something even worse. The college students who decide they 'want' to be in criminal justice because CSI is so kewl omg I want to be exactly like Sara Sidle!!!111!.
Nice find, that truly had me laughing =)
It's still way more obvious in the game. And yes, it's still ridiculous. I can take extreme zooms, but I can't take camera angle shifts.
i can has mur-rar?