On 10/6/2009 3:23 AM, Invisible wrote:

>> As Warp, andrel and Mueen said, it is a famous render and Mike gave a
>> kind of a hint in his initial post :-)
>
> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.

There were some tells in the image that I recognized right off. 
Particularly, the plant on the desk.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
>> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
>> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
>> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.
> 
> There were some tells in the image that I recognized right off. 
> Particularly, the plant on the desk.

See, now I hadn't even *noticed* the image contained a plant until 
now... I noticed the water and the desks and stuff, but not the plant.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

http://www.taranfx.com/blog/photosketch-draw-sketch-get-real-images-awesome

Expect to see even more image scraping. This is quite awesome, actually.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.taranfx.com/blog/photosketch-draw-sketch-get-real-images-awesome

> Expect to see even more image scraping. This is quite awesome, actually.

  Is it just me, or is the significance of photography diminishing over
time, faster and faster as technology develops? In the future photographs
will have no value at all. Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.

  Already today people will cry "fake!" to every photo which has something
even slightly unusual. I can only see this going worse and worse. Soon
nobody will take any photo seriously whatsoever. "Here I am at the beach."
"Yeah sure. How many mouse clicks did it require?" "Here's a photo of a
squirrel on my backyard." "Sure, and yo mama too." Soon all photographs
will be fake by default. Fakery will be so ubiquitous that nobody will
even bother to think "hmm, could this actually be a real photo?"

  What's the value of photography if you can get *whatever you want* with
just a couple of mouse clicks?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/09 03:23, Invisible wrote:
> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.

	The angle, dude, the angle.

	The bands of light don't hurt, though.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.

Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

>   What's the value of photography if you can get *whatever you want* with
> just a couple of mouse clicks?

It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the 
special effects, too. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>> most people who are just looking for a nice image to put on their 
>> website.
>
> And you know, of all the images to steal, the image of *office furniture* 
> was one of them? Where do these writers work, Hawaii bungaloos?

I assume they just did a google image search for "office" and took the first 
one with a chair in view.

Post a reply to this message

> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
> being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

Hi-end digital cameras have security features to prove the image has not 
been tampered with since the camera wrote the file.  I have no idea how it 
works but it would seem something like this might propagate down to cheaper 
cameras if there is a demand for proving the image is original.

Post a reply to this message

>> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.
> 
> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the 
> photographer being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

At least, until we invent the technology to alter human memories.

Damn, that's gonna be SO COOL! I can change my memory and wake up 
thinking I'm actually a cool guy that people like...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Hi-end digital cameras have security features to prove the image has not 
> been tampered with since the camera wrote the file.  I have no idea how 
> it works but it would seem something like this might propagate down to 
> cheaper cameras if there is a demand for proving the image is original.

You could have the camera write a digital signature and make it really 
awkward to get at the encryption key [which must, necessarily, be 
present inside the camera somewhere]. But when, if you have an image in 
RAW format, I would imagine it's fairly easy to fake anyway.

Most people don't just happen to have a Nikon DSLR in their pocket when 
they witness a robbery. They shoot people with camera phones and stuff.

Post a reply to this message