Fluid image resizing. An interesting new algorithm.

[D Q E]

Weapon to be used in war on lunacy. But apparently it wasn't
effective...

Much the same as most other weapons, then.

--
mumbo jumbo

 

[D Q E]

It will be used, combined with Elbit imagery system and Intel's Merom
dual core Processors to make a machine that will enable "them" to
rule the world.
shshsh... you heard nothing

Anything about the military application of Sony's new 10.5 FPS sensor?

I'm sure it will be put to some nasty uses. I'm betting that Sony R&D isn't predominantly military in nature, however.

--
mumbo jumbo

 

[firefox23508]

I think there is room for everyone at our photographic table--just as it is with those who paint. There is room for the photo purist who prints the image directly from the camera as shot and there is room for the ones who post process ... exactly the same as those who paint landscapes can abide those who paint portraits or those who paint abstractly. There is no one "right" way to create an image that is pleasing.

 

[Michael DeBruyn]

Photgraphy is artistic representation of the world, period. Manipulation of the images is done in all aspects of the photographic process - from shutter speed selection, aperture/depth of field selection, and composition, right through the processing of the image itself.

Photographic purpose is emotional response - and the fact that an image was manipulated more or less in photoshop or through more "conventional" compositional and technical decisions while taking the photo makes no difference.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Michael

 

[htom]

Wow.

In small doses this might well be undetectable.

(It might have been derived from a military application that finds the path of least opposition for an attack.)

 

[photogeek]

Besides salaries, that is, which they already got. That's just not how the system works these days. These days, you get a salary, and whoever pays that salary gets to reap the gargantuan rewards from your inventions as well as prevent you from using anything even vaguely similar if you leave the company and try to roll your own. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying that researchers are unlikely to see an extra dime from their invention. In fact they can be laid off and die in a cardboard box on the street immediately after filing (not even receiving) the patent.

 

[sigphoto]

Well thank you Micheal for your rude and arrogant response.

 

[sigphoto]

but you seem to be a "real-estate appraiser".

FFS!

 

[Michael DeBruyn]

but I don't think it was rude.

So do you disagree with my post? At what point do photographic decisions become unacceptable manipulation?

 

[bionet]

For those who are too sane to use flash in their browsers, here is a real link to the video straight from the source.

http://www.faculty.idc.ac.il/arik/IMRet-All.mov

 

[Michael DeBruyn]

You still haven't responded to any of the points I raised in my post. Yes, I am a certified real estate appraiser, but I do enjoy photography very much as a hobby and consider it an art. I'm not sure how that disqualifies me from commenting on the subject at hand, or devalues the very valid points I have raised.

Again, at what point do photographic decisions become "unacceptable" manipulation?

 

[sigphoto]

Oh yeah! You both mightily arrogant AND rude!

Learn to converse with people in a civil manner.

 

[James Arnold 1971]

Scientist get paid either by the company they work for. or by an employer like a university? Not for getting published (at least not enough to live on), all getting published does is add to their credentials and help them get beter employment. That employment is generally with companies that want to profit on the scientists work and generally the best way to do this is to have an exclsive on those inventions/discoveries.

Same goes for software devlopment.

If someone makes all the work for free in the first place, which I
seriously doubt. I find it ridiculous how all of a sudden software
(or algorithm) developers are supposed to work for free. Trivial
(software) patent lunacy is another story.

Why not a publshed-peer-review system as is used in scientific
research? Scientists still get paid.

--
--
mumbo jumbo

 

[Michael DeBruyn]

and answer: When do photographic decisions become "unacceptable" manipulation?

I really want to know what your opinion is as you seem to have quite a bit of experience as a professional photographer. You obviously draw the line somewhere before the level of this software, and I am curious as to where that line is for you.

I'm not sure why that's so rude.

 

[sigphoto]

and answer: When do photographic decisions become "unacceptable"
manipulation?

I really want to know what your opinion is as you seem to have quite
a bit of experience as a professional photographer. You obviously
draw the line somewhere before the level of this software, and I am
curious as to where that line is for you.

I'm not sure why that's so rude.

Your manners and your overbearing attitude are rude.

Calling someone else's contribution 'BS' is VERY rude.

It may be acceptable where you come from, but I would never do that without having very good cause to do so - but for you, it seems to just 'roll off the tongue'.

Treat people with respect if you don't know them.

Give them the benefit of the doubt, until you have justification to think otherwise.

Anyhow, you wanted an answer - and here it is: -

1) An artist can do anything he/she wants to an image during the creative process.

2) Once the image is released by the artist, no other manipulation should occur without the artist's agreement - possible exceptions are scaling, and maybe cropping - but nothing more.

 

[Califlefty]

Over the last year we have seen several scandals where photographs were manipulated for propganda purposes (fauxtography), most crudely and obvious and thus exposed for what they were. This tool will make it that much harder to judge the intergrity of an image.

 

[sigphoto]

Indeed.

Once this sort of technology becomes commonplace and widely-accepted, we will not be able to trust any image presented in the media, still or video.

Perhaps it's already too late judging by the lassie fair attitude of some posters over the integrity of their images that I've seen on this and other threads.

 

[Eric Grange]

Once this sort of technology becomes commonplace and widely-accepted,
we will not be able to trust any image presented in the media, still
or video.

IMO this point was already passed years ago.

The image manipulations that were "caught" recently were little more than crude jobs, which could be a sign that it's a practice commonplace enough that people didn't even care to do it carefully and cover their tracks.

At this point in time, digital imagery shouldn't be considered as proof, even if there are no visible PhotoShop'ing traces. And the same would go for film nowadays, as producing film from digital isn't of an insane complexity.

 

[vFunct]

A photo isn't a photo without post-processing.

Anyone who tells you photos shouldn't be post-processed isn't a photographer. "Taking the picture with a camera" is only one, minor part of photography.

 

[zackiedawg]

1. That is one of the coolest, most brilliant, most interesting, and futuristic advances I've seen in post-processing. What an interesting and useful idea for conveying the intent of a photo in a resized manner that still allows detail and subject to remain unresized and intact, while compressing less important space in the photo. I'm thoroughly impressed!

2. The downside is - I can see an impending proliferation of digital photographs all over the web of people improbably close to dangerous wildlife or precarious situations using this technology without disclosure. Not that it couldn't be done before with more involved cutting-and-pasting techniques - but this makes it easily accessible and usable by even those without post-processing skills.

Still, the ingeniousness of the technology and the invention cannot be denied!

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

(I'd be honored and overjoyed to have any of my posted photographs critiqued, commented on, or post-processed - I can attribute everything I know about photography to the wonderful people who have done this for me in the past!)