h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is inspired by Daseva's "Red Nose
Removal". (OK, OK, it's an inferior echo
of
Daseva's "Red Nose Removal". We all
have
dry patches.)
A camera flash operates in something
like
a squinth of a second. The camera
shutter
itself operates in anything from a 30th to
a 1000th
of second, depending on
conditions and settings.
Nevertheless, I always ALways ALWAYS
(ie,
often) manage to blink at exactly the
instant when the flash flashes or the
shutter shuts.
Being photographed in mid-blink is not
flattering. Your face lacks the calm
repose
of sleep, and the closed eyes set in an
otherwise awake visage merely make you
look somewhat retarded.
Since red-eye (and now red-nose)
removal is straightforward using
software,
why can't we have shut-eye removal? It
should not be difficult for the software to
recognise a human face, and to
determine
that the two mainly-white shapes are
missing; it should also be possible for it
to identify the shallow U-curve of the
eyelashes on the closed eyelids.
Once the eyelash-curve has been parsed,
it simply needs mirroring about a line
from one end to the other, to create a
pinched ellipse which will be a
reasonable
approximation of the subject's eye
shape.
Simply fill this ellipse with white (and an
iris of course - colour selectable) and the
problem is solved.
Facial identification camera
Facial_20identification_20camera
"While it's at it, the camera could recognize that all the people in the picture are looking at the camera, with their eyes open, and smiling"
-Dub, Feb 22 2008
[phoenix, Sep 15 2008]
smile camera
http://gizmodo.com/...gapixels-292473.php
google up "smile camera" and you can buy one today. [ericscottf, Sep 16 2008]
(?) So not a problem for this guy.
http://www.deadment...c/images/2eyes1.jpg
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 16 2008, last modified Sep 17 2008]
You mean like this?
http://upload.wikim.../42/Churchkey01.jpg
That's gonna leave a mark [normzone, Sep 18 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
// We all have dry patches // |
|
| |
Not all of us. You can get ointment for it now. |
|
| |
Will not this idea discriminate against those with but a single eye in the centre of their forehead ? |
|
| |
SImpler solution -supply each camera with a tube of cyanoacrillate adhesive for gluing eyelids open, or perhaps a small staple gun ....... [+] |
|
| |
Right on! Glad to spark a (tiny) flame ;) everybody say pastryy!! <flash!> <casually shuts eyes> + |
|
| |
//Gonna make it hard to take a photo of
people with their eyes shut.// |
|
| |
Why not prevent the problem instead of fixing it? |
|
| |
Human eyeblinks take about 0.1 second (100 ms), and are frequently triggered by the "pre-flash" exposure determination light from the (modern)flash. Simply time the imaging flash to occcur more than ~150ms after the "pre-flash," guaranteeing open eyes. |
|
| |
Similar auditory pre-shutter sounds could work for shutter-caused blinks. |
|
| |
When I'm taking group photos, particularly of children, I just take several photos and Photoshop together a composite where everyone is not looking silly. Group photos are a particular problem. If an individual is looking non-photogenic a fraction of the time p, then the probability of a photo of n people having everyone in it looking OK is (1-p)^n. So, if you take a lot of photos (m) of a group and you want a greater than 50% probability of taking at least 1 good photo, you want the probability of at least one person looking bad in every photo to be less than 50%, or
(1-(1-p)^n)^m < 0.5
Putting numbers in, if your group size (n) is 10 people and each person looks not-OK 30% of the time (a generous measure for children), then m, the number of photos you have to take before getting a greater than 50% chance of a shot with everyone looking OK is 25. This doesn't allow for your subjects becoming bored, which is why it's easier to just take half a dozen shots and Photoshop together a composite. |
|
| |
//When I'm taking group photos, particularly of children, I just take several photos and Photoshop together a composite where everyone is not looking silly. Group photos are a particular problem.//
solid work, [hippo]. |
|
| |
//When I'm taking group photos, particularly of children, I just take several photos and Photoshop together a composite where everyone is not looking silly. Group photos are a particular problem.//
solid work, [hippo]. |
|
| |
I'm with you, [MaxwellBuchanan]. I'm a blinker. |
|
| |