When you're watching the same old dull, boring television programming, just press a button on your remote control and -- voila -- clothes come off! A special card running an dedicated Intel Pentium 4 processor and special firmware gathers video on the fly, detects and analyzes anatomy, and renders nude human skin onto the image. Of course the gadget will have trouble with low-illumination and other complex patterns until newer firmware is released, but such a device will definitely make waves and will sell millions of units even if it doesn't work reliably.

Skip the obvious sexual uses. Hey, why must we always have to look at all those clothed bodies anyway? You and your friends will be laughing yourself to tears as all those politically-correct Nick At Nite reruns are spiced up a bit. You'll be thinking about neutering your pet way before the Price Is Right ends... and of course when Baywatch comes on you won't be aware that David Hasselhoff's image invokes an easter-egg shrinkage algorithm.
-- mrnesbit, Jul 09 2001

(?) britney http://www.britney-....to/fr/bstoyou.html
there is just one big picture in the center of the page... bstoyou.jpg [carceris, Jan 13 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

I like it...with Tivo and the like, the video is already digitally stored for playback, so it would be relatively simple to add it into the box <once you wrote the software> I think that reruns of Roseanne should not respond to this button though.
-- MuddDog, Jul 09 2001


<MuddDog> I think that Roseanne should be required viewing in this manner. What an excellent tool for "Sex-Ed" class. Abstain or else...

(I'm only a proponent of abstinence due to my lack of "gettin' any" in high school. Man, was I a loser...or should that be present tense?)
-- Reverend D, Jul 10 2001


Isn't the ratio of high school kids that actually -are- "gettin' some" to those just saying it = 0.0001% (or somewhere in that magnitude?) Seems that as I got older and wiser in high school (early 1980s) that number seemed to go down rather than up. Hey I was a loser too... but in the 80's being in the "out crowd" was kinda cool!
-- mrnesbit, Jul 10 2001


What about a reverse nude filter for when you are watching pornography or lewd late night TV segments? Actors/actresses appear fully clothed in the clothing of your choice - actually while I'm at it, why not a 'Fashion Filter' so that you can change the garments of everyone on TV.

And one for animals too - I love it when I see a little puppy being led down the street wearing some sort of amusing costume (it makes them more visible when you are trying to run over them in the car).
-- benfrost, Jul 10 2001


Mr. Sealy -- I do this on a regular basis.... I simply take my glasses off. It's like all the naughty-bits on Sesame Street are blurred out. Same with O'Reiley Factor *shudder*, and don't even get me started on Marge Simpson!!! HoooBoy! Britney Spear's boob??? Nah!!! Not when I remove my glasses and EVERYTHING has the censor blur going!!!
-- Xanlexian, Jul 10 2001


You'll need a high quality computer and the latest AI to put the same nude body on each actor unless everyone's body looks the same. And that would be boring.
-- Voice, Nov 20 2016


The most compelling argument against more general public nudity is not that it's offensive per se, but that the vast majority of your species are really not very nice to look at.

In fact, it would be markedly better if certain indiviuals were compelled by court order to wear a burkha outside the privacy of a private dwelling. This would greatly assist in keeping milk from turning sour, preventing church clocks from stopping, and minimizing the incidence of fits in police dogs.
-- 8th of 7, Nov 20 2016


I'd find it hard to believe Snapchat haven't already created a real-life 'X-Ray specs' phone filter, but decided on keeping that one to themselves for obvious reasons.
-- TheBamforth, Nov 21 2016



random, halfbakery