Against: Fascism, Trump, Putin, Q, libertarianism, postmodernism, woke-ism and Identity politics. For: Democracy, equalism, art, science, Enlightenment values and common-sense liberalism.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Scary
I love Photoshop, but the newest iteration -- Photoshop CS5 -- appears to be downright scary. Even if you never do image editing, you'll want to watch this. (CS5 isn't out yet, by the by. I'm still using CS2 because my El Cheapo graphics tablet doesn't like CS4.)
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
They used to say, believe nothing you hear, and half of what you see. This argues for revising the latter part of that dictum.
Not that long ago, the cpu horsepower to do these things in real time, interactively, was available only in high end workstations, supercomputers, etc. Now, with these optimized algorithms, any Photoshop jock has enough processing power with an average BestBuy laptop.
We'll never, ever be able to rely on photography for the record again. Outside Magazine has a front page article on the problems with sports photography and using photoshop that ends up diminishing actual acheivements by athletes. All records are now suspect. Can't believe your eyes takes on a whole new meaning now.
I'd heard some rumblings a while back that some digital camera makers were considering signing the image when it was initially saved so that any changes could be detected. Not sure if anything came of that.
Any information available as to what kinds of comparable image processing abilities in software exist for video?
If you had a signficant broadcast delay period between when the event being broadcast was videoed and when the transmission went out, there might be a chance of semi-real-time video manipulation. Would 15 seconds be enough time? Surely, not for an extemporaneous, unplanned effort. But with pre-planning?
The ability to detect this kind of forgery has always kept pace with or exceeded the ability to commit it, so veracity of the record is not an issue.
The real problem is that false memes spread faster than true ones, so damage can be done by the false in the time it takes for the genuine to "catch up."
6 comments:
They used to say, believe nothing you hear, and half of what you see. This argues for revising the latter part of that dictum.
Not that long ago, the cpu horsepower to do these things in real time, interactively, was available only in high end workstations, supercomputers, etc. Now, with these optimized algorithms, any Photoshop jock has enough processing power with an average BestBuy laptop.
XI
This is very impressive programming and design. But fewer photoshop disasters--that's no fun.
We'll never, ever be able to rely on photography for the record again. Outside Magazine has a front page article on the problems with sports photography and using photoshop that ends up diminishing actual acheivements by athletes. All records are now suspect. Can't believe your eyes takes on a whole new meaning now.
I'd heard some rumblings a while back that some digital camera makers were considering signing the image when it was initially saved so that any changes could be detected. Not sure if anything came of that.
Any information available as to what kinds of comparable image processing abilities in software exist for video?
If you had a signficant broadcast delay period between when the event being broadcast was videoed and when the transmission went out, there might be a chance of semi-real-time video manipulation. Would 15 seconds be enough time? Surely, not for an extemporaneous, unplanned effort. But with pre-planning?
XI
The ability to detect this kind of forgery has always kept pace with or exceeded the ability to commit it, so veracity of the record is not an issue.
The real problem is that false memes spread faster than true ones, so damage can be done by the false in the time it takes for the genuine to "catch up."
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment