Comments on: GrimaceCheck! http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/ the blog that is not dansdata.com Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:57:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: RichVR http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1900 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:49:58 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1900 In the update pictures the lady holding the baby looks worried about something, even with the smile. I think the kid dropped a load. In the update pictures the lady holding the baby looks worried about something, even with the smile. I think the kid dropped a load.

]]> by: Good Experience Blog http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1884 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:58:31 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1884 <strong>Problems with finding smiles in photos</strong> Here's another example of technology trying to solve a problem that would be handled with a few minutes of bit literacy training. For those camera buyers who haven't read the "Bit Literacy" section on managing photos (take many many, and... Problems with finding smiles in photos

Here's another example of technology trying to solve a problem that would be handled with a few minutes of bit literacy training. For those camera buyers who haven't read the "Bit Literacy" section on managing photos (take many many, and...

]]> by: Jaymis http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1883 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:18:20 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1883 They were so close! The useful version of this would be a system which waits until everyone's eyes are open. Probably easier to detect than smiles, too. They were so close! The useful version of this would be a system which waits until everyone's eyes are open. Probably easier to detect than smiles, too.

]]> by: sockatume http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1881 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:01:14 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1881 I've got a point-and-shoot with a "fast as it can take them" continuous shooting mode, which I reckon solves the same problem in a less rigid way, although to get more than about two shots per second it has to step down to a <strike>modest</strike> sane 2MP resolution. You're limited to three shots per burst if the flash is on, mind you (presumably related to this "if the flash starts to release smoke..." part of the manufacturer FAQ). I've got a point-and-shoot with a "fast as it can take them" continuous shooting mode, which I reckon solves the same problem in a less rigid way, although to get more than about two shots per second it has to step down to a modest sane 2MP resolution. You're limited to three shots per burst if the flash is on, mind you (presumably related to this "if the flash starts to release smoke..." part of the manufacturer FAQ).

]]> by: magetoo http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1880 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:41:22 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1880 I don't think approach is going to help in the "five people not posing" scenario either, if all it does is prevent you from taking pictures at all. If people won't cooperate, you just walk away with nothing instead of three-out-of-five. It just might work if it runs on your desktop computer though. Throw in enough memory in the camera to let it store <em>lots</em>, and let a fast desktop CPU process all the hundreds/zillions of frames in "batch mode" when you move the pictures off the memory card. You could even try to recognize separate scenes (timestamps, major visual features) and rank individual pictures against its neighbours. You might even end up taking Alice, from t=0, Bob from t+2, and combine them in one almost-real shot... Hmm. Hang on, I'm off to patent this... :-) I don't think approach is going to help in the "five people not posing" scenario either, if all it does is prevent you from taking pictures at all. If people won't cooperate, you just walk away with nothing instead of three-out-of-five.

It just might work if it runs on your desktop computer though. Throw in enough memory in the camera to let it store lots, and let a fast desktop CPU process all the hundreds/zillions of frames in "batch mode" when you move the pictures off the memory card. You could even try to recognize separate scenes (timestamps, major visual features) and rank individual pictures against its neighbours.

You might even end up taking Alice, from t=0, Bob from t+2, and combine them in one almost-real shot... Hmm. Hang on, I'm off to patent this... :-)

]]> by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1878 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:21:30 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1878 Facial recognition software can be pretty clever, and you need considerable shutter-button accuracy to grab smiles in a picture of five people who aren't posing, especially if you're using a consumer camera with a 0.2-second shutter delay. A product that did what this one claims to do could be useful for happy snappers. But I'm skeptical about the actual capabilities of this technology. It may work better than <a href="http://www.dansdata.com/pornsweeper.htm">PORNsweeper</a> did, but that ain't sayin' much. And the press release doesn't actually explicitly say that any camera companies are actually going to license SmileCheck. And, again, just look at that picture. If this is the best these guys can come up with in their rigged demo picture, one can only wonder about the quality of their actual code... Facial recognition software can be pretty clever, and you need considerable shutter-button accuracy to grab smiles in a picture of five people who aren't posing, especially if you're using a consumer camera with a 0.2-second shutter delay. A product that did what this one claims to do could be useful for happy snappers.

But I'm skeptical about the actual capabilities of this technology. It may work better than PORNsweeper did, but that ain't sayin' much. And the press release doesn't actually explicitly say that any camera companies are actually going to license SmileCheck.

And, again, just look at that picture.

If this is the best these guys can come up with in their rigged demo picture, one can only wonder about the quality of their actual code...

]]> by: magetoo http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1877 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:54:13 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/01/15/grimacecheck/#comment-1877 Talk about a solution looking for a problem. It mustn't have occurred to them that the human visual system is absurdly good at judging the facial expressions of others of the same species. How would you even entertain the idea that it's something you should try to duplicate in a cheap consumer device, <em>which is going to be operated by a human anyway</em>? Sheesh. Talk about a solution looking for a problem.

It mustn't have occurred to them that the human visual system is absurdly good at judging the facial expressions of others of the same species. How would you even entertain the idea that it's something you should try to duplicate in a cheap consumer device, which is going to be operated by a human anyway? Sheesh.

]]>