Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Scientists Create Easier Way To Embed Objects Into Video

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Nov 14, 2008 02:48 PM
from the advertising-agency-wet-dream dept.
Ashutosh Saxena writes "Stanford artificial intelligence researchers have developed software that makes it easy to reach inside an existing video and place a photo on the wall so realistically that it looks like it was there from the beginning. The photo is not pasted on top of the existing video, but embedded in it. It works for videos as well — you can play a video on a wall inside your video. The technology can cheaply do some of the tricks normally performed by expensive commercial editing systems. The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Youtube (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TBoon (1381891) on Friday November 14 2008, @02:54PM (#25764439)
    I thought there was more than enough advertisement on YouTube as it was already.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I thought there was more than enough advertisement on YouTube as it was already.

      But not in our dreams! Nosiree!

    • Re:Youtube (Score:4, Funny)

      by lysergic.acid (845423) on Friday November 14 2008, @07:14PM (#25767115) Homepage

      yea, it's kinda sad that they developed such a cool tech, and the first thing they thought to do with it is to plaster everyone's home videos with Coca-Cola logos. i mean, how much are you really going to be paid by Coca-Cola to add their logo to your home videos? does video documentation of your child's first steps or first words really need corporate sponsorship?

      some things don't need to be monetized. now, covering up the playboy posters in videos of your dorm room to send to your parents--that's a useful application.

  • Yeah, that'll work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday November 14 2008, @02:54PM (#25764455) Homepage

    The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online.

    Just like web surfers no longer even glance at banner ads anymore, people will learn to ignore any corporate logos in videos (even if they really ARE there in real life!).

    • It will, and does (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LockeOnLogic (723968) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:08PM (#25764595)
      Modern advertising/branding isn't about actively convincing you anymore. It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure in which you become familiar with a brand/product/logo whatever. In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.

      Nobody pays much attention to TV commercials anymore, and haven't for some time. Have advertisers markedly decreased their buying of TV commercial time? No, because you don't have to pay attention for it to work.
      • by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:25PM (#25764813) Homepage Journal

        It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure

        Also an effective way to brainwash a person too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It's the exact same principle. The only difference is the magnitude of the effect.

        • by MarkvW (1037596) on Friday November 14 2008, @04:52PM (#25765931)

          The word 'brainwash' has always intrigued me. It sounds like it would be a good thing to have your brain washed. It would then be clean, fresh, and ready for its next adventure!

          Besides, people with dirty minds probably could use a little brainwashing.

          Greetings from Stepford!

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            It comes from (if memory serves) a Chinese phrase for "cleansing the mind".

            In other words, driving out all those dirty capitalist thoughts and learning to love the communist party

            More info here [wikipedia.org]

        • by Yvan256 (722131) on Friday November 14 2008, @04:55PM (#25765971) Homepage Journal

          You can wash my brain if you want, but only with Tide or Tylenol.

          Wait, why did I say Tylenol?

      • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Friday November 14 2008, @03:35PM (#25764943) Homepage
        I've noticed that ads are being chained to increase effectiveness.

        For example, The SNL episode featuring the fake Sarah Palin had a later skit which showcased the MS Surface technology, then showed the Microsoft ads during the commercial breaks. Another show featured a very distinctive necklace worn by some lade ghost in a mirror on some chick show, and coincidentally the exact same necklace was featured in a commercial which sold them for some kind of real-life charity.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I particularly liked how a CSI:NY episode matched the marks on a dismembered body's bones to the blade of a particular brand of cordless reciprocating saw, then the same saw was advertised in the commercial break, just in case you had some bodies you needed to dismember.

        • That was My Name is Earl. The character Joy watched the commercial in the show (they showed most of the commercial in the show) and she started name dropping the product. Soon after during the commercial break that commercial was on for real. I love the show but when the show was over I turned to my wife and said if they did that again I wouldn't be a viewer any more.

          It may sound childish but that was too much.

      • Re:It will, and does (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday November 14 2008, @03:35PM (#25764947) Journal

        In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.

        I guess once again I'm outside the bell curve, as I use generics almost exclusively. Tylenol? Doesn't work. Advil? Hell no, generic Naproxin Sodium is 1/3 the price. Tide? Yeah, becasue I haven't found anything that works as good. Listerine? Yes, that brand was shown to reduce incidence of gum disease which I suffer from, and the generics are watered down, you can tell because they don't burn as bad (yes, I did try them and found them wanting).

        However, NEGATIVE ads work well on me. Sony's rootkit bit me when my daughter trusted BMG and I'll never buy another Sony product again. I spent so much time under the hood of my Mustang in 1970 that I never again bought another Ford. Tyson Foods burned two dozen Mexicans alive in Georgia in the 1980s because they chained the fire exits shut to keep them from stealing chicken parts (a manager spent 2 years in prison for twenty five horrible deaths) and I'll pay MORE for generic meat than buy Tyson.

        And some ads are so annoying that I deliberatly avoid the products.

        You would think that the corporates would learn. It's an old adage that if you're happy with a product you MIGHT tell a friend, but if you feel like you've been ripped off you'll tell everybody.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Advil? Hell no, generic Naproxin Sodium is 1/3 the price.

          Well you may want to price it against ibuprofen since that's the active ingredient. Just sayin'

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Interesting, you admit you're outside the bell curve and then expect corporations to learn from your example? I think it'd be more worth it to them to pay attention to the middle of that bell curve. :-)

          You know well why they'll keep doing stuff like the rootkit thing. Most people don't care, and the ones who do aren't present in large enough numbers for them to change their strategy.
        • by shadow349 (1034412) on Friday November 14 2008, @08:02PM (#25767409)

          Tyson Foods burned two dozen Mexicans alive in Georgia in the 1980s because they chained the fire exits shut to keep them from stealing chicken parts (a manager spent 2 years in prison for twenty five horrible deaths) and I'll pay MORE for generic meat than buy Tyson.

          You are basing your opinion of a whole company and all of its current and future products on the actions of a small group of people who made an error in judgment 20+ years ago? Sounds pretty petty to me.

          - Ryan Jacobson
          Union Carbide, Project Manager
          Bhopal Division

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        And the only way to discourage this is if enough people start actively working against it. When I am looking for a product and I recognise a brand but can't think of which independent source told me something good about it, I actively choose something else.
        • Generics (Score:3, Interesting)

          (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients)

          Have you bought generic or third party hardware before? I'm thinking of a replacement car fender a body shop once tried to sell me. The steel was thinner than the original steel, and much more flexible. The rolled form of the fender didn't exactly line up with the rolled form of the original. The factory fender, on the other hand, was a perfect match to the original part. I'm sure the car would have *looked* like it was supposed to, but if you examine the fit and finish up close, it's evident that it'

          • Re:Generics (Score:4, Insightful)

            by StrategicIrony (1183007) on Friday November 14 2008, @07:00PM (#25767003)

            There are cases for generic and cases for non-generic.

            There's nothing to say that brands are evil, just that brands with heavy advertising aren't necessarily more worthy of a purchase.

            When it comes to drugs, generics actually ARE composed of essentially the same thing, but when it comes to card or liquor or computer parts, "generics" are definitely not.

            However, purchasing a car bumper because the TV showed a hot woman rubbing on it is different than purchasing it because it's a superior product.

            That's the contention this whole thread. Some people seem to think that advertising legitimately will make me pay more for an identical or inferior product, without my conscious knowledge, which I have argued as a bit of bunk, at least the enormous majority of the time, for me personally.

            • Re:Generics (Score:4, Funny)

              by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Friday November 14 2008, @07:28PM (#25767197)

              I've tried generic alcohol before. It didn't sit with me well at all.

              Long story short, keep away from the Isopropyl brand of hard liquor. It may be cheap, but you sure do pay for it tomorrow!

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Actually, when it comes to generics, drugs are not very different than car doors. The chemicals are supposed to be the same, but the other components may be cheaper. And there may be qualitative functional differences in the packaging. "Time release" is sometimes achieved by coating particles with compounds that have measured rates of decomposition in stomach acid, and with some percentage of particles to be coated heavier than others. There is no guarantee that a generic has to mimic that behavior, or

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I wonder if it would be just as easy to take them out?

  • by StrategicIrony (1183007) on Friday November 14 2008, @02:56PM (#25764469)

    Does anyone notice that the more pervasive advertising is, the less effective it is?

    In other words, people build filters for it. I know within younger generations, advertising is almost invisible.

    I recall older people at work asking me "did you notice that new ad on the webpage?"

    To which I responded "uhm... our webpage has ads?"

    Because I spend enough time on the web to have almost totally filtered them out (yeah, adblock does a bunch of that for me, but even without it....)

    I don't think I could tell you after a TV show, who the sponsors were. Commercial time is just blank in my mind because I tune it out.

    I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage. I don't know for sure, but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.

    So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?

    Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?

    • by nysus (162232) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:11PM (#25764635)
      You think you are immune, but you are not. Perhaps you are not interested in 99.9% of the products out there. But when an ad for that that product or service you are interested in, you will pay attention.
      • by StrategicIrony (1183007) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:29PM (#25764875)

        Probably.

        I saw ads for the new Nikon camera, which reminded me I had meant to drop by the local camera shop because It was something I'd been wanting to do (upgrade my camera)

        I ended up doing some research and bought a Canon from an online discount shop.

        Yay for Nikon ads.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Agreeing with parent, I will give my own anecdotal evidence. The more I see a KFC, Wendy's or Burger King commercial, the more I might think about it, even subconsciously. There are even BK product placements in one of the games I like to play (NFS:U2). Unfortunately for Wendy's and BK, I don't act on my impulse very often / at all, KFC a little more often (say once or twice a month as opposed to once or twice in 3 months).

        The point is that the ad placements do tend to get me to think about the brand.
    • I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage.

      I sometimes click on ads on one webpage. Just so it doesn't die. Nonetheless I filter most of them, I even have greasemonkey to remove one ugly green ad looking almost like other content.

    • Modern advertising is a very different creature from what you seem to think it is. It operates quite well, perhaps even at its best, when (you think) you are not aware of it. When you are not paying attention, you have no chance to rationally evaluate the message it is delivering. It just slips past all your conscious filters right into your subconscious.

      Show a pretty girl beside a Lexus logo often enough and you'll start getting a hard-on for one even if you can't say just why.

      Co--stan-za!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?

      A lot more than you realize.

      Advertisement is one of the most heavily researched areas of our lives. A good fraction of psychology research is, directly or indirectly, related to the effects and effectiveness of advertisement. While it is almost impossible to correctly estimate any specific ad or campaign, the general effects of advertisement are extremely well researched.

      So you don't consciously register the ads anymore. Do you think the advertisers care? No, not in the least. They were never targeting your

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.

      It's probable that some advertising DOES affect you, even if you don't realize it. Do you buy generic drugs, or name brand, for example? (I know I occasionally buy Alleve, despite knowing that it's the same thing as the generic naproxin right next to it. Why?? It's not logical.)

      If you had to find car insurance, where would you go? The first thing that pops in my mind is Geico, Allstate, etc -- [i

  • by JonTurner (178845) on Friday November 14 2008, @02:57PM (#25764483) Journal

    Because if there's one thing we all need in our lives, it's more inane advertising plastered over every square inch of vertical surfaces.

  • of the woman in the movie 'the corporation' that thought it was a great idea to get children to 'nag their parents more effective'. I just love the advertising business. not.

  • by TheNecromancer (179644) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:07PM (#25764581)

    Yes! Now you too can star in your very own pr0n movie!

    Ah, the wonders of software!

  • Now we will see an even greater number of bogus science experiments on Youtube.
  • Couldn't I use this to remove the objects/logos/animations just as effectively? I would likely pay for that!

  • by idontgno (624372) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:13PM (#25764661) Journal

    When American football television broadcasts started featuring real-time "underlays" of such play-by-play landmarks as line of scrimmage and first down mark, a worried little voice at the back of my head wondered if someone would use this technology to underlay advertising. I think I've seen just such things (i.e., digitally-projected advertising hoardings in the video background, even logos "projected" into the playing field). Now this kind of stuff will be easy and ubiquitous.

    As little as we can trust digital visual media now, it'll be even less trustworthy.

  • by coolsnowmen (695297) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:14PM (#25764677)

    It is nice to see top universities working on better advertising. You know, I was thinking to myself just yesterday, "There is just not enough product placement in society. I hope someone makes it easier to put advertising in digital media."

    • Re:Stanford sold out (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iluvcapra (782887) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:30PM (#25764881) Homepage

      I dunno, it seems that this knowledge is directly applicable to all kinds of serious real-world problems involving computer vision, particularly automated car driving (the Stanford [wikipedia.org] connection might just be a coincidence, but there's a lot of overlap).

  • by sneakyimp (1161443) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:17PM (#25764719)

    Somebody tell the BertIsEvil guy.

  • by xquark (649804) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:25PM (#25764817) Homepage

    1. Initially from a computer forensics pov, it would be trivial to detect if a video has been altered, however i think with further improvements in the embedding technology where the actual advert piece is better rendered to take into account surrounding lighting conditions it might become more difficult, however not impossible to detect intentional modifications

    2. Just as with current browser ad-blockers, the these ads can also be blocked out, in-fact the technology proves that complex camera conditions such as rotational pan(the heros examples) and occlusion (fat chick on couch) can be easily determined, so creating a blank out mask of a texture that is close to the surrounding surface would also be quiet doable, perhaps not real-time at the moment, but doable nonetheless, and most definitely live sometime in the future perhaps.

  • Nothing new here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sunderland56 (621843) on Friday November 14 2008, @03:31PM (#25764887)
    Maybe these Stanford geeks don't watch football... that yellow first-down line is actually *not* painted on the field, it's inserted into the live video feed electronically. While doing it live requires some reasonable amount of processing power, doing it by non-real-time processing is pretty trivial (it's just a 3D texture map).

    The technology to do this was commonly available in the mid-90's.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Actually you're wrong, conceptually its a similar process but the method is very different. The video processing done in football games requires 4+ cameras to be position around the arena, the camera locations are known exactly, furthermore the cameras are all high frame rate, hi resolution.

      From the article it seems to suggest one can take some arbitrary video that has non-degenerative camera motion and embed images/video into it, doing this requires knowing the optical flow of all the moving objects in the

  • by riceboy50 (631755) on Friday November 14 2008, @04:29PM (#25765669)

    The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online.

    More like Google will insert said logos into said videos upon your posting them on YouTube.

    • I am a member of a number of websites with no advertising, even large ones.

      I even pay subscription fees to some.

      The fact that there is so much advertising that I tune it out has little to no relevance to your desire for me not to share my opinion, or your belief that my opinion is going to shut down Slashdot... or whatever.

      Frankly, I made my income for 5 years off advertising, but we did it in a way that was not stupid banner ads. There were active discussion forums about products related to our content,

      • We call them "Slashvertisements" or something like that. I think it's the uninteresting stories that are promoting a product and / or service.

        It's not like we're reading TFA's anyways..

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Because simply overlaying an image with opacity wouldn't allow foreground objects to move in front of the image, or for the image to change dynamically with the motion of the camera or the background object. Follow the link in the story and watch the video. The cool stuff starts about 1:40 minutes in.