Boffins insert 3D objects into any old photo... realistically

Researchers have lit up the world of 3D design with a new method for inserting computer-generated objects into a photograph in a way that makes the CGI renders seem part of the original snap. Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs example Source: Kevin Karsch and co. Kevin Karsch, Varsha Hedau, David Forsyth …

[Greg J Preece]

Very cool. That second one isn't as convincing for some reason (other than the odd shape), but the first one is superb. Excellent work, sirs.

[Citizen Kaned]

eh?

the first pic looks shite, as does the 2nd.

nothing a novice Photoshop user couldnt do in 5 mins. the shadows in the 1st seem all wrong to my eye.

the 2nd doesnt have the contrast that would be visible in the highly lit room.

big old fail and waste of time IMO.

[Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)]

I have to agree

I'm not sure why people downvoted this, because it's a fairly accurate assesment.

The shadows drawn on the surface of the dragon look plain wrong given the shadow in the first shot, added to this the shadow of the tree is still visible in the shadow of the dragon.

I'm not sure it's a waste of time, but it's by no means back-patting and celebratory-drinkie time yet, not by a long way.

[Youngdog]

That is amazing!

Is anyone else out there as cynical as I am and let the thought cross their mind that the objects were really there and they shopped them out for the 'before' picture? It just shows how convincing they are!

If this could be done in real time the impact to Augmented Reality could be awesome, imagine a DFS app where you could see how a sofa looked in your room with your lighting - you would know it was a piece of crap before spending a penny on it! And I am REALLY looking forward to a new flood of photo-realistic ghost/Bigfoot/UFO piccies!

[Richard Ball]

Double shadow on the ground

Dragon shadow + tree shadow = extra-dark shadow.

Coool physics going on there.

Looks pretty good though.

[hplasm]

I bet

'teh pixels are all wrong' too?

[tony]

Don't tell George Lucas.

[Robert Jenkins]

Shadow errors

Most look pretty good, however the outdoor 'dragon' exposes a serious bug:

The real shadow of the tree falls within the added shadow of the dragon - but it's still visible, just darkened.

In the real world, you don't get shadows through solid objects.

[Anonymous Coward]

And another.

It needs to be able to remove shadows from the scene too.

When the 'light source' goes under the table in that demo, the original table-leg shadows are unaffected, which just looks weird.

[Andy_H]

Did you not watch the video?

I watched it, minus sound, and the bit with the light shafts is pretty impressive.

[Old Uncle Thingy]

agreed indeed

It all makes a lot more sense when you watch the video.

Granted, a few of the images don't look so convincing initially - but as different software effects are demo'd many look very 'lifelike'.

Watch out for the ball rolling through the 'shafts' in the video...

[Eddie Edwards]

Huh?

Don't I see this kind of stuff on TV every day? I've attended SIGGRAPH on and off for the last 16 years and I don't recall there ever being a year where no-one did a paper on compositing CG into photos. It's a solved problem. They've been able to composite stuff into shaky motion-blurred image data since Cloverfield, and that's *hard*. This seems like the reinvention of a rotating circular load-bearing implement used in transportation.

[Helena Handcart]

"The group claims its method doesn't require extra information about the scene into which the object is to be place [sic]"

Er... no they don't, see 1:15 They do say that it doesn't need extra photos, or special setups, but there's still a reasonable amount of work to do to set up the lighting and occlusion.

[nattrill]

Re: Shaow errors

Yes, but the fact you have to study the shadows as opposed to the whole thing just being bloomin' obvious is a massive step forward, isn't it?

The real test would be to give the doctored photo to someone without telling them and see if they notice.

[Graham Dresch]

Credit where it's due..

This technique was developed by artist David Brinnen in the DAZ 3D Bryce forums over a year ago.

Technique video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=aNRH9ttwH3w

Bryce Forum: ( may require registration to see the images)

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=150913&highlight=hdr+continum

[Not That Andrew]

No, David Brinnen is just showing how to use Shadow Capturing in Bryce with HDR images.

This work appears to be about doing similar things without HDR images. As other commentators have said it's still basically a solved problem, but the emphasis here seems to be about ease of use. I expect the authors of this work are intending to release a piece of consumer-level software.

[jubtastic1]

FAKE!!!!

This is an obvious photoshop job. You can tell its a fake because the shadows are all wrong.

[Lockwood]

Also, I can tell from the pixels and from seeing several shops in my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

>"The technique would have applications"

Surprised they didn't mention the obvious one: propaganda fakery. Stalin would have loved this!

[Ugotta B. Kiddingme]

no one tell the Iranians about this

Their glorious missile launch photos[hops] might become realistic enough to fool 3 or 4 people.

[Anonymous Coward]

I Like!

I like a good magic show every now and then.

To be fooled for 5 mins, or 5s, and knowing you are being fooled, but still not being able to tell at first glance, is all what it takes. Which reminds me:

- "No, the marble statue will look better over there on the sunny side of the porch"

- "Yes, ma'am".

[heaving and not so smooth dragging noises]

- No, it was better back where it was...

[grunting, panting, and scratching noises]

(...)

If you ever dragged a couch for the missus, you'll know. That kind of program solves it.

[Chemist]

"If you ever dragged a couch for the missus..."

That comment gives away the fact that you're not married. No self-respecting wife would accept a computer program's view when there's real work to be done

[BinaryFu]

Wow...

Bad shadows in the first pic - it shows rudimentary branches, not detailed branches (look at the tree...now back to the dragon...back to me....get it? Good...now back to the tree)...and the second one? No dimple in the carpet!!! C'mon, rookie mistake.

I have to agree - these are techniques that anyone with moderate knowledge of GIMP or Photoshop could produce without excessive work.

It just seems they've created an easier way to do it - that still needs more tweaking to pull it off.

[Eddy Ito]

Nice try but

There should either be snow on the dragon or it was put there with a crane and the lad who unhooked it rode the cable and managed to never set foot on the ground.

Oh, so where's the download link? It looks like some fun could be had; anyone hacked into the streetview picture servers yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a luser

Oh yes, when it comes to CGI and related technology I am a complete end user. I have two degrees in computer science, one a masters, but my skill set lies elsewhere than imaging.

Were I a juror, barrister or Judge, I would expect the falsity of an image to be pointed out by relevant experts. But as a sci-fi fan, I really do want to believe strontium dogs sent by the Committee for Ultimate Retribution are ass-raping Adolph Hitler with daysticks borrowed from Judge Dredd.

So in the end, I don't give a flying spaghetti monster that CGI experts can tell that the first photo is a fake. *I* couldn't and that is all that is needed.

[Neil 38]

Does it only work with dragons?