Menu Bar
Content Aware Image Resizing
Trouble viewing the video? Try reloading this page.
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Update: Now included in Photoshop CS4.
Siggraph 2007 presentation of an all new way to automatically resize images tracing 'seams' with the least amount of energy.
The eraser thing at the end is totally worth it.
Siggraph 2007 presentation of an all new way to automatically resize images tracing 'seams' with the least amount of energy.
The eraser thing at the end is totally worth it.
Aug 21, 2007 1:20 AM
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Totally jaw-dropping results. That's just slicker than snot!
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
It's unfortunate the whole thing is a talk at a tech conference, but damn is that cool.
By: Maktaka
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
The beach image didn't impress me that much, as it would be really easy to clone the people out of that image. The general resizing tool is cool though.
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Winston Smith, paging Winston Smith. Your software is ready.
By: mdhatter
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Their application in the introductory section would be for dynamic layouts, such as webpages. However, I don't think the average web user would want merely resizing the browser to cause content to be added or removed from the images he or she is viewing.....
Also, isn't anyone even slightly disturbed at the casual attitude towards actively changing the content of photographs? Clearly this is aimed at advertising agencies/celebrity photographers....
Also, isn't anyone even slightly disturbed at the casual attitude towards actively changing the content of photographs? Clearly this is aimed at advertising agencies/celebrity photographers....
By: Deh_Dude
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
You're not alone in your disturbed state. We're changing content so quickly these days...
At first you had slr cameras that required darkroom editing or airbrushing to edit out flaws. Agencies were provided with a few rolls of film from a shoot (maybe up to 100 images per setting), and then very few selections of finals picks were made before edits were completed. Edits took a while, but fewer were done, better shots were selected and more highly skilled people were paid better wages.
Then you got digital and all of a sudden where 100 images had been there were 500 or 1000 - making the raw selection process that much more difficult. Combine that with digital photo editing and the in-house work becomes not lighter (as it should be thanks to increased speed of manipulation) but heavier as images that would have previously been passed over are kept for any small portion of success they have.
Now we've got advanced editing. The in-house workload keeps increasing and the concern about what REALLY was at the shoot keeps decreasing. We used to carefully block images to present a pleasant, but still realistic, view. Now people are at home with the misrepresentation of people, places and things - even if those are the selling points of the image.
It's the same with any control over information. You can use it for bad or good. I believe that it's totally appropriate to use digital editing to edit the objects surroundings an item for sale. I also believe that clean-up to display an item in its best state (including color-matching to display as close-to-true-as-possible print and web colors on items) is just fine. What I can't agree with is deliberately hiding flaws, such as omitting items that are blocking a view for a hotel location or increasing a woman's bust line dramatically (go ahead and shade the cleavage, but don't multiply a b-cup into a d-cup!). When people start to do that it becomes false advertising. Even if the pics are for personal use, they're memories that are being falsified.
There's a right way and a wrong way to use this type of technology. Unfortunately, too many people will see it as an easy way out.
At first you had slr cameras that required darkroom editing or airbrushing to edit out flaws. Agencies were provided with a few rolls of film from a shoot (maybe up to 100 images per setting), and then very few selections of finals picks were made before edits were completed. Edits took a while, but fewer were done, better shots were selected and more highly skilled people were paid better wages.
Then you got digital and all of a sudden where 100 images had been there were 500 or 1000 - making the raw selection process that much more difficult. Combine that with digital photo editing and the in-house work becomes not lighter (as it should be thanks to increased speed of manipulation) but heavier as images that would have previously been passed over are kept for any small portion of success they have.
Now we've got advanced editing. The in-house workload keeps increasing and the concern about what REALLY was at the shoot keeps decreasing. We used to carefully block images to present a pleasant, but still realistic, view. Now people are at home with the misrepresentation of people, places and things - even if those are the selling points of the image.
It's the same with any control over information. You can use it for bad or good. I believe that it's totally appropriate to use digital editing to edit the objects surroundings an item for sale. I also believe that clean-up to display an item in its best state (including color-matching to display as close-to-true-as-possible print and web colors on items) is just fine. What I can't agree with is deliberately hiding flaws, such as omitting items that are blocking a view for a hotel location or increasing a woman's bust line dramatically (go ahead and shade the cleavage, but don't multiply a b-cup into a d-cup!). When people start to do that it becomes false advertising. Even if the pics are for personal use, they're memories that are being falsified.
There's a right way and a wrong way to use this type of technology. Unfortunately, too many people will see it as an easy way out.
By: catgrin
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
I don't really find it as disturbing at all. I'm a graphic designer, and photo manipulation is one of my favorite things to do. I routinely take photographs for the sole purpose of manipulating them. I create art.
It all depends on perspective when looking at stuff like that. Advanced photo manipulation takes skill, and in that regard, it most certainly is an art. Saying that digitally rendered art isn't art is like the singer telling the pianist that he's not a musician because he uses a tool to achieve his result. It's just another instrument to create the work. It's not a perversion, and it's usually not false advertising. For instance, if a woman in an ad for beer, or anything that isn't a cosmetic surgeon's office, has her bust increased for the ad, how is it false advertising? Are they advertising the product, or the boobs?
And how is deliberately removing flaws unethical? Isn't that what most women do before they go off to work in the morning? They put on makeup to cover up blemishes, shade their lips, increase the thickness of their eyelashes, and rose their cheeks. How is it any less ethical for a computer to render this same artificial result? By that logic, perms are unethical, so are girdles, pantyhose, hair gel, shaving, and whitening toothpaste. Burger companies have been using non-computer falsification of their products for YEARS. Have you ever gotten a burger at McDonalds that looks just like it did in the commercial?
Obviously, it's bad to edit out flaws on an item you're selling on ebay. It's also bad form to heavily photoshop products for direct sale, and I absolutely hate obviously photoshopped "before" and "after" weight loss / acne / whatever else ads. But, these are not the most usual uses of photo manipulation.
Don't let a few shady people tarnish the profession of graphic design on the whole. There's a lot more to it than that.
It all depends on perspective when looking at stuff like that. Advanced photo manipulation takes skill, and in that regard, it most certainly is an art. Saying that digitally rendered art isn't art is like the singer telling the pianist that he's not a musician because he uses a tool to achieve his result. It's just another instrument to create the work. It's not a perversion, and it's usually not false advertising. For instance, if a woman in an ad for beer, or anything that isn't a cosmetic surgeon's office, has her bust increased for the ad, how is it false advertising? Are they advertising the product, or the boobs?
And how is deliberately removing flaws unethical? Isn't that what most women do before they go off to work in the morning? They put on makeup to cover up blemishes, shade their lips, increase the thickness of their eyelashes, and rose their cheeks. How is it any less ethical for a computer to render this same artificial result? By that logic, perms are unethical, so are girdles, pantyhose, hair gel, shaving, and whitening toothpaste. Burger companies have been using non-computer falsification of their products for YEARS. Have you ever gotten a burger at McDonalds that looks just like it did in the commercial?
Obviously, it's bad to edit out flaws on an item you're selling on ebay. It's also bad form to heavily photoshop products for direct sale, and I absolutely hate obviously photoshopped "before" and "after" weight loss / acne / whatever else ads. But, these are not the most usual uses of photo manipulation.
Don't let a few shady people tarnish the profession of graphic design on the whole. There's a lot more to it than that.
By: Dalisca
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Does anyone out there seriously find the size of an image to be such an incredible inconvenience that we have to actually CHANGE THE CONTENT of the image?
It may seem like a little thing until image cropping software makes a mob of rioters look like two people or removes an important person from the scene altogether because they were in the shadows.
In what way is this a good idea? Just because we can? What scares me most of all is that you can all see the potential for abuse and you don't care, in fact you can't wait for it.
It may seem like a little thing until image cropping software makes a mob of rioters look like two people or removes an important person from the scene altogether because they were in the shadows.
In what way is this a good idea? Just because we can? What scares me most of all is that you can all see the potential for abuse and you don't care, in fact you can't wait for it.
By: Chewbot
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Photographer and graphic designers will use this tool to adjust the composition of images during their editing sessions. You've always been able to do it, it just used to be more of a pain in the ass.
By: splendic
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Visions of the Future:
1. Hmm...I like this picture of a bunch of flowers....
Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge!
wait, why does it now seem to have become a set of pants?
2. I hate my Ex! Good bye!
1. Hmm...I like this picture of a bunch of flowers....
Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge! Reduce! Enlarge!
wait, why does it now seem to have become a set of pants?
2. I hate my Ex! Good bye!
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Hi
Is it possible to download this software? I really like to have it :).
Greetings
- Wadi
Is it possible to download this software? I really like to have it :).
Greetings
- Wadi
By: Wadi
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
I have created the experimental one, you may download it here: http://www.intuimage.com
By: Serge
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
I was very intrigued at the promise that your product shows and would
really like to know how, when and where you are marketing this
technology as it would be extremely helpful in my multimedia arsenal. I
downloaded your demo version that you listed on milk and cookies.com but
it was too limited in comparison to what you were showing in the web
clip. I would really love to get my hands an a more fully developed
version, please let me know what the distribution goals are for this
amazing technology and how I can get my hands on a fully functioning copy.
really like to know how, when and where you are marketing this
technology as it would be extremely helpful in my multimedia arsenal. I
downloaded your demo version that you listed on milk and cookies.com but
it was too limited in comparison to what you were showing in the web
clip. I would really love to get my hands an a more fully developed
version, please let me know what the distribution goals are for this
amazing technology and how I can get my hands on a fully functioning copy.
By: JJEdits
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Hi,
If you are looking for a software to try out seam carving, take a look at http://www.thegedanken.com/retarget
The program that you can download there (for Windows and Linux, and free) is already highly optimized concerning speed, and apart from enlarging or decreasing image size you can also use masks to protect or delete certain parts of your image.
Have fun,
Irmgard
If you are looking for a software to try out seam carving, take a look at http://www.thegedanken.com/retarget
The program that you can download there (for Windows and Linux, and free) is already highly optimized concerning speed, and apart from enlarging or decreasing image size you can also use masks to protect or delete certain parts of your image.
Have fun,
Irmgard
By: irmgard
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Check out rsizr.com for a free Flash-based implementation of seam carving that lets you resize your own images, both in height and width simultaneously, in real time. (You can rescale and crop images too!)
http://rsizr.com/about/gallery/ for example images
http://rsizr.com/about/gallery/ for example images
By: rsizr
Re: Content Aware Image Resizing
Sweet! A streamlined way of editing your ex boyfriend/girlfriend out of your Facebook pix. Now its like they were never there
By: spongebathe
