The Photoshop of Tomorrow...Today (sort of)!

[Ercoledi]

Check out the demo video of this awesome post production/video editing system (http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/videoenhancement/videoEnhancement.htm). Basically, you take with your video camera a crappy film of a still scene. You then use your digital camera to take nicer pictures of the same scene in a higher resolution. The software combines the two using special maths-y stuff to give you top notch videos: the results are brilliant.

Additionally, you can also do wacky things like remove specific objects from your film or apply effects to the whole thing.

So what, Explosm, can this magical piece of kit be used for? Editing an estranged spouse of out of your family happy snaps? Hiding Goebbels' club foot? HD porn?

Go!

[Mirrorman]

Thats really nothing like photoshop. But it seems useful, if you're into making movies.

[gizzalove]

It's like photoshop for films. It could be very useful but it sounds really hard to use. Also not that many people would need it. Most people I know don't make videos that need to be in HD.

[Ercoledi]

If you watched the video in the link, which you should, you'll see it can be quite a lot like Photoshop. You can edit things out, apply masks to switch out one object for another, add effects, etc.

It seems infinitely useful in professional post production, though. Well, I don't know how the system works as is, but what this program does seems like it'd speed it up.

[Mirrorman]

If you watched the video in the link, which you should, you'll see it can be quite a lot like Photoshop. You can edit things out, apply masks to switch out one object for another, add effects, etc.

It seems infinitely useful in professional post production, though. Well, I don't know how the system works as is, but what this program does seems like it'd speed it up.

I was referring to that photoshop isn't used for editing movies. But it seems good, not for a wide audience though.

[Axidos]

The time factor worries me. During the filming stage, for each minute of film you're already spending 5 minutes - sometimes 10 - not actually filming. This could add a lot of time to that.

However, it could be very useful for film ameteurs. It could be applied with maybe an extra half hour total of photography to virtually any of the films I saw from my peers (or myself) in high school.
It's also good for capturing moments like weddings, when you think about it - you wouldn't be seeing many different backgrounds and angles in the video necessarily when you're filming the altar, and you'd want to make it as good as it can be.

[Mirrorman]

You would have to get the exact same scene pictures, thats going to be really hard and time-taking.

[Axidos]

You would have to get the exact same scene pictures, thats going to be really hard and time-taking.

It seems smart enough to still be able to use the photo if you're maybe a foot away, or you've got the angle slightly off. But you've got a good point nevertheless.

[HorrorAddicted]

You would have to get the exact same scene pictures, thats going to be really hard and time-taking.

It seems smart enough to still be able to use the photo if you're maybe a foot away, or you've got the angle slightly off. But you've got a good point nevertheless.

Well actually, if you saw the video on the link, you wouldn't have to take so many pictures, jsut enought to cover the space you filmed. i.e. If you filmed a mountain, and then rolled to your car, you would only have to take 3 pics (one of the mountain, one of the ground between the mountain and the car, and one of the car) then it would apply. And I think the number of pictures would increase not by the length of the video, but how many places you film, you would have to take a pic of each place, to modify it. At least that's what I got from the video.

[BKS]

It sounds like a great idea, only the price and complexity throws me towards a negative. Still, this may be a great step for amateur filmmakers. Hopefully it isn't TOO expensive

[Derelict]

This program can effectively turn a cell phone video into something with cinema quality. Amazing!

[Casalen]

What's so hard about properly exposing your video to begin with? This thing seems like a waste. It includes the kind of stuff that only serious videographers would care about, but that are useless unless you're using consumer equipment and don't know what you're doing. If you want to use photos for your background that bad you can film a composite.

I'll admit the motion tracker is pretty advanced, but you don't need it for most of that. I've removed things from video with manual keyframing on motion and perspective, it's time consuming but not so much that this program becomes worthwhile. Unless that comes up for you every couple of projects, I guess.

[Hunnter]

I can instantly see a problem with this: non static places.
This would flop with a river, or (loose) clothing.
But it is a really cool thing.

Also, Casalen, this is more for low-resolution video recorders.
More exposure wouldn't do much really. (although it could be used for that i guess)

To be honest though, Toshibas new technique to increase resolution by using previous and future frames is much better, smarter and easier to use.

They should start selling it as that, rather than this silly DVD 2.0 thing.