I was about to call BS on a few of these, but then clicked through to the detailed explanations and I'm pretty damn impressed. Colorization technique and UI is pretty slick.
The "remove an object" image transformation reminds me of the Photoshop new feature "content-aware fill" featured here: http://youtu.be/NH0aEp1oDOI?t=3m33s
Even though I've interned in the field of image processing (and actually understood the math after a while!), the emerging results never cease to amaze me.
The 'beautify a face' transformation should be renamed 'normalize a face' or something slightly less subjective then beauty. Although, I suppose 'normalize' isn't any less subjective. Suggestions? Perhaps 'standardize' or 'anglicize' or 'fashionize'?
Human opinion of what's "beautiful" in other human faces is not entirely subjective. It has been know for a while that if you start averaging faces you end up with a "pretty" face. This is because we genetically like symmetry, and averaging out faces makes them very symmetrical.
There was a paper here on HN a few months back that compared averaged faces to faces with unchanged bone structure but smoothed skin; the differences in rated attractiveness were apparently negligible (and average faces with bad skin faired poorly). Averaging removes blemishes.
Cartoonists and animators have long contended that some small asymmetries enhance the emotional connection we have with a character --- think of a puppy with one ear that points up, or with a spot over one eye. Sympathy isn't beauty, I admit; I think it might contribute to attraction, though.
some small asymmetries enhance the emotional connection
Small asymmetries. Which, by design must be built on top of something that is otherwise relatively perfect. Otherwise the asymmetry does not stand out, and the whole thing is just a mess.
For example, a mangy old cur with one ear that points up, or a spot over one eye.
Perhaps, but the use of a term like "we genetically like symmetry" bugs me. Has it actually been scientifically proven that humans have a genetic predisposition toward preferring symmetry? My google-fu turned up nothing. Isn't opinion naturally subjective, albeit informed by societal influences one way or the other?
I based my initial opinion on a documentary about someone who had tried to find the "typical criminal" face by averaging the mugshots of criminals. But to his shock, the resulting face kept turning out beautiful. But again, my google-fu fails me.
"beauty" relates to desire and reproduction.
Simmetry means healthy genes.
A gene that makes you see "beauty" on external signs of good genes is a gene that gets naturally selected.
So I guess most of the actual population have it and see beauty on simmetry.
The explanation I heard once was that childhood illnesses have a large impact on symmetry. In general, symmetry implies health/fertility, so it makes sense that we're attracted to it.
But the face on the left is more beautiful. She has large eyes and lips and a strong jaw -- outstanding features which arrest the gaze. The "beautified" version of her face was just kind of "meh".
I remember an art teacher who demonstrated me that we actually don't like symmetry in faces - he shown us a picture of a woman face composed of one half, and its mirror image. This face was completely symmetric (vertically), but didn't feel quite "right".
> [from the description on the site] There is no written rule to define whether a face is beautiful or if it is not, then the creators followed the principle that what is more closer to the common is better.
I initially thought this was the same experiment done a while ago where people rated different faces according to their preferred beauty. Then the algorithm would normalize an input face based on those preferences.
Normalizing just to the common face and having it become more beautiful is kind of unintuitive to me. For instance, I wonder what it would look like to run that algorithm on an already generally-accepted beautiful face and see if it became less so.
I see now that the details state that "It is possible through an algorithm for a computer to process a photo or video and produce a modified image, possibly improved."
So the use of "possibly improved" makes me happy. I suppose the naming of the algorithm with 'beautify' helps to describe what it typically would be used for.
