Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Caution!
Contents may be not!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                               

De-blurring converter

Descramble that mosaic and get to the good stuff!
  (+2, -1)
(+2, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

You've settled down to an hour of "guilty pleasure" TV. Let's say it's Howard Stern. The Penthouse Pet of the Month is giving a riveting interview, and decides to indulge her exhibitionism by giving the folks in the studio a peek. Up comes that annoying blur effect meant to protect sensibilities and abide by broadcast laws.

But what if viewers 18 and over had a converter box that disengaged that effect and showed the program content as filmed? A guilty pleasure becomes even guiltier.

DrAstroZoom, Jan 07 2004

Well, apparently the opposite is baked http://www.cnn.com/...d.censor/index.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       yes!
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       dont tempt me with your porn theme man! +
nomadic_wonderer, Jan 07 2004
  

       I particularly like the term, "Jerry Springer Mosaic."
Detly, Jan 07 2004
  

       "But what if viewers 18 and over had a converter box that disengaged that effect and showed the program content as filmed?"
It's called cable.
phoenix, Jan 07 2004
  

       Do you mean that the original information would be transmitted in full, but scrambled in a predictable way which would make it nonsense to the eye but unscramble-able by a device which was aware of the scrambling technique? I always imaged that the pixellation technique removed information by amalgamating many pixels into larger single-coloured pixels. That would make it impossible to reconstruct on the client end where the original information would simply be missing. Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just rent a porn film?
dobtabulous, Jan 07 2004
  

       Dobtabulous is right. While a higher-resolution image may be reconstructed from several overlapping images which are offset by a non-integer pixel count, this requires the subject in the reconstructed image to be relatively unchanged. (a license plate on a moving car, a static expression on a face, etc...) The reconstruction is also very computationally intensive, making it unlikely that this would be feasible for live video. Also, while it may be useful for getting your jollies from Springer or Stern, it would also negate the privacy granted to others, such as arrestees on shows such as Cops.   

       An alternative would be to transmit the video in scrambled form with additional data containing the removed information, appendable to the image afterward by a suitable device. This would require the co-operation of the content creators, and would still protect the privacy of those that it was meant to protect.
Freefall, Jan 07 2004
  

       Freefall: you're no fun anymore!   

       Just kidding. I honestly hadn't thought of the implications as far as other pixelated applications are concerned.   

       Ah well ...
DrAstroZoom, Jan 07 2004
  

       [dobtabulous] yes, it would be *easier* but not the same. A porn flick is lame and has little if any plot or structure. But in this case he wants to unlock the sparks in a regular program. So you just get the added spice to something you wanted to enjoy watching in the first place. cute idea anyways..
babyhawk, Jan 07 2004
  

       Ah yes, I'm the designated party pooper tonight. As long as this can be used only by those with the proper decoders, and only to remove the scrambling in place for decency's sake, leaving privacy scrambling intact, I'll give it a croissant.
Freefall, Jan 07 2004
  

       why dont tv companies etc just change what and how they use to pixilate naughty images? have the company(ies) that make these distribute them to tv companies install them free of charge. that seems like a logical solution.
Space-Pope, Jan 07 2004
  

       //An alternative would be to transmit the video in scrambled form with additional data ...//   

       The broadcasting industry just has to agree on a standard mask. This could be a big thing for digital TV. De/scrambling digital data by logic XOR'ing data bits with a string of random bits is blazing fast and cheap.
kbecker, Jan 07 2004
  

       guys, guys -- can't we just CGI it in? I mean we know what's there
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       //Can't we just CGI it in? I mean we know what's there// Can't we just imagine it? I mean, we know what's there.   

       Nitpicking aside, I think this idea is a little light on the 'necessity' side and the 'ability' side.   

       All of this nonsense will be put to bed when remote controls will read the fingerprint of their user and configure themselves to his or her preferences.
motive power, Jan 07 2004
  

       Is the ability side an insult or a laws of physics statement? :)
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       By ability, I meant it's not very clear how it would work, though annos have hypothesized on the subject.   

       As it's been said, 'mosaicizing' an image is removing information, making it impossible to undo. This would rely on the television companies working additionally for little or no result, other than the outrage of Concerned Family Groups and the like.   

       Thanks.
motive power, Jan 07 2004
  

       Hmm -- thought the goal was to show the picture. My CGI comment was to the point of not worrying about additional signal coming from the cable, and instead just using the example of the celebrity porn pornographers, only much faster.   

       With certain rare physical exceptions, the surface area blurred would give extensive hints as to what needs to be substituded. I'll grant you the Howard Stern show might pose special challenges as to the surface area question.
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       Sorry, misunderstood your statement. The imagination quip was just poor humor, no more, no less.   

       Anyway, I think you're fixing the wrong problem-- I think it'd be much better to just show the 'uncensored' content. My question is where and how would the filter be applied? It seems like it'd be tough on the networks to release two versions of shows-- censored and uncut. They wouldn't gain anything, either.
motive power, Jan 07 2004
  

       My Favorite Cable Channel   

       Some say that it’s disgusting and hardcore
That men must be protected from their steaming
And flawless bodies, with desire teeming
And I say I just watch it for the lore
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       In most parts of the television-viewing world, they'd either just show the nudity or not have any program that would involve nude or semi-nude women in the first place.   

       Only in America do we censor the image but not the idea. What ridiculous crap. I say free the boobies, free our minds!   

       In most of Europe, it's soft-core porn late night every night, even on the networks. Welcome to backwards america.   

       Seems to me America once led the way in freedom, paving the road for tolerance and unity in a world of closed-mindedness. Whatever happened to that?
uriah, Jan 08 2004
  

       Uriah: America caught up a long time ago. See, you can make people PAY for this
theircompetitor, Jan 08 2004
  

       Not so much anymore. There's free pornography online, and on many "OnDemand" services-- ones in which the view has access to dozens of programs or movies, whenever they want, for free.
motive power, Jan 08 2004
  

       sure -- I just meant that it's better -- monetarily -- to both sermonize about it and charge for it -- this way you can have the religion channel and the playboy channel, and both get ratings
theircompetitor, Jan 08 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle