Today in CV Dazzle News


@baphometadata:

When you're tired of going to large events and having the "my being in public is not consent to photograph me" discussion and it hasn't really gone anywhere anyways so you just print a bunch of facial recognition jamming temporary face tattoos instead. [...]

A guy with a hefty DSLR rig and his flash obviously syncing with his autofocus tried to take my photo from approx 20ft away without asking while I was sitting against a wall chexing my phone at least six times.

He looked annoyed.

So, yeah, I think it's working y'all. [...]

Round 2:

I just slammed QR code on top of the artwork from Mirror's Edge and now my camera thinks every square is a different person (it sees several faces) at best.

Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.

Tags: , , , , , ,

7 Responses:

  1. aoseamilk says:

    It is weird to see you posting my friends. How did you find this?

  2. Ru says:

    Just threw the first photo of her into the first free online face detection thing I could find (https://www.betafaceapi.com/demo.html) and it found a face just fine, localised eyes and mouth, guessed plausible sex and age, etc etc.

    Betaface struggle with the cvdazzle stuff though, but that's a bit more involved that just a few geometric patterns on the face.

  3. John Bigboote says:

    The idea that putting dazzle on your cheeks while wearing a consistent color contrasting lipstick color and fleshtone eye shadow is silly. The entire eye-nose-mouth triangle is dazzle-free. Interocular distance and mouth-corner is easily discoverable.

    Real dazzle for non-3d detectors would obscure or duplicate the eyes, mouth corners and shadows, nose shadows, and chin. It'd be unsettling to look at, like this one. These cheek pieces are effectively just plain old beauty makeup.

    Also unless the tattoos are corner-reflectors, someone with an AF-assist flash doesn't care at all and is only looking at you weird because you're giving them stink-eye.

    • jwz says:

      A) Until and unless you are showing us your makeup job, your criticism is boring.
      B) She said she tried it and it worked. Don't assume that most of the FR firmware out there doesn't suck.
      C) From her description it sounds like the boxes put some cameras into "ooh, a QR code!" mode instead of into "ooh, a face!" mode, which is a plausible failure mode.

  4. Zach Fine says:

    Those temp tattoos are awesome. I like.

    But if anyone wants to confuse a DSLR, this is not the way, at least as long as DSLRs don't depend on facial recognition (and the vast majority of DSLRs do not include this feature).

    The addition of that kind of high-contrast pattern is going to do nothing to confuse phase detection or contrast detection, which are the most common autofocusing methods. These temporary tattoos would likely aid a contrast detection system. That photographer probably looked annoyed because he thought the tattoos were cool and had forgotten to apply his.

    It'd be interesting to know what would confuse a DSLRs autofocusing system. My bet's on strong IR LEDs near the face doing the trick.

  • Previously