If the pixel color is determined to be "skin" 46, the image is sent to a first shape detection process indicated for example as "face detection" of block 48 wherein steps similar to blocks 26 and 28 of FIG. 1 are performed. If the image is detected as a "face" 50, the image is classified as "portrait" and a manual check/inspection is done only infrequently (block 52). If the image is not a "face" 54, the image is analyzed to determine if it is a body part (block 56) i.e., other than a face. If it is not a body part (58), the image is classified as a "landscape", and this type is only inspected occasionally (block 60) i.e. only a small percentage of these images are inspected manually. If the image is a body part (62), a pose detection is done to determine if there is an erotic position (block 64). If it is determined that the pose is not erotic (66), this image is classified as a "swim suit picture" and the result of the detection may be a "parental guidance" notice attached (block 68).
(via bOING bOING)
I wonder how well it would work. I guess it comes down to how good a model of visual eroticism a fixed database of poses is; i.e., can such a database ever encompass all possibilities?
It will obviously take a lot of fact-finding. Reminds me of something I read at the Landoverbaptist.org website a while ago, one of their ministers is a world-recognised expert in homosexual movies, having watched over 5,000 of them in his Godly research into rampant perversion.
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.
http://donotuselifts.net/
Sat Jan 1 13:54:49 2005
Maybe *that's* what Howard was talking about five-and-a-bit years ago...