/loli/ - Lolis

Nice job !

This makes me wonder, is there finally some way or software able to uncensor mosaics in videos - hentai / jav ? I know there is a loss of information, but with the movement maybe a good algorithm could reduce the mosaic.

>>38178

Impossible.

Uncensoring a mosaic like this is the same concept as enhancing a lowres image (Like in those CSI programs), except on a much more extreme scale depending on the severity of the mosaic. Imagine trying to magnify an image to view a previously-unviewable reflection in someone's eye. Only on TV, right?

The problem mostly stems from the fact that this is an artificial intelligence issue - An algorithm to reverse a mosaic needs to be able to tell what the entire image is, as even we can only conclude what is behind a mosaic censor from context. It needs to know what is censored, what angle it's being viewed from, its scale and any kind of other 'muddiness' (like fluids or any insertions, in this case), etc. Movement over time might help in terms of assisting the computer with figuring out what goes where, but it won't aid it in figuring out why, nor will it help figure out what "what" is in the first place.

Due to the applications of this level of AI, even if it WAS possible, I doubt it'd be publicly employed in non-forensic photoshop programs for a good few years. Heck, our current supercomputers might not be able to handle the computations required.

tl;dr computers are dumb and don't know what a vagina looks like

>>38179

Has nothing to do with calculations, it's a body part, not an object with a standard design. Same would apply to a censored face, every face is different and unique, not uniform in features.

>>38180

A computer solves all problems through computation (almost-but-not-quite calculation). That's why we refer to processing speed in terms of computations per second. Since we're discussing software, it has everything to do with computation. An AI thinks only in terms of computations, so we would have to define whatever we're looking at in terms of computations.

I do agree that it's a body part and nonstandard, which is what I was trying to get at above.

Reiterating for clarity, we draw a lot of conclusions from context; even with a mosaic we can generally tell what the censor hides unless we see only the mosaic.

AIs can't do that specifically because it's nonstandard. Like I said, enhancing an eye to view a reflection is impossible because whatever the reflection is is going to be unpredictable, right? Similarly, decensoring something… You'd need to know the angle it's being viewed at, the scale (That includes ALL scales, from the length and width to sub-parts that may or may not be there, etc) and other muddiness like fluids or disfiguration. Even if it's something that looks fairly simple and not very heavily censored might as well be a stream of random pixels for all a computer cares. A computer doesn't even know what a human looks like, let alone one or more humans in arbitrary poses with a background and possible foreground obstructions, among the countless other things.

tl;dr agree, point was mostly that computers are dumb and don't know what anything looks like

>>38178

There was actually a dvd player that had that option that was later banned. Of course it wasn't a 100% thing, but it mostly decensored videos.

>>38182

All the computation in the world can not clear an image of something the computer doesn't know what it looks like. That'll never change. They are just a box of electronics, of course they don't know what any thing looks like, that why they can never reconstruct something they don't know.

>>38195

I disagree.

Just because we are not capable of something now does not mean that we won't be capable of it in the future.

Look at how far we've come with facial recognition software. Many modern cameras can even tell when someone is smiling or has their eyes closed.

A computer is, as you said, just a box of electronics. And in time, these electronics will only become more and more advanced until eventually it is capable of doing things that currently we only dream possible, just as the first computer scientists never dreamed software as advanced as, say, Autodesk 3DS Max or Medical software for example, would exist.

In the worst case, it might take until we are able to completely sequence neural patterns/connections and hormonal influences in the human brain, but we will eventually be able to replicate human knowledge of context to AI and as soon as we do, we will be able to have computers do accurate decensoring, translation and countless other tasks we couldn't do before.

>>38145

http://pornova.org/porngames/952-flash-games-uncensor-pack-software-package-to-remove-censorship-flash-games-eng.html

>>38202

That still does not fix that there is no one way for anatomy to look, that means it can never decensored and at best do a auto photoshop and just put in place an image of a vagina but it would not be the persons. It still has nothing to do with computer power, but that it will not be able to recreate something unique and individual. Just like those gimmick programs that show how a baby of two people would look, they can never be right.

>>38243

but it;s not art work, thay are crude and completely inaccurate photoshops. Most of the photos they generate barely look human. The only way in reality computer would be able to decensor is if the censor ship was done by a program with s set algorithm and the computer could then reverse that algorithm (if it has permission) back into the original image.

>>38250

And that is true by today's standards, but it won't be in the future when computers are able to think better and come up with their own solutions.

>>38267

A computer will never think, it is a box. And even of you use AI, which can "think", as an example then it is still an AI using it's "imagination" to Photoshop away the pixels just like is done by a person today.

>>38268

Computers don't have to be sentient to be smart enough to think. Can not a dog think? A mouse? An ant? Then, why not a computer? Personally, I would also argue that computers will one day gain sentience if humans choose to let them, but that's unrelated.

The problem of computationally decensoring an image falls under the category of AI in computer science for multiple reasons, the primary one being that there is no currently known algorithm to perfectly decensor an image every single time, and AI is the field that specializes in finding previously unknown solutions without iterating through every possible scenario.

And yes, it would indeed be using its 'imagination' to photoshop away the pixels, just like a human would do. That is the point of a machine or computer-performed task: Replace the human. The level of accuracy we can achieve is the issue. As we've established, it is not possible in today's world, but it will not be impossible forever.

>>38311

Thank you.

>>38237

Wow, that's great!

Thank you.

>>38317

Awesome mate.