21–30 of 60 posts
What's novel about this? If you have a background picture, you have all the info you need to identify your subject - just plain subtraction. I think this is what the Photo Booth app on my circa-2012 MacBook does, quite effectively.
Peripheral: What is the benefit of halving these artificial backgrounds? Apart from „it’s fun“, which wears off after about a minute? In my experience (Zoom Meetings), there’s blurring/artefacts around the edge of the head and the image quality seems to suffer as well. I had a meeting where one participant uses an actual green screen, and the difference was remarkable, with none of the issues above.
Is it fast enough to operate on a live video feed from, say, a webcam?
Yes. OBS offers it. Teams and Zoom have guesswork-based imitations.
What's novel about this? If you have a background picture, you have all the info you need to identify your subject - just plain subtraction. I think this is what the Photo Booth app on my circa-2012 MacBook does, quite effectively.
Green screens are crap with hair, because its translucent the green/blue bleeds through which means that it has to be cleaned up by hand.
Then there are the situations where there isn't a green screen. Again manual cleanup is required. Each frame needs to be cut out by hand. 24 times a second.
The same with a difference matte. Cameras are noisy, so there is constant noise in the alpha channel. This makes the effect look wobbly and cheap.
What this method does is pull a key from a difference matte, and makes it look good.
What's novel about this? If you have a background picture, you have all the info you need to identify your subject - just plain subtraction. I think this is what the Photo Booth app on my circa-2012 MacBook does, quite effectively.
This is a question we’ve gotten quite a bit (second author here). A good intuition is that if it were easy to do it already with any background, professional studios wouldn’t be spending so much money on green screens. Background subtraction is pretty poor in general without very constrained setups. Our goal is really to provide professional quality without any of the equipment.
And yeah, it requires constrained setup and a lot of additional work, because even before you "subtract" the background you have to think about lighting (your demo video might have very nice background matting, but the lighting is off, so it's relatively useless except for toy applications (which there are a lot).
Also: did you compare somewhere withe the very basic fixed-exposure method? Beause for fixed exposure, background and camera placement I suppose this should work just as well... Still I think this is a really cool project, I didn't get disappointed like with the last link of that sort, where someone tried the same with horrible artifacting.
- people who are using occupying a wider z-axis (for example leaning forwards in the camera or who have arms in front of them)
- people holding objects like cups
How well do your method handle those kind of situations?
What's novel about this? If you have a background picture, you have all the info you need to identify your subject - just plain subtraction. I think this is what the Photo Booth app on my circa-2012 MacBook does, quite effectively.
This new method works well for partially transparent regions (hair) and allows slightly larger background movement and color overlap between foreground and background.
What's novel about this? If you have a background picture, you have all the info you need to identify your subject - just plain subtraction. I think this is what the Photo Booth app on my circa-2012 MacBook does, quite effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio
I found the chroma key implementation, but this seems to assume you have a green screen or similar: https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/blob/master/plugins... I thought GP was asking for an implementation of background removal without a green screen.