Auto Tagging photos with existing meta-data

Auto Tagging

There have been several companies that have tried to automate tagging of images with meta-data to allow end-users to easily search pictures. The techniques currently break down down into three categories:

- Recognize the images through facial or image recognition (riya)
- Allow others to tag them for you (tagcow/google/facebook)
- Inherit tags from objects that someone else tagged (photosynth)

Image recognition can get 80-90% accuracy. While this sounds pretty good it’s actually pretty frustrating because 10-20% are incorrect.

If you allow othes to tag your photos they only tag or recognize things that are obvious. The first image just looks like a building while to me it’s Coolidge Corner, Brookline. The second photo looks like a car while to me it’s a Ferrari I saw in Itally while on my honeymoon. While strangers can solve part of the problem they lack the context to do so correctly. (Plus you give up on privacy)

Auto-tagging based on other people’s photos has a ton of potential. But only for comonly shared items or locations. It may be able to tag the Golden Gate Bridge but it’ll be a lot harder to find photos taken inside or photos of non-descript locations.

For true auto-tagging to work facial recognition needs to improve. Cameras need to save their GPS coordinates and those coordinates need to be translated into the names of locations and places. Historical data (email, twitter, facebook) can be correlated by inference and proximity to photos. A lot of tagging solutions focus on creating new meta-data while ignoring the mountains of un-tapped data that already exist.

Post to Twitter

Photo Printing Prices Compared

Online printing prices for many online providers:

4×6 5×7 8×10
CVS $0.15 $1.49 $3.99
FujiFilm $0.21 $1.29 $2.99
Kodak $0.15 $0.99 $3.99
Shutterfly $0.19 $0.99 $3.99
Walgreens $0.19 $1.59 $2.99
PicMe Photo Sharing $0.19 $0.98 $2.98

This week we added photo printing to the many features of PicMe Photo Sharing. I put together a quick table of the many online printing options to show you that not only is it easier to order prints with PicMe Photo Sharing but most of the time it’s cheaper as well. I’m of course biased but I think we’re pretty competative to Kodak. The other savings that’s harder to calculate across providers is shipping costs. We don’t mark up our shipping so we’re cheaper then the other providers in most cases. A lot of the larger providers mark up the shipping costs to encourage in-store pickup. We don’t do that and instead we make shipping very affordable, (under $2 for most orders).

If you haven’t tried our software yet you can get it free at http://picme.raizlabs.com

Post to Twitter

Gigapixel images

Your camera takes megapixel images. A single screen resolution of 1024×768 is 786,000 pixels or almost a megapixel. This resolution is great for everyday viewing and gives you enough resolution to produce a decent 4×6″ print.  Common wisdom is that past a certain number of pixels it just doesn’t matter. Who needs a 20 megapixel image of stuff on their cat? Of course interesting things can start to happen when the image gets really big.

A group of people are exploring the idea of Gigapixel images or 1000 megapixels.  When you have resolutions that high you can discover new things in the photo. It’s like being able to take a microoscope to the picture after you’ve taken it.  There are a couple examples including HD View from Microsoft reasearch that uses a pretty amazing viewer to zoom-in on photos. Xrez that uses both the MS viewer as well as the Google maps style viewer as well as Flash style viewers for gigapixel content such as Harlem 13 Gigapixels. I don’t expect that Gigapixels will get to consumer cameras anytime soon but I do expect to see more high-rez photography used in sports, news, and other professional areas.

Post to Twitter