174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GaveUp@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're interpreting the term watermark too literally

It will be a small unique arrangement of just a few pixels to identify the user

It can even be distributed across the screen pixel by pixel to make it less noticeable

All they'd have to do is make each pixel 1 hex code lighter or darker or something

Assuming each pixel can have no change, 1 step lighter, or 1 step darker, it'd only take 22 pixels to cover 31B accounts = 3^22

I believe there's 25B Google accounts in total out there atm

[-] ashinadash@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

In every frame, easily identifiable by a shitty pinhole camera though?

[-] GaveUp@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

I updated my comment with more details

[-] ashinadash@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's plausible but unlikely I think, putting a lot of faith into shitty pinhole cameras to be able to see twenty two 4K pixels one hex value lighter or darker, when most cameras have atrocious definition/sharpness and get blown out by light, blinded by darkness. I dunno, this reminds me of the screaming around Microsoft Kinect in 2013. They had bad and shitty plans for Kinect but, cheap hardware everyone hated Idk.

[-] FloridaBoi@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

I feel like if you just slightly turn up the compression ratio then all that nuance is lost making the watermark nonexistent or unusable

[-] ashinadash@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Yes especially since Netflix in particular has atrocious compression.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
174 points (98.9% liked)

technology

24034 readers
214 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS