Has anyone tried a long exposure to see if the motion smears into something discernible? Obviously harder to expose a bright screen without some ND since the shutter speed is the phone's main exposure control
Not the parent but that was not at all clear to me. I immediately thought of taking multiple successive instantaneous screenshots and then stacking them. I'm not sure I would have thought of using a camera within a few minutes to an hour, it's not a tool I would ever reach for normally.
Another idea I had with this concept is to make an LLM-proof captcha. Maybe humans can detect the characters in the 'motion' itself, which could be unique to us?
- The captcha would be generated like this on a headless browser, and recorded as a video, which is then served to the user.
- We can make the background also move in random directions, to prevent just detecting which pixels are changing and drawing an outline.
- I tried also having the text itself move (bounce like the DVD logo). Somehow makes it even more readable.
I definitely know nothing about how LLMs interpret video, or optics, so please let me know if this is dumb.
For what it's worth, there are some websites that embed some crazy shit when you screenshot. On reddit, r/CenturyClub will fill your background with a slightly off-white version of your username so that they can identify leakers, and I'm not certain how exactly they do it.
> The pattern across any single frame is entirely random noise.
This is untrue in at least one sense. The patterning within the animated letters cycles. It is generated either by evaluating a periodic function or by reading from a file using a periodic offset.
You could do that, but that's not what the page is doing.
You don't even need to maintain the approach of having the pattern within the text move downwards over time. You could redraw it every frame with random data, as if it was television static. It would still be easy to read, as long as the background stayed fixed.
yeah - I actually was initially confused since I wasn't having any issues screenshotting it but had forgotten that I have the default site zoom set to ~65%.
Not sure what you mean - I can screenshot it freely that's not the point the point is if you look then at the screenshot you cant discern the text because its a single frame now
This is on MacOS 15.6, Chromium (BrowserOS), captured with the OS' native screenshot utility. Since I was asked about the zoom factor, I now tried simply capturing it at 100% and it was still perfectly readable...
This is really interesting - because it means the "randomness" is different between the text and the background, and when you zoom out enough, the eye can distinguish it?
hmmm I think it's probably just an aliasing / canvas drawing issue. When I bring a screenshot in heavily zoomed out 33% - the pixels comprising the "HELLO" shape have a significantly higher luminance than the rest of the background.
I zoomed out to 90% and could make out something was there but wasn't easy to read. Zooming out further went back to just being noise. I also tried zooming in but with no success. What zoom level did you use and I guess we have to ask the standard what browser/version/OS/etc?? My FFv142 on macOS never took a screen grab like you did
Zooming out before taking screenshot and the text is no longer obfuscated. I tried and confirmed it works. In fact, the text is perhaps even more readable than the original.
It depends how fast or slow your GPU is. I tried it and saw the effect you described, but within a second or two it started moving and was obscured again. Obviously you could automate the problem away.
What I meant was that even if it only freezes for a second, you could automate the screenshots to be captured during that time instead of trying to beat the clock manually
If it's even true someone from outsourced support has access to some sensitive security details then using this dumpster is almost like throwing your money out of the window.
Lighten, Screen, Addition, Darken, Multiply, Linear burn, Hard Mix, Difference, Exclusion, Subtract, Grain Extract, Grain Merge, or Luminance.
https://ibb.co/DDQBJDKR
They even provide the source code for the effect:
https://github.com/brantagames/noise-shader
On iPhone: screenrecord. Take screenshots every couple seconds. Overlay images with 50% transparency (I use Procreate Pocket for this part)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg3RAI8uyVw
The effect is disrupted by introducing rendering artifacts, by watching the video in 144p or in this case by zooming out.
I'd love to know the name of this effect, so I can read more about the fMRI studies that make use of it.
What I've found so far:
Random Dot Kinematogram
Perceptual Organization from Motion (video of Flounder camouflage)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VO10eDIyiE
"ffs".
- The captcha would be generated like this on a headless browser, and recorded as a video, which is then served to the user.
- We can make the background also move in random directions, to prevent just detecting which pixels are changing and drawing an outline.
- I tried also having the text itself move (bounce like the DVD logo). Somehow makes it even more readable.
I definitely know nothing about how LLMs interpret video, or optics, so please let me know if this is dumb.
This is untrue in at least one sense. The patterning within the animated letters cycles. It is generated either by evaluating a periodic function or by reading from a file using a periodic offset.
Roughly you create another full size rect. On each frame add a random pixel on row 1 and shift everything down.
Make that rest a layer below the top one which has Hello cut out as transparent.
In any single frame the result is random noise.
You don't even need to maintain the approach of having the pattern within the text move downwards over time. You could redraw it every frame with random data, as if it was television static. It would still be easy to read, as long as the background stayed fixed.
This is on MacOS 15.6, Chromium (BrowserOS), captured with the OS' native screenshot utility. Since I was asked about the zoom factor, I now tried simply capturing it at 100% and it was still perfectly readable...
I guess the trick doesn't work on this browser.
The culprit had more than 10k photos of all security details for thousands of wealthy customers.