Company
For photographers
For researchers
For developers
Image gallery
Blog

September 15, 2008

Image search engines still keep launching

Filed under: Image search, computer vision/machine vision/AI, rants — Peter @ 12:08 am

Last time I noticed that image-to-image search engines launch in batches was in May. Of course, “launch” usually means private beta. I also found it interesting that there are so many of them and yet they never mention or discuss each other.

Now, another batch - within a few days from each other.

First, Gazopa (what an awful name!) from Hitachi. Private beta.

Second, Imprezzeo. “Coming soon”.

Third, Picasa launched a face recognition feature. By most accounts it does not work well.

Fourth, VideoSurf “Unveils First Computer Vision Search for Video”. Private beta.

Finally, Idee updated its TinEye. Apparently, now it can match an image and its rotated version. That was my main problem with the application.

5 Responses to “Image search engines still keep launching”

  1. Richard Marr Says:

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks for the links, I hadn’t seen all of those. I’m working for yet another image search start-up not on your list, so there may be even more out there waiting to be discovered :)

    Like the others we’re working on polishing our offering and should have something out soon.

    Keep up the good work.

    Rich

  2. mj Says:

    TinEye still doesn’t do any rotations beyond left-right flip, and based on an educated guess on the likely method they’re using, I doubt they’ll ever properly support rotations. Still, TinEye is otherwise extremely impressive.

  3. Peter Says:

    Thanks for the info. Their representative commented here in May: “our image identification algorithms can handle rotation exceptionally well”. Somebody suggested to me that they finally released this feature and I accepted that. Well, maybe not yet… Otherwise, it’s quite good.

  4. mj Says:

    Just a note on your wiki entry - The failure case you pointed out with the seeds image is interesting, but I just tried it, and it’s now returning correct results. I would guess they’re now using some kind of post-verification step based on registration.

  5. Peter Says:

    I deleted that part. Thanks for the heads-up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


| Home | Site map | Terms & Conditions | Contact us |                       Copyright© Intelligent Perception Inperc.com