There are lots of non-image-based CAPTCHA ideas floating around. But what about the old-fashioned way?
What are the elements of a good image CAPTCHA? What visual elements are hard for computers, but easier for humans? What about mistakes, elements that are easier for computers than they are for humans? What are good techniques for increasing the speed of a CAPTCHA generator?
Here's an example of a CAPCHA I've been working on. It generates the functions for two sine waves, then stretches a text between them. It lays that over a background drawn from a pool of images.
How could this be improved? (Specifically, I'm using PHP GD.) Things that come to mind are:
Change the color of the text, possibly making it multicolored.
Add "scratches" or marks that mildly obscure the text.
Add to the distortion so that it's affected by sine waves horizontally as well.
What goes into a superb image CAPTCHA?
Edit:
I know that there are some very worthy third-party CAPTCHA resources. I'm looking for attributes that make them good. I'd like to use my own CAPTCHAs, just for the purpose of self-improvement. So, you can talk about reCAPTCHA, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for.
Also, it has been brought up that not only the image, but also the experience matters, so feel free to comment on that.
Make each letter/number out of a pattern, I.E. unconnected dots. Meaning the computer has no way of knowing that a dot is part of a letter other than pattern recognition (which they don't have yet.) Then the usual distortions and random lines.
How you do this is the challenge.
EDIT: Also, bonus points for patterns of different shapes, and try alpha transparency on the characters (on the edges or the whole character), so they merge with the background.
Make letters difficult to separate. Use handwriting-like font or add lines that join letters. Decrease and randomize spacing between letters.
Add wave distortion in other axis too. Distortion in one axis only can be relatively easily analyzed and reversed.
Don't bother with color background at all. It's super-easy to automatically filter black from other colors. Your background hinders only humans.
Don't add scratches or other noise unless it has the same thickness as letters. Noise-removal algorithms can easily remove things that are thinner than letters.
What if the color of the letters faded into other colors... for instance the 5 can start off as yellow on top and fade into blue or something. The colors chosen should be random.
With the multicolored background it might make it hard for the computer to pickup where the background ends and the character begins.. and hopefully it would not be too difficult for the human to actually pick up the pattern.
Instead of generating captcha you can create a captcha table in your database and you yourself create the table by search on google for good captcha images.
So no need to worry "Will this generation method work?"
I really hate CAPTCHA on sites, they just annoy me, but if you want to try and make a robust one try the following:
Ability to get a new image without submitting
Spoken version for the visually impaired
Non-uniform characters
I've used Recaptcha on a few sites, it's a nice and robust solution.
Or if you want to be really funky about it check out this: http://research.microsoft.com/asirra/
Algorithms that try to break captcha are pattern matchers that work by a few different ways: scaling and skewing the symbols that they already know about, finding and tracing edges, and counting interior holes to help. If you can break the letter up into pieces, vary the letter quality, or add strong lines or “scratches” along the letters these techniques will help. However all of this is fairly moot considering we have recaptcha for this purpose and it’s a wonderful third party app for this. Additionally captcha will help the security of your site, but will not stop those who are truly enticed.
I like the idea of KittenAuth and Microsoft's Asirra project. The idea is that, while OCR will eventually evolve to break your traditional captcha, the ability to distinguish a kitten from a dog is many orders of magnitude more complex a problem, while absolutely trivial for humans.
This solution, while probably the sexiest captcha idea ever, has the limitation of not being easily portable to hearing-impaired methods.
What about shearing and shuffling bands to mangle display and mouse-only input?
Start by taking your sine-wave morphed text, divide into horizontal bands or maybe even a grid.
That makes optical recognition harder and might allow you to avoid the kind of nasty background games that make some captchas hard for humans.
For a site where you can rely on local drag in the browser, instead of typing in an entry use shuffling requiring the user to re-order pieces (just in sloppy order, not like one of those puzzles). Or, if you wanted to use clicks alone, the classic sliding tile puzzle.
Note, I've run into a captcha where you had to identify which of N cartoons had an animal in them which succeeded in blocking me!
Wellington Grey sums up the AI CAPTCHA race nicely.
You could add a random array of fonts so that GD renders each character using a different one.
Be wary of suggestions of ReCaptcha. I have submitted incorrect input into it a couple few dozen times, and have had success each time. Several of those times I have submitted incorrect input for both words rather than just the most obscured word; the success rate, as I said, has been 100%.
I also think that image-based CAPTCHAs are user-hostile and should be avoided wherever possible. The advantage of text-based solutions is that you can tailor them to your site's audience, adding a level of obscurity that may trip up machines as they become more savvy with text-based solutions.
At the very least, don't use this all the time:
(source: codinghorror.com)
Related
So I know very little about programming all around. I'm adept at photoshop and I'm looking to automate the numbering system for making these paint by number kits. I convert the images into vector format and set a maximum number of color variations. I then use adobe illustrator to create the outlined partitions of the image by color. This is all well and good, it's automated and efficient as far as I need.
My dilemma is that I do not have a system that can number these partitions in a clear and uniform fashion. I must do this tediously in photoshop, taking hours to finish.
I am looking to create or find a system that will do this last step automatically.
My vison for how this would look would be numbers, 1-20 or so depending on the set color cap, evenly distributed across each partition in uniform font and size. The idea is that there would be a grid of 1 number (this number would be the reference to the color needed in this partition) spread across larger partitions and only a few of 1 number on the smaller partitions. It would hopefully look like so:
You can see here how tedious this can become.
I don't know how to accomplish this, but I'm wondering how complicated this process would be in theory and would it be better for me to learn how to do it myself, hire a professional, or continue the hand numbering. It's creating a labor cap on my small business that is preventing me from further growth.
Any and all help is very much appreciated; if I can provide more context or specifications I would be more than happy to do so. Thank you!
Just for fun I've managed to tweak old Johnware's script (Circle Fill). Now it can fill with given letters (numbers for example). It works to a degree, but the result far from ideal:
Probably it can be used for start.
I believe a real programmer could make it way better.
My tweaked version of the script is here: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/Ze4-1DQoNRVF1g
Update
I'm improved the script further. Now it:
works more precise
handles several selected paths
remembers values in the dialog window
sets font size
Here is the is the updated version of the script: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/0pcpLDGrfQKMJA
It took me about 15 minutes to do this:
But I had to to split some complex paths with a Knife tool. Sometimes the script throws a some mystical error. I've just selected another set of paths an run the scripts again and again.
It is not a final result but it's close. I think it's much faster that to do it manually.
It can be done with script to some degree. It will work fine for simply forms. But for complicated forms it will be too hard to calculate where you need to put all numbers and how many number will be enough.
But I saw scripts that can fill any form with any symbols. So it's possible to fill any form with numbers, I think, technically.
Of course, if you aren't a seasoned coder it makes no sense to try to do it at home. You need a pro (not even me).
And I see another very simply options as well:
It doesn't even need a script. What do you think?
Situation
I'm using the PsychoPy coder to create a random dot motion task in speed-accuracy trade-off situation. I want to have a letter for fixation point to inform subject if they are in "speed" condition or in "precision" (on every trial), so I first thought of simply drawing a text.stim (like "S" or "P"). But I heard that text.stim was pretty slow to draw and because of the dynamic nature of the RDK task if the text.stim needs to much time I'm afraid that it will impact the display of the dots.
Question
I'm I right?
And if so what would be the best way to draw the "fixation letters"?
Well it seems that I found the answer in the TextStim reference manual so I put it here in case someone needs it:
Performance OBS: in general, TextStim is slower than many other visual stimuli, i.e. it takes longer to change some attributes. In general, it’s the attributes that affect the shapes of the letters: text, height, font, bold etc. These make the next .draw() slower because that sets the text again. You can make the draw() quick by calling re-setting the text (myTextStim.text = myTextStim.text) when you’ve changed the parameters.
So the slowing seems to concern the changing of the attributes which is not my situation.
If you've just got one letter being drawn it shouldn't have a major impact on your RDK, but just check whether frames are being dropped. All these things depend on graphics card and CPU speed so you need to test individually for each machine/experiment
I mean posts per sentence, not per letter. Such a doctor's prescription handwriting which hard to read. Not just a normal handwriting.
In example :
I use a data mining or machine learning for doing a training from
paper handwrited.
User scanning a paper with hard to read writing.
The application doing an image processing.
And the output is some sentence from paper.
And what device to use? (Scanner or webcam)
I am newbie. If could i need some example in vb.net with emguCV/openCV and researches journals.
Any help would be appreciated.
Welcome to stack overflow! The answer to your question is twofold:
a. If you want to recognize handwriting that has already happened i.e. it is presented to you as an image you are in trouble. Computer Vision is still not good enough to provide you with reasonable accuracy.
b. If you have a chance to recognize handwriting “as it's happening” - you are in luck. Download, for example, a Gesture Search app from Android play store and you are in business.
The difference between the two scenarios is subtle but significant. In the second case you have an extra piece of information that makes handwriting recognition possible. This piece is timing of each stroke. In other words, instead of an image with handwriting you have a bunch of strokes that are all labeled with their time stamps. You can think about it as a sequence of lines and curves or as image segmentation - in any way this provides a big hint for the system. Additional help comes from the dictionary on your phone but this is typically used by any handwriting system.
Android of course has an open source library for stroke recognition (find more on your own). If you still want to go for recognizing images though, you have to first detect text (e.g. as a bounding box) and second use any of the existing engines to process detected regions. For text detection I can recommend MSER. But be careful trying to implement even text detection on your own - you are entering a world of pain here ;). Here is an article that can help.
As for learning how to recognize text from images on the Internet - this can be your plan B or C or Z when you master above mentioned stages. Don’t try to abuse learning methods and make them do hard work for you - you will hit a wall if you don’t understand what’s going on under the hood.
The definition of rigid body in Box2d is
A chunk of matter that is so strong
that the distance between any two bits
of matter on the chunk is completely
constant.
And this is exactly what i don't want as i would like to make 2D (maybe 3D eventually), elastic, deformable, breakable, and even sticky bodies.
What I'm hoping to get out of this community are resources that teach me the math behind how objects bend, break and interact. I don't care about the molecular or chemical properties of these objects, and often this is all I find when I try to search for how to calculate what a piece of wood, metal, rubber, goo, liquid, organic material, etc. might look like after a force is applied to it.
Also, I'm a very visual person, so diagrams and such are EXTREMELY HELPFUL for me.
================================================================================
Ignore these questions, they're old, and I'm only keeping them here for contextual purposes
1.Are there any simple 2D soft-body physics engines out there like this?
preferably free or opensource?
2.If not would it be possible to make my own without spending years on it?
3.Could i use existing engines like bullet and box2d as a start and simply transform their code, or would this just lead to more problems later, considering my 1 year of programming experience and bullet being 3D?
4.Finally, if i were to transform another library, would it be the best change box2D's already 2d code, Bullet's already soft code, or mixing both's source code?
Thanks!
(1) Both Bullet and PhysX have support for deformable objects in some capacity. Bullet is open source and PhysX is free to use. They both have ports for windows, mac, linux and all the major consoles.
(2) You could hack something together if you really know what you are doing, and it might even work. However, there will probably be bugs unless you have a damn good understanding of how Box2D's sequential impulse constraint solver works and what types of measures are going to be necessary to keep your system stable. That said, there are many ways to get deformable objects working with minimal fuss within a game-like environment. The first option is to take a second (or higher) order approximation of the deformation. This lets you deal with deformations in much the same way as you deal with rigid motions, only now you have a few extra degrees of freedom. See for example the following paper:
http://www.matthiasmueller.info/publications/MeshlessDeformations_SIG05.pdf
A second method is pressure soft bodies, which basically model the body as a set of particles with some distance constraints and pressure forces. This is what both PhysX and Bullet do, and it is a pretty standard technique by now (for example, Gish used it):
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.4.2828%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf
If you google around, you can find lots of tutorials on implementing it, but I can't vouch for their quality. Finally, there has been a more recent push to trying to do deformable objects the `right' way using realistic elastic models and finite element type approaches. This is still an area of active research, so it is not for the faint of heart. For example, you could look at any number of the papers in this year's SIGGRAPH proceedings:
http://kesen.realtimerendering.com/sig2011.html
(3) Probably not. Though there are certain 2D style games that can work with a 3D physics engine (for example top down type games) for special effects.
(4) Based on what I just said, you should probably know the answer by now. If you are the adventurous sort and got some time to kill and the will to learn, then I say go for it! Of course it will be hard at first, but like anything it gets easier over time. Plus, learning new stuff is lots of fun!
On the other hand, if you just want results now, then don't do it. It will take a lot of time, and you will probably fail (a lot). If you just want to make games, then stick to the existing libraries and build on whatever abstractions it provides you.
Quick and partial answer:
rigid body are easy to model due to their property (you can use physic tools, like "Torseur+ (link on french on wikipedia, english equivalent points to screw theory) to modelate forces applying at any point in your element.
in comparison, non-solid elements move from almost solid (think very hard rubber : it can move but is almost solid) to almost liquid (think very soft ruber, latex). Meaning that dynamical properties applying to that knd of objects are much complex and depend of the nature of the object
Take the example of a spring : it's easy to model independantly (f=k.x), but creating a generic tool able to model that specific case is a nightmare (especially if you think of corner cases : extension is not infinite, compression reaches a lower point, material is non linear...)
as far as I know, when dealing with "elastic" materials, people do their own modelisation for their own purpose (a generic one does not exist)
now the answers:
Probably not, not that I know at least
not easily, see previously why
Unless you got high level background in elastic materials, I fear it's gonna be painful
Hope this helped
Some specific cases such as deformable balls can be simulated pretty well using spring-joint bodies:
Here is an implementation example with cocos2d: http://2sa-studio.blogspot.com/2014/05/soft-bodies-with-cocos2d-v3.html
Depending on the complexity of the deformable objects that you need, you might be able to emulate them using box2d, constraining rigid bodies with joints or springs. I did it in the past using a box2d clone for xna (farseer) and it worked nicely. Hope this helps.
The physics of your question breaks down into two different topics:
Inelastic Collisions: The math here is easy, and you could write a pretty decent library yourself without too much work for 2D points/balls. (And with more work, you could learn the physics for extended bodies.)
Materials Bending and Breaking: This will be hard. In general, you will have to model many of the topics in Mechanical Engineering:
Continuum Mechanics
Structural Analysis
Failure Analysis
Stress Analysis
Strain Analysis
I am not being glib. Modeling the bending and breaking of materials is, in general, a very detailed and varied topic. It will take a long time. And the only way to succeed will be to understand the science well enough that you can make clever shortcuts in limiting the scope of the science you need to model in your game.
However, the other half of your problem (modeling Inelastic Collisions) is a much more achievable goal.
Good luck!
what is the basic idea behind steganography?ie ,how do you get the hidden information?
suppose if it is an image and some text is within that image...how do you get that text?..
Every stenography algorithm is different in that respect. Every algorithm hides the information differently and thus getting the information back is different.
A simple example goes like this - Each pixel of the image is composed of 3 bytes, one for red, green and blue. Most people can't detect a difference of one bit in the color in an image so one option is to use the least significant bit of each color channel for your data. This way you can store 3 bits of information in every pixel with very little effect on the general quality of the image.
To get the information back you'll need to read the first bit of every color channel of every pixel and gather all the bits together.
This is just a very simple and almost trivial way to do stenography. Real stenography algorithms are somewhat more involved. Like in cryptography, there is no way to generically "unhide" all stenography. you need to know which algorithm you're trying to decode.
The very basic idea is that images contain tons of redundant information that your eye cannot see. For instance if you changed the last bit on each pixel there would be no visible change as almost all of the information about the color is the other bits. So you can encode messages using the last bit (the most basic algorithm). The histogram however will be changed and a large message will easily be detectable. As far a decoding the message itself, well, the message itself is probably using public key encryption so you will never know what the actual payload was.
Steganography unlike cryptography is considered broken if Eve (who is eavesdropping and practising steganalysis) knows that there is a message at all. The assumptions are based on that Alice and Bob are being watched and any communication is sign that they are up to something (aka prisoners, restrictive governments, all governments in the future hehe ;-))
And of course the algorithms become much more complex that just flipping the last bits, but encoding data that will not affect the structure of image (and become vulnerable to statistical attacks.) :
I read this book last summer and I thought is was an excellent introduction (it has a lot a psuedocode of the algorithms used)
http://www.amazon.com/Steganography-Digital-Media-Principles-Applications/dp/0521190193
Steganography, coming from greek Steganos(i'm greek :P) is the art of hiding messages. While cryptography is about scrambling a message, steganography is about a person not being able to locate the message.
There are many tools that do this procedure for you. Writing a tool like that can be a complicated procedure i think, though i haven't tried to do that. You would need to create a sophisticated approach of correctly using unused or seemingly not important image pixels or data, in order to add your own message, file etc. For some more information, please take a look at : http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/steganography-revealed