I just wanted to clarify a few things that I saw written that may not be quite accurate.

Our pricing isn’t “extra ordinary” just because we don’t list our pricing model on our corporate website. I think most of you can appreciate why companies choose not to openly publish their rates – our rates are very reasonable to market.

To Exoctic Filipina – I totally agree – there are many scammers in the on-line dating business. Keep in mind the technology we are providing to dating sites is not just matching someones eyes but rather all of their facial and hair features – our platform is meant to compliment the existing text based search that all the dating sites are currently using. If while using our technology the user stumbles across a “fake” profile then it is the obligation of the site to filter out those erroneous images/profiles – of which perhaps we can discover for them.

At the end of the day this launch is meant to show-case – in a fun way – the technology that we are developing and an applicable business model. The faces/dating market is a small portion of our overall plan. Please stay tuned for much more regarding our image recognition technology and it’s applications in the next couple of months.

Greg Heuss
Eyealike – President

I guess typos get attention which translates into pageviews. Worked to suck me in =)

I have done development in the domain of Computer Vision (and Machine Vision – very similar discipline) ie, image/video understanding & recognition for an automated industrial inspection system in the past. Most of these industrial vision systems (different types available today for different purposes) work well in their specific domains, since the images of items that the vision system is inspecting (in real time) are not that well diverse compared to an image database with millions of human faces which there is a huge diverse in features. Feature selections in face image matching is known to have a high error rate and very inaccurate.

The vision system development project that I got involved
in was for the semiconductor wafer manufacturing industry
to automatically detect & eliminate wafer/s which contain/s
defects during the lithographic printing and processing of
integrated circuits (ICs). These defects are so small which
you can’t see them (ie, you can’t visually identify these defects)
which they ranges in size from about 100 nm (nano-meters) to
around 800 micro-meters. Optical microscopy and scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) are used to capture the digital
images of these wafers on a moving lane as they progress
thru different stages in the production line. The vision system,
where SEM is its artificial eyes continually scan each wafer
as they’re passing by. If this artificial eyes vision system
detects a crack or defect in a wafer, then it is automatically
taken off/eliminated (via a robotic arm).

Now, these different types of defects are not that hugely diverse
which means that the artificial vision system tend to have a high accuracy
in its classification to detect/eliminate wafers which have cracks or defects.
So, vision system works well in industrial application in manufacturing.

I have serious doubts of how accurate computer vision in its application to
human face matching because of the massive diverse features available in these millions of different faces, which tend to affect its classification error rate. If it has a high error rate, then of course it will retrieve irrelevant faces which bear no similarities at all to the target query face.

However, this should not be a bottleneck as one can always define one’s parameters and work within them, which is what eyealike seems to be doing.

I wish them luck. As of now their results are not impressive but I think that they will be trying to improve it.

A good dating site will come up with a feature which can identify scammers by comparing the pics with a universal database of scammers. That is what is really needed.

I guess the facial recognition stuff needs work.

brb finding angelina jolie photos..

http://easysumm...ey.blogspot.com

http://www.crunchnow.com

You have a typo in the headline. It’s “Perfect” not “Prefect”

Don’t mean to be the public downer, especially with first comment.