Preview

Drop image here or click to upload

Drop image here

File too large (max 20MB)

Face redaction is compliance plus framing: huge blocks look like stickers, tiny ones still look familiar

`face-privacy-mosaic` fits press walls, school activities, retail camera stills, and volunteer archives. Mosaics reduce identifiability, yet missed temples, jaw shadows, or mask top edges can leave profile cues a colleague still matches. Hair on dark backgrounds often shows gray halos where cells blend into untouched pixels—fine on a phone, obvious in CMS hero crops. Heavily compressed JPEG sources plus coarse cells can beat against 8×8 compression grids and look dirty in thumbnails. Masking only the hero face while leaving bystanders untouched can still break minor-protection or consent policies. Batch jobs need one cell size and alignment policy or mixed outputs look careless. Re-cropping a horizontal master to a vertical cover can shift cells off faces—revalidate per aspect ratio. Compared with pure blur, hard squares signal intentional redaction, useful when internal training keeps originals while externals get marked scope notes.

Face privacy mosaic workflow

  1. In `face-privacy-mosaic`, list every face including partial profiles, then preview a few cell sizes.
  2. Check hairlines, mask rims, and glasses glare for leftover cues; review at thumbnail scale.
  3. Export, quarantine masters, and note redaction scope and date on the publish record.

Face mosaic Q&A

Friends still recognize the person?
Increase cell size or coverage; thin strips rarely suffice—pair with crop or full-face masks.
Gray fringe on edges?
Blending artifacts; export PNG or realign the grid to the subject boundary.
Does this replace written consent?
No; it is technical mitigation—permissions follow legal process.
Before publishing `face-privacy-mosaic` assets externally, which compliance checks are mandatory beyond visual quality?
Start with "align brand policy checks", "lock dimension tiers first", and "define size thresholds explicitly", then explicitly verify "rendering drift across devices" and "whitelist format blocking" before release approval.
Under deadline pressure, how should teams balance speed and stability in `face-privacy-mosaic` processing?
Start with "define size thresholds explicitly", "retain source/output evidence", and "lock dimension tiers first", then explicitly verify "unexpected thumbnail crop" and "detail loss after compression" before release approval.
More versions