What's that, you ask? Content aware fill is basically the program (Photoshop) making a calculated guess on an image, and if you select something on the image to remove (say, a tree), then you just select it, and hit the delete key and it will be gone. No ugly artifacts either, it looks gone because the software will look at areas surrounding areas of the deleted section and it will "guess" that the deleted section is more or less the same as those areas so it looks seamless.
Lots of Photoshopfakery will be done, I say.
Watch the video. Just watch it. If you are in graphic design or anything that requires Photoshop, be amazed.

I could have done with that years ago when I was tasked with removing people from images. I'd consider buying whichever version of Photoshop that wound up in, but I expect the price tag will be way to prohibitive.

So the next revision of photoshop will have the pervert aware fill that will let me undress photos of attractive ladies?
This is some seriously impressive software engineering, may have to buy that version of photoshop when it's done

That video looked photoshopped.

Doesn't Gimp's plugin 'Resynthesizer'* do something similar? Not as polished, but I remember it being shown possible.
*Little iffy on the name, it's not part of the standard package.

Cool, I may look that up.

It's fucking magical, is what it is.

That'll be an easter egg (hold down shift, ctrl, alt, P, A, F, and either the windows button or cmd, depending on which platform you're on, while choosing "content aware fill" [text will have changed to "pervert aware fill"] from the edit menu), and their bodies will be replaced with that of Thomas Knoll.

Wow.
Though i'd like to have been able to zoom in a bit and see if what it really put in those desert and landscape shots.
At first i thought it wasn't much of a step up over the already pretty impressive spot healing brush, but then it got amazing.
Could have done with this when i was cleaning up some pics last month.

It looks great from a distance but I fear it will be rather rough up close. I can see it working for nice smooth skies, seas, etc. but the desert image would have obvious flaws when viewed up close.
Still, it's handy if you don't want the result to be perfect or if you just want a rough result so you can fine tune it but don't expect it to do all your work for you.

Thx a lot for pointing that out.

It will certainly save a lot of time on the more mundane tasks. But there is still some uncertainty over how well it will perform on real life tests. I don't doubt those photos where chosen as they produced the best results. Still, it will save a lot of time and that's the main thing.

yeah. it's quite cool... though like many gimp things it's rough around the edges... anyone know how to use the Radius variable effectively?

How do you think this will compare to the current clone procedure? You know, remove something, clone nearby textures over it, etc. Besides time of course.