Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Naive statement ahead:
So they video tape the actor only to “trace” over them so it looks exactly like the original (i.e. this video)? Is it just me or in the process, the eyes look odd in translation.
It is certainly better than the lip syncing and texturing in most video games, but it still didn’t quite look right.
This technology was first seen in “The Running Man”. I predict its first real use will be for political ads where an actor is substituted for a senile or moronic politician.
So are they only doing the face here?
PREDICTION: When the Poser program can make a babe so real looking she’s indistinguishable from the real thing, no one will buy Playboy or Penthouse anymore.
PREDICTION: When the Poser program can make a babe so real looking she’s indistinguishable from the real thing, Playboy will either buy the company or license the technology – and make a fortune.
#5 @ Balbas
To me, a simulated girl, whether indistinguishable from the real thing or not, lacks any sort of “eroticism” for me.
Sick as I may be, I kinda like the notion of a girl actually doing “naughty” stuff.
And in a world where everyone has a camera, all the time, and where people are apparently becoming fine with the idea of being unpaid sex performers (See: Newbie Nudes Dot Com), I don’t see a reason to bother with simulation.
BUT, those are my tastes…I imagine to future generations, reality or simulated, it won’t much matter to them.
kinda hard to tell in a flash driven video… i’ve noticed over the years that special effects done in film have flaws that pop out in video. it would be better to repost this with a link to a HD version of the video to get a better idea on how good they really are.
I’d be the first to say:
It’s a hoax!
It’s just motion tracking software conducting a filter over the real face. Even the mesh is awkward, and not like a real mesh.
If they have this technology, why didn’t they scanned a different face over the actress? It’s either bogus or they just passed aside a great demo…
PS:
And if you click the youtube link there’s a better quality video version on the site, but still not good enough to tell…
Cool concept for the ad, but they should have pushed the envelope a little harder…. like reveal at one point that she was CGI all along and then reveal the actress’ real face/video and start going through many face changes like we saw at the end but with more WOW factor. Maybe a few background changes as well would have been impressive.
Who cares, it’s not my software or my corporation.
I’d hit it.
It’s not bogus. The proprietary system they came up with detects the position of all the elements of the scene and comes up with an approximation of their location in 3-D. The aspects they put the most effort into and are marketing most heavily are their facial feature detection functions, which are actually quite good.
I agree that aspects are “not quite right” but my guess is that this demo was done with a one camera source video and so the 3-D results were not as refined as they could be.
They also tweak the animations by hand after they are produced, but duplicating a human performance realistically is REALLY challenging. Our minds have evolved to be VERY refined face-detectors and anything that’s close, but not quite there will send all those “that’s not quite right” alarms blaring. Oddly enough, if they had exaggerated this video into cartoon-land, the alarms wouldn’t sound nearly as often. Of course, then the “is it real or is it image metrics” concept of this short would have been lost.
eh.. nice text :))
i’m gonna make my own blog