• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Photorealistic Woman Computer Model (Emily)


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 September 2008 - 02:08 AM


I hope this hasn't been posted yet.

It's a really amazing computer generated woman. She looks very realistic, not perfect but it's definitely getting there. Her movements are extremely realistic. Here's the story.

Here's the youtube video.

Extraordinarily lifelike characters are to begin appearing in films and computer games thanks to a new type of animation technology.

Emily - the woman in the above animation - was produced using a new modelling technology that enables the most minute details of a facial expression to be captured and recreated.

She is considered to be one of the first animations to have overleapt a long-standing barrier known as 'uncanny valley' - which refers to the perception that animation looks less realistic as it approaches human likeness.

Researchers at a Californian company which makes computer-generated imagery for Hollywood films started with a video of an employee talking. They then broke down down the facial movements down into dozens of smaller movements, each of which was given a 'control system'.
Make 3D images with your own camera

The team at Image Metrics - which produced the animation for the Grand Theft Auto computer game - then recreated the gestures, movement by movement, in a model. The aim was to overcome the traditional difficulties of animating a human face, for instance that the skin looks too shiny, or that the movements are too symmetrical.


I'm looking forward to virtual reality.

Edited by hrc579, 30 September 2008 - 02:15 AM.


#2 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 30 September 2008 - 02:36 AM

I had seen it somewhere already. Amazing isn't it. They could have made a prettier chick, though, but maybe this one just isn't my taste.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 30 September 2008 - 02:44 AM

I thought the same thing, that she could have been prettier--or it could have been a cuter guy--but then thought that it makes it more realistic to be "normal". All the same, it is pretty cool and I hope it can be applied to movie making soon :)

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 30 September 2008 - 04:19 AM

This isn't what it sounds like. There has to be a live actor doing everything. They have a proprietary process that builds a 3D model from the image of the actor, without having to resort to traditional motion capture with dots stuck to the actor. What they can't do, as far as I can see, is get Emily the 3D model to do something different once Emily the actor has walked out the door. It's a nice technological improvement for CGI shops, but it's not really a breakthrough.

#5 RunterBeaker

  • Guest
  • 47 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:22 AM

That was amazing...and she was very, very beautiful

#6 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 30 September 2008 - 05:07 PM

That was amazing...and she was very, very beautiful



Yeah, I'd hit it!

#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,054 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 September 2008 - 06:56 PM

Full immersion audio and visual virtual reality....getting closer, as Kurzweil predicted.

#8 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 30 September 2008 - 06:59 PM

I wonder if you could replace high priced actors and actresses with unique computer generated models at some point.

#9 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:42 PM

I always thought they could just scan Arny and get him in the next Terminator movie, maybe Terminator 5 will have a computer generated T 800.

Edit; There are rumors that it already has been done for Terminator 4...

Edited by Matt, 30 September 2008 - 08:48 PM.


#10 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:50 PM

There's something with her mouth that doesn't look right. It doesn't fit the face completely.

#11 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 30 September 2008 - 09:32 PM

There's something with her mouth that doesn't look right. It doesn't fit the face completely.



lol, to start with, creative name... :)


As for her mouth, i didn't see anything wrong with it, after all i think she's not supposed to be a supermodel. There are much weirder looking real people out there.

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 October 2008 - 12:00 AM

There's something with her mouth that doesn't look right. It doesn't fit the face completely.

Better talk to Emily's mom about that. All these guys have done is build a model off of the "film in the camera". You're just looking at the real Emily, the human actress Emily, though a complicated computational "lens" (the renderer). There is no way to run this process without the human actor doing everything first.

#13 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 01 October 2008 - 12:34 AM

I always thought they could just scan Arny and get him in the next Terminator movie, maybe Terminator 5 will have a computer generated T 800.

Edit; There are rumors that it already has been done for Terminator 4...



But in that case they would still have to pay Arny big bucks to use his image. And I guess they can now make new Arnold movies in perpetuity.

Edited by wydell, 01 October 2008 - 12:37 AM.


#14 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 02 October 2008 - 01:47 PM

Stupid really. Not even anywhere near realistic.

#15 Futurist1000

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 02 October 2008 - 07:44 PM

There's something with her mouth that doesn't look right. It doesn't fit the face completely.

Better talk to Emily's mom about that. All these guys have done is build a model off of the "film in the camera". You're just looking at the real Emily, the human actress Emily, though a complicated computational "lens" (the renderer). There is no way to run this process without the human actor doing everything first.

That's true, but I think if they had enough scripted elements, they might be able to replicate a range of behaviors. Most video games have mostly scripted behavior from their characters anyway.

I would imagine they would eventually be able to have a computer generated model look that way in real time and unscripted. Sort of like the Adrianne Curry geforce demo. It probably isn't a huge stretch, as they have already done it in the past. I would imagine getting the computer model to look realistic is the hardest part.

Edited by hrc579, 02 October 2008 - 07:45 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#16 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 02 October 2008 - 08:22 PM

Stupid really. Not even anywhere near realistic.


I assume you can do better?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users