Good work in my opinion, except for the left corner of the mouth. but then, maybe the model had that going on too?

Geisrud

The mouth looks weird. Otherwise it's just a grand example of rotoscoping IMO.

wiggatron

I don't get it but then again the last game I was into was Quake II.

What is this supposed to do again? Why does Emily have horses teeth and why is her face turning red and black at the end? Is Emily sick?

future-proof

Her middle name? Stepford...

Stem_Sell

@cardboardbelt: Yeah, cause you can take them out and get a gum-job. Sweet.

She's kind of cute in the "I met her at a Virtual Bookstore and we went back to her place where she broke out the leather gimp suit and a ball gag" kind of way.

Hectorvex

That's freaky as hell.

We've truly come a long way when it comes to this stuff.

strider_mt2k

"If only these models didn't look like they were wearing dentures."

Actually, I'm into that.

cardboardbelt

Not that achievement is not impressive, but there is still a few things wrong:

-Here are mouth is just not working well.
-When here eyes are not half closed, they are totally wide open, not natural
-Her skin looks like wax, maybe it needs to be little porous

europria

so... photoshopping is going video... this is not the time to be paranoid... just go with the flow... everything what you see is real.. to some extent, right?

KoRnholio8

that was really damn good

takemetoyourtoaster

"If only these models didn't look like they were wearing dentures."

I think that is from the over bleaching...but the mouth was the one thing that kept me from believing it was real.

TheCapt

If I didn't already know it was CG I probably wouldn't have noticed. If it were in HD that might be a different story though

Scrum

everything is really realistic except for her eyes. her eyes are creepy

jewsrock

Definitely climbing the far slope of the uncanny valley. It's funny you mention the teeth, because what doesn't look quite right to me is the mouth. The eyes didn't bother me.

Aunt_Snowman

eeerily . . .

plwh888

I think it's important to note that only the face is CGI. When I first saw it, I thought they were also rendering her blouse, hair and torso. It's still impressive though.

Fountain

The eyes are fine, but I think you can still tell by watching her mouth. It just didn't move right.

brianjgeraghty

yay for press releases. Emily's face isn't real. The rest is what really brings it home, but that's all real.

James

@DMF: LMFAO! I'd program a few "if,then" statements into her!

Jimbuck

There are other youtube videos that give a fuller idea of what this software can do. Personally, I think this could lead to widespread repurposing of old actors and footage especially for commercial use (remember the Singing in the Rain remix of a few years back for VW (which I thought was brilliant work). This is pretty cool stuff...

See the example below

+ Watch video

Singing in the Rain commercial

+ Watch video

totoro

This is scary stuff. The ability to put people convincingly into situations where they never were is frightening.

Of course, no one would EVER misuse this kind of technology, I'm sure.

Not.

dondgc

if (face.load(skullfuck.overlay))
then face.load(dropload.overlay)

DMF

I was convinced except for the mouth. Like Mark says, it looks like she has fake teeth. I think it is because when a real person talks, the ratio of lips to teeth exposure varies when they speak different words. On the model the ratio stays the same, the teeth always are exposed in the same ratio, making it look like her teeth are fake. sorry for the technical analysys, I have been messing with 3D since Tin Toy.

got no clutch? You ain't much.

I wouldn't have picked up on it without being told but upon further inspection the big thing that sticks out to me is that her nose, face and mouth aren't in synch. For example, when you show your teeth your nose scrunches and your cheek muscles flex. So if you watch it again you see her mouth is moving but the corresponding nose and other facial muscles aren't moving.

But again, only picking up on this b/c I was told beforehand. Creepy all the same.

tanderson79

Jordan passed this to me yesterday to give me a heads-up that my ex-girlfriend was in a YouTube video. Now I learn she was CGI and I never noticed. I hate when that happens.

I am actually not surprised at all that CGI has come this far. It isn't perfect, but we are getting close. Next up is to make those humanoid robots look less creepy.

Monty

I bet they have hypno guns too...

[www.imdb.com]

DarthGator

I'd do 'er

UofITom

Moordryd, "Why bother? Aren't human actors good enough?"

Yes Moordryd, Human actors are good enough but they are also MUCH more expensive. there is no need to pay a computer image.

Benf13

It's pretty good, if I didn't know the face was CGI I would have just thought she was just a bit creepy.

Hmmm 9 years ahead...

Froggmann

Tomorrow we'll learn that the Chinese have been animating Chinese faces over all the Olympic gold medal winners in the TV broadcasts over the last fortnight.

pimlicosound

If it is a true copy of the original person then that person already provided the flaws we are seeing now

but the movements of the hands and arms provided me the fakeness that she is not real, too robotic IMO

TBM-Fan

The area of her face that was "faked" has a rosy hue that does not extend to the rest of her head. Didn't notice it until they showed the red and black face areas. Once you notice it though, it really stands out.

Barcard

@GadgetGhurl:

Is it me or do the eyes seem to sometimes trail just a bit after the face, like they're not actually attached?

Serolf Divad

Did anyone notices she blinks too often and the blinking isn't random enough? The mouth and teeth need work, as many people have mentioned. However, had no one said this was CGI before I watched the video, I think I would've believed it was a real person. The slow ascent out of the uncanny valley has begun.

LastGunslinger

the mouth gives it away , you can tell something is "off" there.

rjupiter

Why bother? Aren't human actors good enough?

Moordryd

Eyes and mouth need work but they are pretty freakin close.

GadgetGhurl

I foresee this uncanny valley turning into a fetish.

helldiver

I think we need to go back and look at what the uncanny valley is for a second.

When things approach a sort of realism to the point where they look almost real but you can still tell something is wrong and are therefore turned off or, as the definition states, repulsed by them, they have reached the uncanny valley.

The trick is to cross the valley, to make it to a state where we believe that what we are seeing is completely real and are not repulsed by it.

In this case, at least at this quality, I'd say they've come awful close to crossing the valley. Most of the things we were able to nitpick, could easily have been explained away as other things, had we not known it was CG to begin with.

I think it won't be long until we have actually crossed the uncanny valley. Then all of the actors can just get fat and teenage girls can stop starving themselves.

Crap, I was doing so well at trying to sound smart.

-peel

thepeel

@Benf13: but both image capture and this process require real actors to perform and then their actions are transformed into information that can be then taken care of in a computer. thus, you still need an actor. it's still some sophisticated rotoscopy.

this helps in other endeavours of filmmaking such as reducing locations, increasing camera setups plan impossible shots, etc, etc., but you still need actors. Did you see Beowulf?! Duh!

Anyway, maybe they'll get to the time where they'll have built such a big database of human winks that probably they'll be able to replicate some humans without any actors but it's still a long way I guess.

josecardozo

ahh darn html..
links for the screen shot.
real - [i238.photobucket.com]

cg - [i238.photobucket.com]

shanzi

Wanna see the comparison?
Screenshots.. v
CG -

shanzi

@jkr's bold comment: Agreed, I was thinking stroke victim. Also victim of a BAD make up job.

Curves

Awesome!

Although no way those shoes are real Manolo Blahniks. I mean, just look at the workmanship. But aside from that, I want her chatty mug as a Wallpaper.

frigg

It was very impressive, but the mouth looked crooked, and the eyes look odd. I wouldn't have thought she was fake, but maybe had a stroke or nerve damage. Also, HD might reveal more of the CGI look.

jkr's bold comment

Goooooood I like it.
I can see that Hollywood actors salaries in the future will get to a decent level.
Soon the days when an actor gets $20 million for an average performance will be gone.
Why do you think they are making this technology happen?.

aec007

The first oddity I noticed was that the movement of her lips did not match what she was saying. But, I can read lips, so...

iridius

nothing better then showcasing a technology in a shit-tastic format like youtube. let me see some industry standard 2 or 4k renders and ill take another look

damnElantra

Specular demon face will haunt me...

termitehead

Haha, that dentures note is the best. I was about to say, "why does she have teeth like Louise Lasser?"

sublicon

i think its funny all you guys are experts, pointing out why it doesn't look real. I GUARANTEE if the video didn't say it was cgi and you just watched this video like a normal vid, nobody would notice im sure.

Nokstar

...completely fooled me. Wow.

man in gauze is king ramses II, silly.

Definitely would have fooled me. It will be quite interesting when photo-realistic movies are completely created in the CGI domain. And by "photo-realistic" I don't mean Toy Story. ;) I'm going to hunt around for some more clips of this technique.

craighyatt

her mouth is weird looking. Watch her talk and see that the mouth doesn't work well.

drewthat

It's all expectations. I didn't realize the Simpsons were fake until Season 3.

frigg

Hmmm. Virtual Vagina or real one. You wanna try?

SigmundTheSeaMonster

@LittleJon:

that depends on the poly cu...err polycount down there.

helldiver

Impressive. After a night out drinking, I doubt any of us would know that she wasn't real until the next morning!

LittleJon

The eyes and the mouth really give it away. Whenever she closes her mouth it kind of looks like they just tilted it to fit the position of her head. Plus when her hands go to or in front of her face you can tell....bust still pretty awesome

thedoctah

@damnElantra: Well, propoganda won't be released in 2 or 4K formats. Propoganda will be readily available to the masses in a cheap and quick format. Soon we'll see McCain for Barack ads and Barack for McCain ads all over YouTube. Ma and Pa Kettle who just got internet last Tuesday won't know the difference (what is all this analog to digital crap I'm hearing?) and so they'll be swung. I'm qbrad, and I approve this message.

qbrad

The face seems disconnected from the body. That's the biggest error I can see.

And @frigg: Haha.

Aaron Martin-Colby

@jewsrock: It's why the voit kampf machine measures eye response to determine if someone is a replicant.

Jesse Mrozowski

My paranoia level just went up. If the thought of this technology getting into the hands of corporate media companies for the means of doing some serious psyops has hit my dome; then I know that it has already been thought of by such companies. Sorry for the bad vibe folks, and the run-on sentence.

NagChampa

@fredpwatson:
This was actually shot in high-def. I only posted to YouTube for sharing purposes. I've got the 1080p version here and it looks quite amazing.

technabob

@jewsrock: everything is really realistic except for her eyes. her eyes are creepy

Agreed the eyes were really creepy. But when they showed her talking at the end, I realized she just has creepy eyes.

theshortguy

black face fetish mm hmm

randatheu

Yeah, whatever libido I had was swept clean with specular. I can now go back to being productive.

Kaiser-Machead's WALL-E fetish

Once again important to note as Fountain mentioned... only the face is CG. And this software is only used for capturing facial animation. It seems to do a fairly good job at that, but as far as actual face replacements go there have already been better ones. Heck even Spiderman 3 had better face replacement.. and that was at 2k not youtube quality.

fredpwatson

Once again important to note as Fountain mentioned... only the face is CG. And this software is only used for capturing facial animation. So as far as actual face replacements go there have already been better ones. Heck even Spiderman 3 had better face replacement.. and that was at 2k not youtube quality.

fredpwatson

Her nose too. It looks like its at the same angle regardless of the way her head is tilted so that you cant see her left nostril even if that side is facing you. After that it makes her whole face seem like its at a weird angle and like she tanned just that part of her face.

bobbyn01

Getting better, but still not there. The mouth and the eyes still give it away. In particular her eyebrows lacked realistic dynamism. Also I'm assuming they used her original voice. Synthesizing that is a whole other field, but it would be great if they could integrate the tow.

Thrubeingcool

@Joe Manning: Yes, there is something messed up. My wee wee is missing from it.

thetickler

is there something messed up with her mouth or am I a jerk?

Joe Manning

Old news. This was covered in the Schwarzenneger documentary Running Man in 1987.

mildretard

Does this seem like an extra, unnecessary step to anyone else?

I mean, damn it's impressive, but if we're just videotaping someone doing something and superimposing an exact replica of their face onto... their face... what's the point?

PlayerX

Wellll if you watched it with no sound like I did the first time (speakers turned off) and didn't know that it was cgi you might be fooled into thinking she was real.
We are nitpicking this to death instead of realizing how darn close they are to having an actress in a box.
Yes her nose doesn't scrunch and her cheeks don't move quite right under her eyes, her eyebrows don't move and the complection is off a lil bit.
People blush and get pale and have sun tans and such so that thier face color changes, I don't see any changes in coloration.
It seems that they are working across on the mouth to get both sides to do the same thing.
People roll thier lips in and out as they speak so that they can control the sound they are making, that is why the person above found it impossible to read her lips.
As with most CGI they still have the problem of matching the light and shadow effects, her nose casts no shadow on her face even when she turns her head...thats not natural.
But at least we are now a lot closer to the stepford wives then say Maxx Headroom.

Beryen

Sooo, how many of us "knew" the footprint fireworks at the Olympics opening ceremony were CGI'ed in for TV?

No, it isn't perfect but eerily (and horndoggedly) close. People still argue over some YouTube "viral" clips being real now.

Imagine in 5 years. Did anybody else hear George Orwell chuckle?

thebullfrog

If her teeth is a dead giveaway, they could just replace her voice with a British accent.

thetickler

She makes me laugh whenever she blinks.. xD

Sexpun Tocome

@1roll20s: i was just going to say that the youtube version, with its shite artifacts all over the place, probably goes a long way towards convincing most people that she's real.

Paradise

I saw this in high resolution at Siggraph last week. Its painfully obvious that she's CGI when you see a good quality version of the video.

1roll20s

Image is too blurry to really tell how bad a job they did. It's like trying to tell if something was 'shopped after it's been reduced to a thumbnail image.

@Curves:
Nonsense. She looks like she had a perfectly professional application of vinyl latex paint...

Purple Dave

She's like the younger, less-buff sister of Maya.

halloweenjack

Creepy.

SinAmos

Next time Mark, don't tell anyone it's CG... I'd like to see how many people would really notice.

I thought it was very realistic, but I did felt something was out of place.

But here's the thing: Nowadays, with botox and plastic surgery, I can think of some people who looks even less real than Emily.

You know what woul be fun though? If by the end of the interview, her face turned green and made a 360 spin around her neck...

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Looks different, but still very creepy.

OneMHz

@Bokusatsu_Tenshi:
True, she does look better than Michael Jackon's fake face. Then again, so do Picasso's paintings...

Purple Dave

Would have been interesting if her face exploded or grew tentacles at the end.

pobox90210

as with most CGI people... she looks too "clean" in her digitized form. at the end they show the real Emily, and there's a clear difference.
Or as they say: "God is in the details."
Make the digital face imperfect and it's more "real", trust me

zyberteq

@TheCapt: Some people just have mouths like that...

ibelli

Sad times of the future: nerds now being turned down byu chicks that arent even real.

Echostrike

The eye's and teeth didn't ring true to me. Also there was a little but of fuzziness around the head and on the skin.

I think I know what the problem is. The reflection on the eyes and teeth didn't change. Maybe with ray tracing this issue will be resolved.

FandZ

I think I would have picked up on it... but I guess we'll never know.

I have to say that I laughed about the part where she talks about how bad the system is. And then I shifted quickly to terror at the "specular" mode.

sammy baby

how you doin

flynboarder07

@Echostrike:
Well, at least they got _one_ aspect of her right, then...

Purple Dave

The teeth.

Nemesisesq

@Benf13: But the cost to produce the CG face over the length of a movie would be much more expensive than a headlining actor.

charliew77