August 19, 2008

• And Tracy Jordan's porn video game comes one step closer... She has too many mannerisms. The designers are trying too hard. Still -- creepy.
• There was a very slight unreal-ness to the mouth movements (almost a ventiloquist-dummy effect), but everything else was perfect. The uncanny valley has been crossed, IMO.
• I think that if I had watched this without prior knowledge of knowing that she was an animation - I probably wouldn't have noticed. I think that says something for it... But, yeah, knowing that it's an animation, it's easy to pay extra attention and pick up on those small quirky inaccuracies that let you know that it's not real.
• "She has too many mannerisms." Well, the mannerisms are motion captured from an actress, so you can't blame the animators for that, blame the actress for over-acting.
• I think SMT has called it--if this had been on the television for a sixty-second news spot announcing something horrific, say, an imminent tornado in your backyard, I doubt anyone would have picked up on it. Now we not only have to worry about being lied to by real people, we have to worry that we're being lied to by a computer animation.
• Ok, it's a low resolution video and, yes, a little overacted, but colour me impressed. I would not have been able to tell that this wasn't a live actor.
• Monkeyfilter: worry that we're being lied to by a computer animation.
• Monkeyfilter: it's easy to pay extra attention and pick up on those small quirky inaccuracies that let you know that it's not real.
• I thought the mannerisms were about right. At some point in the future we can do away with human celebrities entirely and just worship avatars. Bit like in the old days, really.
• O brave new world: That hath such non-people in't!
• Emily blinks too hard.
• We're getting there. Check out the work from StudioPendulum. Watch the 'Retargeting' test and tell me you don't feel a shiver...
• so...I can't ask her out?
• I dunno....it's such a small video, I feel like they're cheating. And the mouth is definitely wrong. But I have to wonder - if they're creating a person from scratch, why did they make her unattractive and annoying?
• No surprise. I've always said that the so-called "uncanny valley" was an overhyped, temporary phenomenon. How long until the first politician (researcher, doctor, etc.) is revealed not only to not have the credentials he claims on his C.V. but to not exist?
• They are cheating. On the Image Metrics home page there's a longer demo with more explanation, and this page shows her head and body are real, and the CG face is mapped onto her own face.
• I don't think they're cheating - they were quite upfront about the technique in the Times article. What's interesting and novel is the quality of the result.
• I thought she was cute, and very convincing even considering the rendered bit was only her face. Of course she overacted; it's a technology demo. It's meant to, y'know, demonstrate.
• I don't think they're cheating - they were quite upfront about the technique in the Times article. The video in the times article says "wholly computer generated", which is not the truth. Saying things that aren't true is pretty much the opposite of being upfront. I can't find anywhere in the article that says bluntly that only the face is CG. I find mention that they started with a video, that's it. You have to know the truth to be able to see how what they say jives with the truth. (I had my volume off, maybe that had an effect, but that video still activated my uncanny valley, one of the strongest activations I've had. More than clowns.) I recall seeing one years ago that I thought looked much better than this. But I can't recall enough to google her. She had freckles and a beret, and looked completely real. It took effort to convince myself that she wasn't, knowing that she wasn't.
• Overacting? That's nuthin'! You ought to see the weather girl on channel seven. She's so everlastingly excited about that cold front coming in from the Northwest bringing overcast skies, you'd think she was reporting a gangland driveby. And temps above 90 make her pout and shove her chest out.
• Tell me more.
• > I can't find anywhere in the article that says bluntly that only the face is CG. I find mention that they started with a video, that's it. The article is almost entirely about the difficulty in modeling facial movements. This is the trickiest part (though texture and movement of cloth poses some problems). The article also defines the uncanny valley as being concerned with the human face. I don't understand where the cheating is.
• I don't understand what the point is, if you still need an actor to capture the movements and voice. Why do the CGI at all at that point? Why not cut out the middle man and just film somebody?
• *tunes to channel 7*
• > Why do the CGI at all at that point? Why not cut out the middle man and just film somebody? Because they don't look the way we want them to? Something like Enki Bilal's Immortel, or one of those movies based on a video game.
• To cash in on dead celebrities in advertising?
• I mean, c'mon! We can have a TV spot showing Abraham Lincoln playing with Lincoln Logs™! Dolly Madison can advertise her own snack cakes!
• I always think the same thing. Why not just use an actor? For a lot of the motion capture stuff in movies. I guess if it's the basis for a fantastical creature, but in some cases, why not film the real actor and just computer-generate the surroundings?