8 Responses to “Image Metrics Tech Demo of CG Emily Almost Lifelike”

1. cayton Posted: Aug 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

   1 I was 2/3 through that before I thought something was up. Then at the end, I was still skeptical, so I had to watch it again. Second time through I saw the stuff you were talking about.

2. Drezz Posted: Aug 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

   2 The problem with CG is that it is supposed to be used as an aid to help cut corners. If you were going to invest a ton of time to make everything as lifelike as possible, it would actually be cheaper to film live action video rather than staged CG. The tech is getting better - but it is difficult to render CG and make it 100% realistic without applying every single variable known into the mix - lighting, wind etc - because everything is generated, there is no room for spontaneity or experimentation. Everything just does what it is supposed to and follows the parameters step by step. In real life, there are little things that occur that add to the life of the sequence. At least we’re further along than plastic, shiny looking models with hair that moved like straws or sticks.

3. brandorf Posted: Aug 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

   3 There is another video on their main website that is a much more thorough demonstration of the technology, showing the actor and a model side by side.

4. Jack T Robyn Posted: Aug 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

   4 The big giveaway was her concave face (hard to see except in a few particular frames). This is probably because everything was shot and analysed from about the same angle. Looking at it again, it is most noticable under her left eye where the side of her nose caves into her cheek.

5. Taellosse Posted: Aug 25th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

   5 Well, they weren’t using CG with as much rendering power behind it as Beowulf did–actually, they were using even less detail than Final Fantasy: Spirits Within did. That’s what really gave it away for me–she has impossibly smooth skin that doesn’t fold and crease in the right places, and completely lacks pores. But the movement was pretty good. Much better than rendered CG animation, certainly. Combined with the model skinning from Beowulf, I can see this being pretty convincing. And likely a good deal easier on the actors than the filming for that movie was, with those funny suits and special cameras and virtually non-existent sets. To Drezz: the value of this isn’t in doing what they are with Emily: merely making a digital copy of a person acting. You’re right that such is generally pretty pointless. The value is in doing what they did in Beowulf: having an actor that doesn’t look the part play a role. Once they can get it good enough so that it really is indistinguishable from the real thing, it’ll allow them to spot-replace such an actor with a real-life cast that is unaltered. Also, it’ll eventually abrogate the need for 10-hour make-up sessions putting on prosthetics when the actors are playing aliens or fantasy creatures or what have you. Just put the funky face on in post.

6. Garth Posted: Aug 26th, 2008 at 2:20 am

   6 I have to say, that is exceedingly impressive. Again, not perfect. Mostly in the eyes and mouth area as everyone has pointed out. But look at those hands. Those are damn believable hands. My big beef with Beowulf was not the detail or even the faces (which fooled me more than once when I wasn’t paying attention) but rather how fake it seemed when things interacted with each other. But the way her hands grip each other, touch each other, move is completely believable. Which makes this a big deal in my mind. Granted, I dislike hollywood’s hardon for CG. I like older movies because the effects look better, ironically. They look better because to some degree or other they’re real. I suppose CG is cheaper, though based on movie budgets lately I’m not even sure of that anymore. But anyway. Bah. Nuts to it all.

7. epoch9 Posted: Aug 26th, 2008 at 9:25 am

   7 y’know if SAG strikes, I could see a lot of the studios looking into pouring some cash into developing this more(working out the inconsistency that we all noticed), and just using unknown non-SAG members in their stuff.

8. torso_boy Posted: Aug 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am

   8 I agree with garth about CG hands. They always look terrible. I have not seen one CG movie where the artists have taken into account how all the tendons in the hand flex and bulge the skin on the fingers out when the hand grips something, or that the more pressure the person puts on the finger (say, trying to push a button), the more the finger flexes and the more the knuckles crinkle. And they always seem to make the hands so that there is a good centimeter between the fingers or that the fingers don’t mush together when gripping some round object (pistol grip, for example). But the hands here were really amazing. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that everything but her face is real. If you look at the edge of her face, like where her hairline is, or by her ears, it’s awefully texture-less and fuzzy. Even at the distance the camera is from “her,” we should still be able to detect some kind of skin texture. So I guess that her hands here are real, since this is a facial animation video demo, and not really an all-out animation demo. Me thinks they just super-imposed her new face onto her real body. But as far as the facial animation goes, it looks really good when she speaks in such a way that her mouth would normally widen. But her mouth remains wide for most of her speech. The software doesnt seem to have included “puckering” factors (yet) on certain words or sounds, such as “you” or “why.” But it’s certainly almost there. Another year or so and me thinks they’ll have it perfect.