@jalabi99 Like they would need that... you know what they say "history is written by the victor" so... :P imagine how much our perception of our past is diluted!
This is standart mocap's facial version right? Then why so much people thinking it is an ultra high end cgi tech? The point is, this is just an animation technology right?
I think you missed the point. If the actor's face is stuck with tiny ping pong balls, then this would be standard mocap. The major distinction here is the tech analyse the facial features and their movement without those markers. The rendering of the face is also CGI, but the mocap is new.
what a ridiculous arguement made by children who don't read their homework but like to bicker about the video and comment probably while they are watching it hence not understanding.Why would Image Metrics just show you something that they cannot do when NO ONE else can do it?theres no point, its just showing you what no other company has been able to do before in regards to making facial expressions that previously weren't possible. Why do it?well for the same reason pixar makes movies.realism.
watch the part where the animation is "synchronized" to a realtime face. watch it frame by frame. The computer animation is always dead on, or a milisecond after the real-time footage until the middle to end. Then the real-time footage is behind the animation. the "real-time" conversion is a fraud. It was pre-rendered with an actress who mimicked the animation shown at the same time.
They do not claim to have ALL the completely rendered 3D face immediately as they film and all you need is put it on film. They do not claim that.
What they say is that it takes a lot less time to work on the animation, because this method skips a big chunk of having to animate a face.
Why would you make your work public if it wasn't to stun the viewer? What you see is the final stage, after the tweaking and polishing. Why shouldn't they show the best that it can do?
Odonus, you fail at reading. I said that the woman in the frame in the upper left is an actor who has practiced imitating the animation. I'm not saying that image metrics is not a wonderful advance in technology, but the demonstration in this video is falsified.
Why would they falsify it? Show me sources that lead to that "She's falsifying it" claim.
Doesn't the technology claim to be able to transport the facial movements into a 3d model it in real time?
What if the footage you see, the real one, was the one that created the 3d animation, which was then polished to look good?
Does the real footage being a bit slower mean anything? There are lip movements and eye flickerings that she wouldn't be able to imitate, or memorize for that matter.
Why? To make their company look better than it actually is.
And there you go again, failing to read.
Watch the woman's completely unnatural movements, to start off with. When she says the word "face" she is straining herself to match the 3d animation. Also, the animation and the video of the woman take turns being in front and in back of each other (can only mean that they are independent of each other).
"Can only mean"? You know, for someone who is offering nothing but speculation of what goes on "backstage" you're making some rather bold claims about a company.
Does the film having that trait ONLY point towards that conclusion?
What procedures could have made the same result? Think about that before you claim these things.
You also fail to read because you still provide nothing but an unfounded hypothesis that is unlikely to be true.
If you want to start, you may want to follow the procedure of having a valid argument.
That involves, looking into the view of your opposition on the matter and investigating what truths may or may not be involved.
Do it for yourself. Watch the video frame by frame. Its really easy to see that I am correct, however you fail to simply observe, and instead remain adamant against my case.
If you're gonna say that they wouldn't make it public, why did they take the risk of being found out by people on youtube?
The video alone does not PROVE that the girl is acting out.
Think about it!
Imagine they record the video, and that information goes into the computer. Why would the woman bother to play it out again? Couldn't they just use the first footage and use the final CG girl next to her? Why would the girl want to act like the computer model?
You know what? I'm done. If you are still going to be ignorant and fight me over this, its pointless. You are like a 4 year-old who adamantly claims that grass is purple, and won't be told otherwise. I've asked you time and time again simply to watch the video frame by frame and you will have the proof that you will need, and yet something still clouds your judgement. Have fun whining and stomping your feet through life, attempting to get your way.
Try to video tape yourself lip-sync'ing a song. You will notice that human is not that perfect in catching up even with plenty of practice. By watching the video, I will say it is easier for the computer to repeat after the actor than vice versa. The computer face is rendered based on the video of the human face. It doesn't have to be real time. What you suggested is almost humanly impossible to do. Just look at the synchronize diving in the Olympics, human just cannot mimic precisely.
Fair enough, but the days of paying $20,000,000 a movie to the likes of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie are nearing an end. They are good actors, but a large part of their box office appeal stems from their appearance. With a few years fine-tuning, CGI technology will be able to create characters that are indistinguishable from real life. Then you could get any actor you want behind the scenes to breath life into these cyber-puppets for considerably less than you would pay Pitt/Jolie or their ilk.
This technology is so amazing. I wonder how they could program such a masterpiece. Just awesome. They must be very proud of their software. Also it probably costs much.
I am sweet little Latina but I am wild in sex, Come enjoy my show I love to give you pleasure.i enjoy straight as much as i can get it! AM!: I am hot little latina who loves to please you I love all sex come visit me at Play-Cam (.COM) my user-id there is Avery-bkmp chat soon on cam :) wybqafhptpu
This has been flagged as spam show
Great video keep up the good work.
NewAgeDirector 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I´m an actress and you can put your fucking Uncanny Valley in your ass, you stupid insensible people, who do not appreciate what is art.
That monster has no soul, and you will never be able to reproduce a digital soul.
So, stop trying this stupid things, and instead, try to make something with a little bit of depht and beauty
lucialerendegui 1 year ago
Were they working on AVATAR?
DracoSlashHarry 1 year ago
that film could that be avatar
navylaks2 2 years ago 3
yes it was.
ribenawrath 2 years ago
very cool
D3afile 2 years ago
id say benjamin button
songcovers 3 years ago
when i saw that computer womans emotions on her face i was just like damn. thats what are current gen games are missing emotion.
jmoney13000 3 years ago 3
This is some creepy stuff. Changing the past to make people appear to say anything...imagine the negative political possibilities.
jalabi99 3 years ago 10
Yeah, I can definitely see some of the third-world dictators using it for propaganda.
TheNilvarg 3 years ago
1984 here we come!
Curttehmurt 2 years ago 3
@jalabi99 Like they would need that... you know what they say "history is written by the victor" so... :P imagine how much our perception of our past is diluted!
gevelegian 2 years ago
Gotta say this tech is brilliant. is that girl "Emily" from the tech demo? She hot.
neoxbomb 3 years ago
gameing computers can handle though, i get 45fps in crysis war head with 2 cores not even working... put those cores to use :P
bob333336 3 years ago
was the movie they worked on the new Star Wars movie?...
artvandelay13 3 years ago
noo
jellybean162118 3 years ago
considering this video is a few months old it was probably Beowolf
wrestlingfan24 3 years ago
No it wasn't, the movie was Benjamin Button.
ebolanow 2 years ago
This is standart mocap's facial version right? Then why so much people thinking it is an ultra high end cgi tech? The point is, this is just an animation technology right?
burrusukh 3 years ago
I think you missed the point. If the actor's face is stuck with tiny ping pong balls, then this would be standard mocap. The major distinction here is the tech analyse the facial features and their movement without those markers. The rendering of the face is also CGI, but the mocap is new.
cplai 3 years ago
what a ridiculous arguement made by children who don't read their homework but like to bicker about the video and comment probably while they are watching it hence not understanding.Why would Image Metrics just show you something that they cannot do when NO ONE else can do it?theres no point, its just showing you what no other company has been able to do before in regards to making facial expressions that previously weren't possible. Why do it?well for the same reason pixar makes movies.realism.
Propolyz 3 years ago
awesome !!!
ah ah but the real actiong always gonna be, we are humans after all that can't be replaced by any machine (in spite of what the terminator might say)
youutubestinks 3 years ago
Remember the movie simone?
oscarxp25 3 years ago
watch the part where the animation is "synchronized" to a realtime face. watch it frame by frame. The computer animation is always dead on, or a milisecond after the real-time footage until the middle to end. Then the real-time footage is behind the animation. the "real-time" conversion is a fraud. It was pre-rendered with an actress who mimicked the animation shown at the same time.
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
They do not claim to have ALL the completely rendered 3D face immediately as they film and all you need is put it on film. They do not claim that.
What they say is that it takes a lot less time to work on the animation, because this method skips a big chunk of having to animate a face.
Why would you make your work public if it wasn't to stun the viewer? What you see is the final stage, after the tweaking and polishing. Why shouldn't they show the best that it can do?
Why would they lie?
Odonus2 3 years ago
Odonus, you fail at reading. I said that the woman in the frame in the upper left is an actor who has practiced imitating the animation. I'm not saying that image metrics is not a wonderful advance in technology, but the demonstration in this video is falsified.
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
Why would they falsify it? Show me sources that lead to that "She's falsifying it" claim.
Doesn't the technology claim to be able to transport the facial movements into a 3d model it in real time?
What if the footage you see, the real one, was the one that created the 3d animation, which was then polished to look good?
Does the real footage being a bit slower mean anything? There are lip movements and eye flickerings that she wouldn't be able to imitate, or memorize for that matter.
Odonus2 3 years ago
Why? To make their company look better than it actually is.
And there you go again, failing to read.
Watch the woman's completely unnatural movements, to start off with. When she says the word "face" she is straining herself to match the 3d animation. Also, the animation and the video of the woman take turns being in front and in back of each other (can only mean that they are independent of each other).
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
What if it is you who think its worse than it is?
"Can only mean"? You know, for someone who is offering nothing but speculation of what goes on "backstage" you're making some rather bold claims about a company.
Does the film having that trait ONLY point towards that conclusion?
What procedures could have made the same result? Think about that before you claim these things.
You also fail to read because you still provide nothing but an unfounded hypothesis that is unlikely to be true.
Odonus2 3 years ago
Are you simple minded?
You cannot get an output prior to an input.
Do tell me then, how a computer program could "predict" the motions of a real-life actor.
Are these people working with predicting the future, or instead falsifying their output video?
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
Do not even begin talking about procedures.
If you want to start, you may want to follow the procedure of having a valid argument.
That involves, looking into the view of your opposition on the matter and investigating what truths may or may not be involved.
Do it for yourself. Watch the video frame by frame. Its really easy to see that I am correct, however you fail to simply observe, and instead remain adamant against my case.
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
You are the one lacking evidence. My "hypothesis" is a proven theory, because the video clearly backs it up.
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
the video alone is not enough.
If you're gonna say that they wouldn't make it public, why did they take the risk of being found out by people on youtube?
The video alone does not PROVE that the girl is acting out.
Think about it!
Imagine they record the video, and that information goes into the computer. Why would the woman bother to play it out again? Couldn't they just use the first footage and use the final CG girl next to her? Why would the girl want to act like the computer model?
Odonus2 3 years ago
You know what? I'm done. If you are still going to be ignorant and fight me over this, its pointless. You are like a 4 year-old who adamantly claims that grass is purple, and won't be told otherwise. I've asked you time and time again simply to watch the video frame by frame and you will have the proof that you will need, and yet something still clouds your judgement. Have fun whining and stomping your feet through life, attempting to get your way.
pdiddyjack 3 years ago
Lol, I have seen what you're pointing out!!
That doesn't mean the girl's taping just so it can imitate the 3d girl. Why would she do that???
Think about it! If they could tape the first time, why would they tape again?
Wouldn't one recording be enough to create 90%of the final product, which is what they show next to the original footage?
Do you think that that isn't the original footage?
Odonus2 3 years ago
Try to video tape yourself lip-sync'ing a song. You will notice that human is not that perfect in catching up even with plenty of practice. By watching the video, I will say it is easier for the computer to repeat after the actor than vice versa. The computer face is rendered based on the video of the human face. It doesn't have to be real time. What you suggested is almost humanly impossible to do. Just look at the synchronize diving in the Olympics, human just cannot mimic precisely.
cplai 3 years ago
In James Cameron's Avatar, this technology will be put to great use.
LukeLovesRose 3 years ago
The profession of acting is in it's final few years.
punchthedog 3 years ago
making a replica of the face and body is only part of it. Acting is harder than all of that, and much more complex.
davisgloff 3 years ago
Fair enough, but the days of paying $20,000,000 a movie to the likes of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie are nearing an end. They are good actors, but a large part of their box office appeal stems from their appearance. With a few years fine-tuning, CGI technology will be able to create characters that are indistinguishable from real life. Then you could get any actor you want behind the scenes to breath life into these cyber-puppets for considerably less than you would pay Pitt/Jolie or their ilk.
punchthedog 3 years ago
This technology is so amazing. I wonder how they could program such a masterpiece. Just awesome. They must be very proud of their software. Also it probably costs much.
StormWolf01 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am sweet little Latina but I am wild in sex, Come enjoy my show I love to give you pleasure.i enjoy straight as much as i can get it! AM!: I am hot little latina who loves to please you I love all sex come visit me at Play-Cam (.COM) my user-id there is Avery-bkmp chat soon on cam :) wybqafhptpu
supsupsupsuppp 3 years ago
uncanny valley
blacklotus808 3 years ago
in one area i think they went right past it...
kalvinklein2 3 years ago 2