Comments on: Emily brings us out of the Uncanny Valley

Emily brings us out of the Uncanny Valley

nitsuj — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:13:29 -0800

Emily is considered to be one of the first animations to have overleapt a long-standing barrier known as 'uncanny valley' (watch the video) - from the team who, in part, brought you GTA4.

Previously, sort of. The video linked above is definitely most realistic I've seen any CGI.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:19:35 -0800

*Gathers George Bush and Dick Cheney photos and begins writing the first draft of "Brokeback White House"*

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:24:10 -0800

I like the uncanny valley.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:24:35 -0800

Is it really just motion capture with more markers?

By: Shepherd

Shepherd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:52 -0800

I think that thing ran up to the Uncanny Valley, paused to just long enough to douse itself in kerosene and pull out a Zippo, and then fell, flaming and screaming, until it made a Wile E. Coyote "whump" at the bottom. It did not look like a human being. It looked 94% human, which is what makes the Uncanny Valley creepy.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:30:50 -0800

a) still mocap. No one has solved the problem of automatically making facial movements given simple instructions without a human actor getting in at some point. b) the web video is about as low-res as possible. Grover looks photo-realistic at that resolution. c) SHE IS NOT REAL. WE TOLD YOU TWICE IN CASE YOU DON'T BELIEVE US!

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:32:06 -0800

Closer, but still, it's the eyes - 10% of the face, 95% of the emotion - that are gonna take another decade to perfect. Plus the teeth look...fat. Like she has invisible braces or something.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:32:10 -0800

It's a huge improvement over what I've seen in the past, but it's still not 100%, the eyes still seem wrong, particularly in their movement. Though, to be honest, if I was watching that and didn't know better, I would just have assumed it was a real person with glaucoma or something. That said, if you want to show me how good your effects are, and how unspooky the CG appears, don't have the girl's face become some kind of iron demon part way through.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:32:53 -0800

where are the dimples?

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:34:39 -0800

Still creepy. Nice try though, face nerds.

By: tapeguy

tapeguy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:34:51 -0800

Only the face is CGI, though. The rest of her - the body, the hair, the voice - and the background is video of a woman in a studio.

By: procrastination

procrastination — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:37:00 -0800

Only the face is CGI, though. The rest of her - the body, the hair, the voice - and the background is video of a woman in a studio. Ha! I watched it and was amazed at what a good job they did with the fabric of her shirt. I guess that explains it.

By: Foci for Analysis

Foci for Analysis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:37:27 -0800

Very promising technology, especially for indie movie makers. Just imagine being able to create believable crowds - small and huge - of people just using a software application. No more expensive extras, props or resources.

By: bardic

bardic — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:38:42 -0800

Yeah, not getting a boner over here. Fail.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:39:34 -0800

Too much foundation.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:43:41 -0800

Only the face is CGI, though. The rest of her - the body, the hair, the voice - and the background is video of a woman in a studio. That explains why the face seems to float on the screen and looks a bit flat. A little like the video of Lenin's statue from this thread.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:44:48 -0800

Just imagine being able to create believable crowds... Uh, yeah, imagine... Massive does this today but each face is only a few pixels, so the uncanny valley doesn't really come into it.

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:00 -0800

Those eyes! There's always something wrong with the eyes. Also, I like how they try to distract you from the subtle creepiness of the normal model by following with the blatant creepiness of Horrible Sunburn Lady, Creepy-Toothed Sock-Head Girl, and the Tar-Faced Abomination.

By: sadiehawkinstein

sadiehawkinstein — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:19 -0800

Eh, not so bad, for something with crappy resolution and a small player window. I still prefer to think of the UNCANNY VALLEY as a euphemism. As in: Even though I go through the uncanny valley, I fear no evil, for you are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. or I'd sure like to explore her uncanny valley

By: popcassady

popcassady — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:51:44 -0800

Somewhere down the valley, the Uncanny River confluences with the River Botox.

By: sportbucket

sportbucket — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:53:09 -0800

I agree with her, they have a long way to go. The hair and the shirt were the best parts of the animation, so if that wasn't real, I don't know what to think. This sort of reminds me of the Mojave experiment. Sure, it looks great at a cursory glance and with plenty of positive reinforcement and people telling me how amazing it is, but if you had to sit and work with this thing for a couple of hours, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you'll find it creepy and off-putting. One of those things about the uncanny valley is that the closer something is to human, the more creepy it is. It may not be creepy right away, but all those subtle little problems add up over time, and pretty soon you're talking to a zombie, or paying somebody to reinstall XP.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:55:06 -0800

By: Phalene

Phalene — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:55:49 -0800

I think putting a putty coloured face onto a real human is cheating. I was going 'Wow, they got ever detail except that her mouth is on the side of her face' until I realized the problem.

By: found missing

found missing — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:58:55 -0800

Turns out Emily is real. You've been punked. (I could tell by the pixels.)

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:01:01 -0800

I prefer Barbara in The Big Valley.

By: LoopyG

LoopyG — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:01:29 -0800

So many complaints. Yet people seem to love the work they have actually done. Considering failure to be that they have not totally convinced you is a bit naive...

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:02:01 -0800

She has Gollum's eyes. Precious.

By: C.Batt

C.Batt — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:02:09 -0800

Totally overblown. This is, essentially, a digital face mask. I suppose that's great for ugly actors, or for obsessive directors who have an exact "look" in mind for a character. Even then, it's still right smack dab in the the middle of the uncanny valley. As said above: the eyes. Even though they brag about the work they did on the eyes and how important they are, they're still not right. To me, the seem to float in space. They're not tied to the muscles underneath, even though they're looking in the right directions at the right times.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:02:39 -0800

Still can't wait for the era where animating humans gets up to 99.9% and only highly trained experts can tell what's real or not in videos. I wish it would hurry up cause I'd be one of those cool science fiction novel guys who is the only one who can tell what is real. And the plot would revolve around me starting to doubt my abilities. It will be called FACETELLER.

By: C.Batt

C.Batt — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:04:23 -0800

So many complaints. Yet people seem to love the work they have actually done. Considering failure to be that they have not totally convinced you is a bit naive...

It's not failure in that they don't totally convince me, it's failure in that they hype it to be totally convincing when it isn't. Is it close? Sure. Is it boast worthy? Yes. Is it as good as some people are making it out to be? No freaking way.

By: tapeguy

tapeguy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:05:12 -0800

I think putting a putty coloured face onto a real human is cheating. I was going 'Wow, they got ever detail except that her mouth is on the side of her face' until I realized the problem. Essentially what they've done is filmed someone, captured the movements and then animated those movements over the same footage. It's like that bit in Chasing Amy where everyone keeps calling Jason Lee the 'tracer'.

By: stavrogin

stavrogin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:05:26 -0800

The eyes are moving too smoothly. Real people's eyes will flick, her eyes are rolling around in her head.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:07:18 -0800

Would have been interesting to do two videos -- one real, one fake, and ask people to choose which one is the real one. Or, if this is just a face rig, show me the real actress and the fake side-by-side, and digitally remove the marker balls from the real video with the minimum necessary processing.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:07:49 -0800

Very good, but her teeth seem too mobile, as if her skull and jaw weren't fixed bone. The uncanny valley needn't apply to just human characters. I noticed a tiny bit of uncanny valley effect watching the otherwise very entertaining Kung Fu Panda. The characters' eyes are oddly stuck to their faces, as if painted on the outside of their heads rather than being orbs within sockets, and the characters' feet look like stiff boots with painted pads, rather than flexing like paws or feet would. But noticing those things, and the same applies to Emily, is in itself an acknowledgement that everything else looked right.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:08:45 -0800

Yeah, not getting a boner over here. Fail. Sorry about your weiner bardic.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:11:44 -0800

I think Emily could pass for a post-reconstructive surgery burn victim who took some neurological damage.

By: Crabby Appleton

Crabby Appleton — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:23:51 -0800

Oh, I don't know, I think I'd ... wait for it ... I'd ... I'd ... Oh hell, I just can't do it.

By: jcruelty

jcruelty — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:25:42 -0800

the teeth are weird, that's the problem (although maybe the teeth are just weird enough to divert attention from any other problem)

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:27:25 -0800

Even then, it's still right smack dab in the the middle of the uncanny valley. Nah. Final Fantasy: Spirits Within was smack dab in the middle. This is about a third of the way back up the far side. Long ways to go, yet.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:28:24 -0800

Picasso face. Her nose has no three dimensionality it is just a 2D nose wrapped on an ovoid sliding back and forth as she turns her head.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:05 -0800

Would have been interesting to do two videos -- one real, one fake, and ask people to choose which one is the real one. I agree. Being told ahead of time that what we are about to see is animation, we automatically search the video for hints of CGI, and find them. Given two to choose from would have been a real marker for how convincing this is. That said, I liked Emily's scripted self-deprecation.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:36:34 -0800

She should hold her arms out slightly and gently wave them, like computer game characters do. And blink a lot.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:37:33 -0800

Her overleaping has embiggened us all with its cromulent performance.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:47:44 -0800

I am finding that not being able to link to a clip of the 30 Rock definition of the The Uncanny Valley right now is terribly frustrating.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:48:45 -0800

It seems like an extremely accurate rendering of a woman born with concrete where her facial muscles should be.

By: maudlin

maudlin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:50:31 -0800

Her movements just seemed too crisp and discrete, especially the nodding and the eyeblinks, but the whole production is certainly better than a lot of similar work.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:51:23 -0800

Only the face is CGI, though That's weak, all they were doing is copying and they still couldn't get the eyes to look like something other than an undead zombie psycho demon.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:55:27 -0800

Higher-res version on Youtube

By: zardoz

zardoz — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:56:36 -0800

After watching Beowulf, I figured out the Uncanny Valley problem that all these CGI guys haven't. It seems to me that to get realistic movement, especially with the mouth and lips when speaking, animators have to individually animate every syllable, word, and sentence to match with the voice actor. As it is now, animators just plug in a certain mouth position, but too often it doesn't gel with the lips, or the teeth, or the nose, or cheek, etc. This imperfection gets shrugged off as "close enough". I don't think there's a programming "magic bullet" to this. It's just a lot of elbow grease and lots and lots of time. Then again, animators and especially film producers probably do know this and don't do it because it would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

By: phyrewerx

phyrewerx — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:58:16 -0800

C.Batt: "Totally overblown. This is, essentially, a digital face mask. I suppose that's great for ugly actors, or for obsessive directors who have an exact "look" in mind for a character." So I expect this in a new Eddie Murphy movie where he plays 90 different looking characters. The movie will still suck.

By: Slap*Happy

Slap*Happy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:00:48 -0800

This is rotoscoping the face. There are probably better ways to blend an actor's face into CGI... actually, watching the video, I'm certain there are. It's telling that the pitch-black "Demon Face" was the most realistic. It's the furthest out of the uncanny valley - 'OK, it's a creature, so we can start using emotional shorthand for it's facial features.' So, nice try, no dice.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:02:11 -0800

As it is now, animators just plug in a certain mouth position, but too often it doesn't gel with the lips, or the teeth, or the nose, or cheek, etc. That is really the point of this software. And they're not really selling it as "photo-realistic". They're selling it as "fast, so you can pay your animators less". Which is much more valuable to game creators.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:04:57 -0800

What bothers me about Emily is that her facial movements are too smooth. Actual human faces express a variety of involuntary, arhythmic tics, whether we're fully aware of it or not. The upper left corner of a friend's mouth pulls up slightly more than the right when they make an "e" sound, for example, or the flare their nostrils when making an "o" sound. Just as skin with a couple freckles, moles or blemishes looks more human to us than solid flesh tone, these subtle and irregular facial movements are what we register as human. In other words, what Emily's face is missing is chaos.

By: maudlin

maudlin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:05:28 -0800

Anyway, I feel a lot more connected to Keepon than Emily. (Previously here and here.)

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:09:23 -0800

The CGI creation people bond with most this year is a cube with arms, wheels and a set of binoculars for a head, and yet it manages to be far more expressive than mask-face there. Perhaps they are trying to solve the wrong set of problems?

By: everichon

everichon — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:15:14 -0800

that the pitch-black "Demon Face" Where was that? I wanna see the demon face!

By: DU

DU — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:15:32 -0800

Higher-res version on Youtube First time this phrase has ever been uttered.

By: localroger

localroger — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:18:08 -0800

Actually, what is wrong with Emily is that she does not have a bone and muscle structure. Nobody is going to get this right until they model a skull, with muscles overlaying it, and skin over that, and noting that the muscles thicken when they contract. With some study it should be possible to write some algorithms to shorthand how we use all those facial muscles so gestures don't have to be animated one muscle at a time, but that's what it will take for the teeth not to flap, the eyes to dart and bob properly, and the cheeks to not look like they're full of concrete. This is a significant improvement over what exists but in a direction that is a dead end.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:23:27 -0800

Well, they're getting closer, but so far, it's just with better and better motion capture. That's useful, because you can hire someone who can really act, and then map his or her acting onto a computer model that looks how you want it to look. (aka, the Gollum Effect.) But I don't think they'll officially be over the uncanny valley until they can procedurally animate a human, from scratch, and convince a majority of people that it's real. I wonder if they'll have to get into consciousness modeling to do that; your brain is sending many many signals to your face, from many conflicting impulses. It's possible they may need to actually model that to some degree, to get all the little muscle twitches right.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:24:51 -0800

...and a hundred baby spiders came out... and they ate her.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:34:06 -0800

There is a very short segment of the real emily at the end of the youtube clip.

By: darth_tedious

darth_tedious — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:52:31 -0800

Granting that this is a demo, which means that tankers of human sweat and a half-ton of pizza were probably expended in the process of creating it, when this level of realism-- even at this level of resolution-- becomes easily available and point-and-click, it'll still start putting folks out of work... which, from a commercial perspective, is half the point. Of course, when still hicuppy Pasta_Face Beta is replaced by the actually usable PasteAFace 1.0, then Judy from the community theater troupe down the block can star as NotAngelina Jolie, playing in Tomb Raider 6, suddenly all those underused SAG cards may come in very handy. And when WinPAF 3.0 arrives, well, obviously, then it looks like the cast for an action film will, in practice, consist of three guys from Carnegie-Mellon who like wearing t-shirts that advertise software firms, and are used to eating lots of pizza during marathon coding sessions. I wonder if being able to rent celebrity faces at the click of a button will in fact reduce the number of celebrities... if the year 2025 versions of Elvis and Marilyn can be put on and in everything, that might mean there are only one or two tiers of media icon, the rest being made unnecessary... In any case, we're looking at the near-future of webchat, webcams, and the like. Which in turn suggests that online profiles and whatnot will soon have identity verification features embedded-- digital fingerprints to go with one's suspiciously model-like face...

By: jeremy b

jeremy b — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:57:25 -0800

I actually logged in just so I could favorite DU's YouTube comment.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:17:34 -0800

Well, if I saw the video (not the part where they show the rendering layers, obviously) I probably wouldn't have noticed anything. It is pretty low res, though. But on the other hand, I've seen facial animation that was at least as good as what's in this video before as well. Ha! I watched it and was amazed at what a good job they did with the fabric of her shirt. I guess that explains it. Yeah me too.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:18:54 -0800

It will be called FACETELLER. And awesome.

By: finite

finite — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:25:01 -0800

Holofilter

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:27:02 -0800

And when WinPAF 3.0 arrives, well, obviously, then it looks like the cast for an action film will, in practice, consist of three guys from Carnegie-Mellon who like wearing t-shirts that advertise software firms, and are used to eating lots of pizza during marathon coding sessions. Last I checked, most Pixar films had a longer list of credits than the standard action film. Widespread use of CGI will not create a net reduction in the number of people needed to create a movie.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:28:03 -0800

Also, I think the "uncanny valley" is going to become less and less of a problem for kids who grow up watching CG. I can't remember the last time I felt "unnerved" by any CG, despite how close/slightly off it was. Now this robot, however.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:29:18 -0800

Higher-res version on Youtube If you use the MetaFilter built-in player you won't see it. You have to go to YouTube and click on 'watch in high quality' (under the 'Views' count).

By: 5MeoCMP

5MeoCMP — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:37:15 -0800

KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:41 -0800

What Artw said, over and over again, with some clue-bat waving. You don't solve the problem of naturalness and expressiveness simply by finer-grained imitation. You solve it with artistry, empathy and a knowledge of physiology. You solve a problem by understanding it, not by obsessively detailed imitation. The latter isn't solving it at all, because when you're done, even if it's good, you still don't know why it's good.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:51:03 -0800

George_Spiggott: Why do you need to know why it's good? That's what the computer is for. Also that Keepon robot rules.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:57:11 -0800

George_Spiggott: Why do you need to know why it's good? That's what the computer is for. Your profile says you're a computer programmer. What sort of programs do you write, where it's not necessary to understand the problem space, or the solution, or why the solution works, in order to write them?

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:59:10 -0800

"The subtlety of the timing of eye movements is a big one. True. And they didn't succeed with that one. I mean, nice try and all that, but the blinking is just . . . weird.

By: flaterik

flaterik — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:10:22 -0800

or why the solution works, in order to write them Genetic algorithms solving problems result in solutions that don't make a damn bit of sense and no one really understands, but work anyway. Kind of like the brain.

By: starman

starman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:22:36 -0800

Still, more realistic than Meg Ryan.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:01:29 -0800

From this valley they say you are going, I will miss your dead eyes and fake smile....

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:21:09 -0800

Well, shit, she's more realistic than I am.

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:24:01 -0800

Besides, I'm an Emily that prefers to push people into the uncanny valley. Sometimes with a great deal of force.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:41:26 -0800

Your profile says you're a computer programmer. What sort of programs do you write, where it's not necessary to understand the problem space, or the solution, or why the solution works, in order to write them? The whole purpose of the machine learning sub-field is to get computers to understand things that humans may not. A good example you probably use every day would be google's spellcheck. No one at google sat down and wrote a list of every word and it's mispelling, indeed if you search for "keeepon" it will ask you if you meant "keepon". There is no 'theory of spelling' involved, although I would imagine that basic word lists were somehow involved. But getting computers to discover solutions you don't know is the whole point of machine learning, and you may never need to know 'why' the solution works.

By: Paragon

Paragon — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:03:32 -0800

And the plot would revolve around me starting to doubt my abilities. Suddenly everyone on the news (that fresh new war) looks faked... And then people you meet on the street somehow don't look right... And then Donald Sutherland won't stop screaming... I like it.

By: sluglicker

sluglicker — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:49:58 -0800

Naysayers.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:04 -0800

Oh man, could you imagine the porn to be made from this technology? (I guess the GTA guys have already done that somewhat with hot coffee.)

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:04:55 -0800

Oh man, could you imagine the porn to be made from this technology? Unfortunately I can easily imagine the cheesy alien/monster damsel in distress space porn that will be made with this technology. If I could erase all the bad poserporn images from my brain I definitely would.

By: braksandwich

braksandwich — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:41:09 -0800

You're thinking small. It's not the kind of porn that will be made with this technology, it's the quantity. Code up a few scripts, automate the whole process, and start printing money.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:11:06 -0800

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:15:34 -0800

You're thinking small. It's not the kind of porn that will be made with this technology, it's the quantity. Code up a few scripts, automate the whole process, and start printing money. Is there some porn shortage I don't know about? I don't think we're suffering from a lack of quantity as it is. (Also, this requires a video source, so for this particular technique, it wouldn't be any easier then shooting a regular porn, remember, this is an animation technique, not a new rendering technology)

By: joedan

joedan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:20:06 -0800

Yeah. Overrated. Show me a demo where the entire thing is CGI (not just the face) and the resolution is high enough that a barbie doll won't look real and there is no motion capture and then we can talk. Low res + motion capture + only the face is CGI = fail. This was my reaction, too. But then again, I figure it's only a matter of time before they come up with something like Euphoria for facial animation.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:59:00 -0800

Delmoi, I'm not sure that it needs a new video source, and one could generate a lot of permutations from each source.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:06:49 -0800

The disturbing thing for me is the likelihood of pornographers using motion capture technology to create astonishingly realistic child pornography by mapping adult porn stars onto models of children. Given that this process can be used on existing film/video, they wont even have to hire actors. You can rest easy. Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code specifically prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct", and the PROTECT act of 2003 also prohibits "drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene [i.e.: the average person would find it repugnant, and it lacks artistic merit] OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition." Of special note, though, is that "The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)." In other words, you can draw, own, exchange and sell porn of underaged elves or goblins.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:11:15 -0800

PS: I'm aware that child pornographers bear little regard for the law as it is, but given the time, expense, technology and staffing needed to render Emily here, I don't think underground Image Metrics-style child porn is coming out any time soon.

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:00:34 -0800

You know, having watched the longer, higher res Youtube version linked above, the 'real Emily' who is shown right at the end does actually have odd-looking lips and a face that doesn't look quite right, at least from the angle being filmed. So I guess in a way, it's a pretty good copy. It'll be interesting when they apply this technology to someone old and grizzled, or animate a completely different face over someone else.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:00:47 -0800

You do all know that we're talking about Emily O'Brien from The Young and the Restless, yes? A more plastic base model would be hard to find.

By: I Foody

I Foody — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:52:41 -0800

I think it looks CGI because I knew it was CGI and was looking for markers that it was CGI. If I didn't know it wasn't real I might have suspended disbelief.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:14:29 -0800

delmoi writes "Also, this requires a video source, so for this particular technique, it wouldn't be any easier then shooting a regular porn, remember, this is an animation technique, not a new rendering technology" It would allow for the specificity that seems to drive so much porn though. You could film a single scene and then distribute it with dozens of different skin tone and hair colour combinations. If they get hair down you could see different lengths and styles or even no hair at all. Even accommodate both sides of the shave debate. Eliminate or ramp up tattoos. Heck even personalized tattoos; I imagine POV porn where the actress's stamp incorporates your name would be a big hit. And that doesn't even touch things like furries, slash, and cosplay. Really the possibilities are endless if this can get good and cheap enough.

By: bhnyc

bhnyc — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:06:27 -0800

At the end of the youtube video they have the real emily and it's just like the fake one except no blue eye shadow. I thought the eye shadow was the strangest part of the whole thing. this software isn't capable of changing a face, just adding some colors.

By: owtytrof

owtytrof — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:11:20 -0800

You saw the grey demon-like face, right, bhnyc?

By: mfbridges

mfbridges — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:41:15 -0800

I'm going to make one of these videos by just putting too much makeup on someone and filming them. Then you will all still say "the movements are too smooth and the eyes are dead."

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:12:49 -0800

Marissa Stole the Precious Thing, the Miller test may be sufficiently narrow to present pornographer's with a workaround. If they produced a film that had an anti-molestation message, and then included obscene content, I'm not sure what the courts would do with it. Especially if they were careful about distribution. I never would have guessed ahead of time that CPPA would get shut down by the Supremes, but it seems to me that defining legal limitations on speech without leaving loopholes is an intractable problem. Also, I'm not sure the same penalties should apply for sexual depiction of fictitious children as for depiction of actual children. This area of the law makes me extremely uncomfortable, as I support free speech, but am unhappy about its abuse by paedophiles and molestors. Also, being male in America and talking about even the legal theory of child porn makes me want to look over my shoulder for big brother or the torches and pitchforks mob.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:54:49 -0800

Mitheral: It would allow for the specificity that seems to drive so much porn though. ... If they get hair down you could see different lengths and styles or even no hair at all. Merkins in the Uncanny Valley. I can't wait.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:57:04 -0800

I'm glad you raised that point, BrotherCaine. Child pornography in video and photographs is easily judged obscene because a child is being harmed. It is not a depiction. Someone who molested an actual child on video and then concluded by telling the camera, "Child molestation is wrong" is still going to prison. Depictions with a message or arguable artistic merit are another matter. The Miller Test has always been controversial. I honestly believe most judges use the "I know it when I see it" method of determining whether or not something is obscene, more than anything else. But by Miller Test definition, a movie with an anti-molestation message might have shocking, disturbing, or upsetting content, but - because it could be argued that there is an artistic value in the content - it would probably pass the Miller Test. The movie Lilja 4 Ever, for example, features some pretty disturbing imagery of child rape (mostly in the form of putting the audience behind the eyes of the child during the actual rapes) but would probably pass the Miller Test because one of the movie's messages is raising awareness about human trafficking. Even Irreversible managed to somehow escape, despite a protracted and (in my opinion anyway) entirely unnecessarily long rape scene. It is actually very, very difficult to have your work judged obscene in a court of law, even when politically motivated attacks go against small, low budget artists who don't have a mountain of cash at their disposal.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:07:49 -0800

Edit: Pornographers, not pornagrapher's. I wish someone would come along and censor my superfluous apostrophes.

By: tehloki

tehloki — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:51:22 -0800

This hasn't really swept past the uncanny valley, but I can see it sort of trying to claw its way out on the far slope of it. The eyes and teeth are still.... plastic-looking. Call me intolerant, but I think I might get a little uncomfortable talking to somebody with plastic eyes and teeth.