Aug 20 2008ZOMG, She's Not Real -- She's CG!
You see that chick? She's not real -- she's a CG version of actress Emily O'Brien created by facial animation studio Image Metrics. And let me tell you, she definitely kicks the shit out of last week's CG facials.
Using (USC's) Institute for Creative Technologies' special scanning system that can capture facial details down to the individual pore, the face of actress Emily O'Brien was transformed into a digital representation of herself, which could then be entirely machine-manipulated. A special spherical lighting rig captured O'Brien in 35 reference facial poses using a pair of high resolution digital cameras. The facial maps were then converted into 3D data using Image Metrics' proprietary markerless motion capture technology.
Hit the jump to see a high-res video of the CG Emily talking and moving. It's freaking amazing. Did I mention she kind of looks like Keira Knightley? Because she does. Now I'm not sure what kind of implications this has for the adult-entertainment industry, but if I had to guess, I'd say a series of wicked pirate-themed skin-flicks. Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's Rear End! Or, alternatively, Pirates of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chesticles.
Hit the jump for a few more pictures and a very worthwhile video.
image metrics emily cg facial animation blows my mind [technabob]
Thanks Pat, say, you think you could make those pirate movies a reality?
Reader Comments
1. Julian - August 20, 2008 11:45 AM
ZOMG!!! uber real looking extremely exaggerated illegal porn!!! Hey, if it ain't real people it ain't really illegal. PLEASE JESUS use your magic to make this happen. I know both you and I would love to see some 12 year old girl and a donkey action.
2. Danny - August 20, 2008 11:49 AM
If Emily wanted a facial, all she had to do was ask.
3. damn luddites - August 20, 2008 11:50 AM
now they can kill her, and make movies using the CG version and not have to pay her. just like the movie "Looker".
4. doodle de doo - August 20, 2008 11:50 AM
freaking wicked! you could make celebrity porn!
5. ak - August 20, 2008 11:52 AM
What? This dosen't make sense - was her whole body CG, or was it just her face? Was the actress responding to the questions, and image metrics CG-ifying what she had already said?
6. gypsy - August 20, 2008 11:53 AM
wow
7. Hmmm... - August 20, 2008 11:54 AM
gulp
8. el - August 20, 2008 11:58 AM
I'm with #3 on this one. This is freaking scarry and i think its weird that Mr. Geekologie didn't mention anything about the end of the world with this...
I mean, for all i know, I'm CG and the real me has been dead for years. How would i know? I'm just some computer animation. crap, this is going to screw me up all day now. ya know, until the computers reset me...
9. gingela5 - August 20, 2008 12:01 PM
Wouldn't it have been easier just to videotape her interview? haha, I'm SO funny! But that really is freaky...
10. OctoGooch - August 20, 2008 12:04 PM
wow totally FAKE. this is obviously done with mirrors, gun powder, and wireframe. geez, you're all a bunch of idiots for believing this. right, guys?
11. rach - August 20, 2008 12:11 PM
ahh but there already is a pirates porno. look it up. its actually pretty good.
12. ali - August 20, 2008 12:22 PM
that is crazy.
@ 11: is that the one with jessica jaymes? if it is i agree.
p.s. i think i know too much about porn.
13. Sell Porn Make Money - August 20, 2008 12:24 PM
oh the possibilities!! The real question is why they built this with this broad and not a supermodel.
14. ali - August 20, 2008 12:26 PM
that is crazy.
@ 11: is that the one with jessica jaymes? if it is i agree.
p.s. i think i know too much about porn.
15. nullCRC - August 20, 2008 12:31 PM
@5
Supposedly only the face is CG, the body (torso) is real.
16. Svetlana - August 20, 2008 12:32 PM
i dunno the face turning colors and the wireframe was cool and all, but im not fully convinced. why didnt they make her face morph into some crazy shit or at least turn her nose into a beak and back. you know, something to prove that this is all 3D.
and why is the facial animation on their main page not AS impressive??? (but still impressive)
http://www.image-metrics.com/
17. FatBoy - August 20, 2008 12:33 PM
yea, that is so FAKE. its obviously all done with computers. HAH!
18. mattk - August 20, 2008 12:41 PM
@ 11, 14
Yeah... And it's the funniest shit ever. Hail Evan Stone.
19. James - August 20, 2008 12:42 PM
How is the CG animation when all they did was directly record her on video? To me this seems more like a post production touch up tool, like having perfect lighting or make up. Really how is it cg animation when it is just a video of her talking?
20. greg - August 20, 2008 1:31 PM
WHY, GOD? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
SPEND MONEY, TIME AND WHATEVER MORE, JUST TO PUT HER FACE AGAIN
LOL
21. greg - August 20, 2008 1:31 PM
I thought 2 seconds about it and I agree with the porn possibilities
22. Lynz - August 20, 2008 2:07 PM
This... is retarded. Where did all the good ideas go?!
23. who - August 20, 2008 2:55 PM
Uhm.
I don't think that's CG. I think that's the "source video" that is analyzed by the software, and the CG is the bits at the end that are superimposed over the face in the video.
The impressive thing isn't that it's rendering something that photo-realistic, the (less) impressive thing is that it's generating the 3D face and facial expression data directly from a video.
24. gary - August 20, 2008 3:30 PM
Wow we copied an actors face in 3D, how stupidly pointless. I hate the uncanny valley and I never want to visit again
25. 24. - August 20, 2008 3:32 PM
24 says 23 is right.
26. 26. - August 20, 2008 3:33 PM
Ok, thank you gary for making 24 look like 25!!!!
27. NES--still-the-best - August 20, 2008 4:52 PM
"Did I mention she kind of looks like Keira Knightley? Because she does. Now I'm not sure what kind of implications this has for the adult-entertainment industry, but if I had to guess, I'd say a series of wicked pirate-themed skin-flicks."
___________________________________________________________
Sahsa Grey, the porn star, already provides that service. She's the spitting image of Keira Knightley...only she swallows...a lot. That crazy chick will do anything.
28. photoshop - August 20, 2008 7:03 PM
photoshop
29. Meaty Urologist - August 20, 2008 9:12 PM
Whoa - what a coincidence! My girlfriend is also CG! At least, that's what she told me. Or maybe that was VD. Whatever - it's still a small world.
30. loqk - August 21, 2008 12:14 AM
the stills are good, but the motion gives away the cgi pretty early. for example, her eyes turn slightly too far in their sockets and her motion does not correctly conform to real physics. if they had been a little more careful designing the motion, it would have been compleetly convincing. adding a good physics engine would have helped too, but would have been more costly than the ad was worth.
31. K lee - August 21, 2008 12:42 AM
Oh boy. Yet another new way to stick a reanimated Steve McQueen into car commercials.
32. Snoodle - August 21, 2008 3:49 AM
So how does this work...they take an actress, then super-impose the face on to her body..? Creepy either way.
33. Snoodle - August 21, 2008 3:53 AM
Another note: The not-quite-right mouth is freaking me out.
34. dude - August 21, 2008 6:48 AM
It looks wrong. The CGI face is completly dead because the facial motions make no wrinkles, as the real one does. Getting better, but not there yet.
35. whitebear - August 21, 2008 6:53 AM
actually she is real, holy crap people! the concept is simple and nothing like creating a realistic character out of thin air, they prerecorder her moves and then applied masks, if they can do something like that without a model yes, great, but until then no one will act amazed or i start throwing these banana peels
36. mark spencer - August 21, 2008 9:14 AM
so you film a girl talking then map it onto a computer, then say she is not real? DO YOU THINK I AM F***ING STUPID? i will give due consideration and praise when you make it FROM SCRATCH then it would be completly made up, i can do that on my F***ING MOBILE PHONE
37. Hugh Gizzwad - August 21, 2008 12:53 PM
They could have at least mapped her t***!
38. durdenesque - August 21, 2008 10:40 PM
now movie stars can't die anymore, eh?
39. Patrick - August 22, 2008 4:59 PM
I agree with #36. Which makes the other guys who are talking about all the flaws they spotted, just seem silly. It's like my friend who every time we go to the movies he thinks the live action scenes are CG and can't spot actual CG to save his life.
40. DFCtomm - August 24, 2008 11:33 PM
"What is the Image Metrics process?" It appears to be proprietary software that steals your soul. Did the Devil do an IPO in 2000?
41. David - December 8, 2008 8:41 PM
get rid of it! now! that's what the Agents are rendered from!
42. truk - December 28, 2008 4:11 PM
now all we need is CG cum....
43. The Chort - March 11, 2009 6:38 PM
Last!
44. Krem - March 26, 2009 5:04 PM
soo... we're gunna waste time, money and resources to RECORD you... then rather than using that recording as live action, we're gunna filter it on a PC so we can justify it as CG.. BRILLIANT!!
45. AAA - April 6, 2009 8:21 AM
Yes Daisy, its not real. So just say it so you look like a moron.
46. Howzee - April 7, 2009 2:27 PM
This isn't CG. They've just scanned her face and applied effects, like you can do with a photo, only in 3D.
I guess a lot of people don't realize that the "G" in CG stands for generated. As in created, wholly, by a computer.
47. z - September 5, 2009 8:48 AM
what's the point if the actor has to shoot the scene first?
48. z - September 5, 2009 8:51 AM
A picture from a digital camera isn't real either.
This is nothing new!
49. louis vuitton - September 29, 2009 2:04 AM
I mean, for all i know, I'm CG and the real me has been dead for years. How would i know? I'm just some computer animation. crap, this is going to screw me up all day now. ya know, until the computers reset me...