Aug 20 2008ZOMG, She's Not Real -- She's CG!

cg-wow-1.jpg

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.

cg-wow-2.jpg

cg-wow-3.jpg

image metrics emily cg facial animation blows my mind [technabob]

Thanks Pat, say, you think you could make those pirate movies a reality?

Related Stories
Reader Comments

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.

If Emily wanted a facial, all she had to do was ask.

now they can kill her, and make movies using the CG version and not have to pay her. just like the movie "Looker".

freaking wicked! you could make celebrity porn!

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?

wow

gulp

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...

Wouldn't it have been easier just to videotape her interview? haha, I'm SO funny! But that really is freaky...

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?

ahh but there already is a pirates porno. look it up. its actually pretty good.

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.

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.

@5

Supposedly only the face is CG, the body (torso) is real.

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/

yea, that is so FAKE. its obviously all done with computers. HAH!

@ 11, 14

Yeah... And it's the funniest shit ever. Hail Evan Stone.

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?

WHY, GOD? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
SPEND MONEY, TIME AND WHATEVER MORE, JUST TO PUT HER FACE AGAIN

LOL

I thought 2 seconds about it and I agree with the porn possibilities

This... is retarded. Where did all the good ideas go?!

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.

Wow we copied an actors face in 3D, how stupidly pointless. I hate the uncanny valley and I never want to visit again

24 says 23 is right.

Ok, thank you gary for making 24 look like 25!!!!

"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.

photoshop

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.

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.

Oh boy. Yet another new way to stick a reanimated Steve McQueen into car commercials.

So how does this work...they take an actress, then super-impose the face on to her body..? Creepy either way.

Another note: The not-quite-right mouth is freaking me out.

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.

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

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

They could have at least mapped her t***!

now movie stars can't die anymore, eh?

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.

"What is the Image Metrics process?" It appears to be proprietary software that steals your soul. Did the Devil do an IPO in 2000?

get rid of it! now! that's what the Agents are rendered from!

now all we need is CG cum....

Last!

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!!

Yes Daisy, its not real. So just say it so you look like a moron.

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.

what's the point if the actor has to shoot the scene first?

A picture from a digital camera isn't real either.
This is nothing new!

Okay, all you fücking morons.
The girl is real. No one said she wasn't. Only her face was a CG model. And only up to the part with the weird masks. After that it's the original video, with no effects.

The purpose of this is not to recreate the scene that was shot already. The point is to capture the facial expressions and movements, performed by an actor, and apply it to a CG model, because manually animating all the tiny facial tweaks IC captures is almost impossible. You won't even see the actor in the final product, only the CG character (which can be a fücking alien for all you know).

polo shirts

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to the post. Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are required to confirm comments but will never be displayed. To create a link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments.