Video: Meet Emily
posted at 9:23 pm on August 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Another small step towards a virtual reality indistinguishable from this one. At first I thought they had invented her from scratch (which would have been really impressive), but it looks like they filmed an actress reciting the monologue and then painstakingly recreated the shot, frame by frame, with an animated doppelganger. You can still tell it’s fake, but to roughly the same extent that the robots in “Westworld” were fake: A slight telltale imperfection here and there, but otherwise, money. I remember reading a story as a kid about a supercomputer that could be programmed to scan archival film footage of Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, etc., and then resurrect them as animations that would look precisely as lifelike as actual film. ETA of that technological verisimilitude, per the Times’s story: 2020.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’d hit it.
brak on August 20, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Huh?,….what?….(looks around nervously); Allah was once a kid?
aquaviva on August 20, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Rise of the voice actors is imminent.
Who needs to pay 20 mill for Tom Cruise to sparkle up a Nazi film with his shiny big teeth when you can hire digital artists to do this for 5 mill and pay a voice actor 100 bucks to read the dialogue?
Mindcrime on August 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM
creepy…
ulyses on August 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Kinda cool,I think!
canopfor on August 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM
She looks weird. As in “plastic surgery gone terribly wrong” weird.
Needs more work tech guys!
madne0 on August 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM
If you have to film an actor first before you animate, then what’s the point of animating when you can just use the film?
hadsil on August 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I’ll be in my bunk.
sulla on August 20, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Her fake eyes give it away. Everything else looks normal though.
Coronagold on August 20, 2008 at 9:34 PM
And hey, where’s Magneto Man?
Coronagold on August 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM
how does this translate into my sexbot, exactly?
lorien1973 on August 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
This is magic, that’s as much as I need to know about it.
jimmy the notable on August 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM
“Rise of the voice actors is imminent.
Who needs to pay 20 mill for Tom Cruise to sparkle up a Nazi film with his shiny big teeth when you can hire digital artists to do this for 5 mill and pay a voice actor 100 bucks to read the dialogue?”
Mindcrime on August 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Nailed. It. Jobs that used to pay me $4-500? Now there’s an army of amateurs lined up to do hem for $75-100.
bbz123 on August 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM
“Her” mouth is not natural looking when she speaks.
All else pretty right on.
EJDolbow on August 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM
But will she clean my house? That’s what I really could use.
Bob's Kid on August 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM
*imagining Allah looking awkward, wearing paper bag in prom picture*
MB007 on August 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
That is a bit confusing… what is the point of animating it if the animation looks exactly like the source video? I had assumed that they “actress” looked different than the video’s “Emily”.
DaveS on August 20, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Yeah…remember when McKinley got shot?
Does anyone know where I can find a high-res version of this? Quality on YouTube kind of eliminates the real awe factor.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2008 at 9:42 PM
in the future The people that are will be making the BIG BUCKS are the CGI 3D Modelers, good textures artists, animators, and riggings people that know how to use
ZBrush, XSI, 3D Studio MAX, Maya, Lightwave, Modo, Cinema 4D.. ETC..
Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Man, I can’t wait til all those super actor-types are superfluous.
They’ve gotta be quaking in their boots.
misterpeasea on August 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Magneto and Titanium Man (w/The Crimson Dynamo).
jaime on August 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Yeah, but when does Emily do a duet with Celine?
Editor on August 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Then there is this.
easy on August 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM
this is pretty neat too..
http://research.microsoft.com/unwrap/rkrf_short.wmv
Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I couldn’t tell…but I do drink a lot.
Wyznowski on August 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM
When I have a supermodel reading me whatever I want like it is Microsoft Sam then we’re there. Books on tape never looked so good…
blankminde on August 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Yeah. The eyes gave it away for me too. But it took a few seconds.
Impressive. And it will only get “better” over time. I have a friend from the early 90s who was talking about the inevitability of this stuff. Of course, the flip side of not needing actors for movies is that “video evidence” will no longer be acceptable in court.
It’s a brave new world….
nukemhill on August 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM
The point is you can have them in places or doing things that would be impossible or extremely dangerous in real life.
Frozen Tex on August 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM
reminds me of playing coleco football, in 5th grade.
custer on August 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM
‘Facial Rig’, is that where the bug is with Pelosi?
Hening on August 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Oh great, more technology to make it so seeing isn’t necessarily believing.
Imagine the scandals you could cook up about someone with these technologies.
hmmmmm…
tickleddragon on August 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM
It would come in handy if the character is supposed to look different than the actor, I’d imagine. Younger, older, fatter, thinner, different color, etc.
Jim Treacher on August 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Will she make me a bologna sandwich while the game is on? Does she have a sister?
Ahem…pretty neat. Like some of the other folks have said though, what’s the application when you have to film the actor and recreate reality?
BacaDog on August 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Allah was once a kid?
No silly. He was a baby eeyore.
Rightwingsparkle on August 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Yeah. The point isn’t to recreate a live actor, it’s simply to show that a lifelike recreation is possible at all. Once you’ve got the basics down, then you can start building characters from the ground up.
Allahpundit on August 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Krykee.
More web p0rn.
locomotivebreath1901 on August 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Actually one only needs texture shots to build an animated actor. This can be done on a pc with 3D studio max and adobe after effects.
And you can make virtual sets as well.
dogsoldier on August 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
creepy indeed.
CP on August 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Best. Post. Evah!
Still. I don’t understand how this will help Michelle’s kids…
Et tu Brute on August 20, 2008 at 10:31 PM
After viewing this “Hollywood” must be a “tremblen’” for their jobs. That’s not a bad thing is it?
Over.
1GooDDaDDy on August 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Not 3D enough – the face doesn’t give enough of an impression of depth as it should. It wasn’t rotating perfectly in time with the actor’s head, and the shadows weren’t as strong as background shadows.
C+
Merovign on August 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Great. Does this mean that they can fire all of the self absorbed liberal actors in Hollywood.
The Republicans will be loving this!
iam7545 on August 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Looker, 1981, Albert Finney, Susan Dey
Rusty Bill on August 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM
1st of all, Beowulf would have looked much better.
If they get this technique perfected, then no more bad actors hired solely for their beauty. No more sacrifice of skill for looks. The perfect acting style matched with the desired look for the role.
Won’t happen immediately, but over time. Opens up numerous possibilites just on that level.
Kind of scary and dystopian though.
nottakingsides on August 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
S1mone (2002)
desertdweller on August 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM
It’s an example of the “uncanny valley” phenomenon.
dominigan on August 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM
You can’t fix that problem. Nancy Pelositis is permanent.
Tim Burton on August 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Blackface was creepy. Is that how they did Beowulf?
Geronimo on August 20, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Yeah, but can you fool somebody into thinking it’s a real person? That uncanny valley thing dominigan mentioned. They’re still not there yet, but they’re obviously getting closer.
Jim Treacher on August 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Speaking of which, don’t you owe us some wedding pictures?
RushBaby on August 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM
It just occurred to me: Have you guys seen the CGI Beowulf? It was all motion capture and facial mapping and all that stuff, and it was an impressive achievement. But to me the character that looked the most realistic was… Grendel! He was the least human-like, which made his human movements and facial expressions all the more convincing. To me, anyway.
Don’t even get me started on Polar Express… [shudder]
Jim Treacher on August 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Her elbows are too sharp.
pedestrian on August 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM
You need to follow the link to the TimesOnline example video– it shows more of the process. Honestly, on my craptastic monitor, I did not know this was not live action… I kept waiting for the robot to appear.
leftnomore on August 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM
they’re getting better, but there’s still something about the teeth and the corners of the mouth that aren’t quite right (there were similar problems in that last animated whats-its-thing)
urbancenturion on August 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM
What none of you realize is that all the Chinese athletes are actually CGI.
TexasDan on August 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Eyes. Mouth. Those will take 10 years or more to get across the vast chasm which is the zombie effect, i.e. so close to real that it looks like a creepy dead thing.
Humans are exquisitely designed to recognize faces, specifically human faces. If it’s not human, if you can’t look in the eye and see a soul there, we’ll reject it. There’s a reason why Pixar spends years perfecting photo-realistic background animations so they can put cartoon humans in front of them. You either allow the human to inject a soul into an animated character through anthropomorphization or you give him a human with a soul; don’t try to split that difference.
spmat on August 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM
CG/Cartoon movies are still using real actors for it. But like you can take a dumpy actor and makem look the hawtness. Playboy’s been doing this for years.
- The Cat
P.S. Will make it so much easier to frame someone.
MirCat on August 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Two words: uncanny valley.
Ortzinator on August 21, 2008 at 12:52 AM
No offense AP, but it’s actually the lack of imperfections that give it away as fake. :o)
Right Tracker on August 21, 2008 at 12:52 AM
The real benefit is for video games. Rigging a character and then manipulating that character in a real-time interactive environment.
hisfrogness on August 21, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Once the technology to create lifelike, uh, females, moves into the price range of home computers…. just imagine.
Halley on August 21, 2008 at 2:58 AM
With the reaction of some of contributors here, I think eHarmony could use Emilys for matches.
saved on August 21, 2008 at 3:28 AM
Will it move to France in JMAC is elected?
soundingboard on August 21, 2008 at 4:55 AM
It won’t be too much longer before computer generated voices are indistinguishable from real ones.
MarkTheGreat on August 21, 2008 at 6:56 AM
The best part is thinking that soon no one will need George Clooney.
drjohn on August 21, 2008 at 7:59 AM
I miss Max Headroom.
Pcoop on August 21, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Whoever re-did her eye makeup needs a new job. She looks like she has consumption.
Tanya on August 21, 2008 at 8:08 AM
eyes and mouth need some work.. but overall, very good job..
Liked the ‘Westworld’ reference..
DaveC on August 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Do it Conan O’Brian-style, simple green-screenning of a head shot of the actor and somebody else’s mouth moving. Cheesey but cheap.
GeneSmith on August 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Like Jim and Allah said, it isn’t just to recreate a person, which is what they showed at the end of the clip.
Even still though, if all they do is recreate her and use the recreation instead of her, then they don’t have to pay her for acting and only for her voice.
Esthier on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I am waiting for the DUKE to come back
HotAirExpert on August 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I don’t get it.
Akzed on August 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Have a look at zbrush, check out the gallery. enjoy
http://www.pixologic.com/home.php
Chakra Hammer on August 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Animation has come a long way in the last 30 years.
Who knows how far it will go in the next 30 years.
I believe that in 30 years, it will be possible for top end animation software to create people and voices that are indistinguishable from the real thing. 10 years after that, home hobbiests will be doing it.
The era of the Hollywood star is rapidly coming to a close.
MarkTheGreat on August 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM
So, Allah, when did you read Kurzweil’s book? =)
linlithgow on August 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Whoa…..now I need to know how much time and effort went into making that.
Very impressive.
LimeyGeek on August 21, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I remember how disappointed I was at the time to discover that Max was just Matt Frewer in rubber makeup, not a real digital construct.
tbrosz on August 21, 2008 at 4:57 PM
By the way, the real technology advance here is that, according to the film, this was apparently done without any markers pasted on the actress, which is an amazing improvement over how it’s been done in movies to date.
If you look at the digital actors in movies like “Lord of the Rings” or “Pirates of the Caribbean,” they are pasted with markers all over their faces and bodies.
tbrosz on August 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM