"Emily" - Image Metrics Tech Demo
tags:
Stumble ThisThe bane of all animation of humans is the "uncanny valley" which keeps the animation to the human eye from looking realistic. These folks are getting closer...
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
CGI,Face,uncanny valley "Emily" - Image Metrics Tech Demo
Comments  playlists with this video Animato by NicoleBee
who voted for this video youdiejoe
- NicoleBee
- siftbot
x55 - Issykitty
- Stingray
who has this post bookmarked doogle
- NicoleBee
"Emily" - Image Metrics Tech Demo Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 8. lore_weaver
(225 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Of course, that's helped by the facts that:
* This is low res YouTube we're talking about, hides a lot of problems
* They only overlaid a face on top of real video, so all the issues of body movement and realism of other objects was mute. (It helped a lot, as I was looking at the body going, hmm, no, that looks pretty real)
Still, that's some of the damned best mouth movement I've seen on a cg character, mocapped or not.
Although, then when you go back to their full cg characters, you fall back to the same issues there's always been, as on the front page here.
It shows that having as much as possible being real helps an awful lot in selling cg
this article states that everything you see in the video is CG, which is patently false
Very misleading / ambiguous video. What parts of that scene were CG? None except for the few overlays, right? Big deal, at that resolution and without realistic rendering we can't tell how good it is.
I'm pretty sure the whole thing up until they show "the real Emily" is CG.
Very misleading / ambiguous video. What parts of that scene were CG? None except for the few overlays, right? Big deal, at that resolution and without realistic rendering we can't tell how good it is.
Follow this link for a higher rez video:
http://www.awntv.com/videos/image-metrics-emily-project
at this rez you can see the seams of the animation, but still very believable.
We've seen Emily before, and they're getting better at it! http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Uncanny-Valley-is-nearly-here
Yeah, that video is from the front page of the company's website, check it out there for a higher rez
version:
http://www.image-metrics.com/
>> ^rychan:
Very misleading / ambiguous video. What parts of that scene were CG? None except for the few overlays, right? Big deal, at that resolution and without realistic rendering we can't tell how good it is.
I'm pretty sure the whole thing up until they show "the real Emily" is CG.
And what possible reason do you have to say that? I mean, WHY do people insist on saying something that they cannot back up with ANY reason?
The part where they show the face in cg overlay... THAT'S it for what they've done to the video, overlaid a CG face onto her face after using the very video they're sampling from to get the movement. Why would they show that being the only cg part if they did everything? They'd be shouting from the rooftops if it were everything, they'd deconstruct everything in the room if it were really ALL CG.
Plus, the rest of her body etc. LOOKS more real than the face... especially the mouth.
It's still darn impressive.
But again, it shows how much more you can get away with if you surround your cg in reality.
It's quite impressive, but having all the rest being real helps it enormously
Actors will be all about licensing their image instead of actually having to show up.
Once Angelina Jolie's scan hits the black market - a new porn era will begin.
FAAAAAKE!
^ What the heck are you talking about? The whole point is to surprise people that the person they've just seen explaining the technology is actually CGI. Did you think that the CGI demonstration was just the face turning red and black? That would be stupid and pointless.
The demonstration was showing that THE FACE was CG for the whole video.
Geebus.
They are showing that their motion tracking system is really great at FACES.
The rest is REAL.
You want proof? how about this?:
Gah... stop adding to the insane trend of people just making shit up on the internet and presenting it as fact.
"She was giving birth to a ferret during the filming of this video, yeah, true."
That would have been impressive.
It reminds of a video about neurological phenomena, specifically a disorder in which the ability to recognise faces is impaired. Sufferers are incapable of recognising their own mother, but more than that they are often repulsed and distrustful of them because the brain thinks the face it sees is an imposter. (I think sufferers can still recognise faces, but the link pairing facial recognition to memory is damaged, so they see a familiar face, but don't recognise it as their mother.)
Anyway, I suppose our ability to recognise an imposter isn't as bizarre as our repulsion to the imposter. Why have we evolved to be quite so wary of things trying to be human?
"Uncanny Valley" is a consensus theory but not scientifically proven.
Except for the scientific papers that measure and confirm it, you mean?
For instance, http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2007/uncannyCliff/index.html
There's other publications I could point to:
# Hanson, D. (2006). Exploring the Aesthetic Range for Humanoid Robots. Proceedings of the CogSci Workshop Towards social Mechanisms of android science, Stresa.
# MacDorman, K. F. (2006). Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: An exploration of the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Vancouver.
The original paper is "Mori, M. (1970). The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 7, 33-35." by the way, but it doesn't include empirical studies.
Seriously, come on! How can you guys support this sad software-co marketing peddling video?
How can this software be so much better than that which exists already?
This Emily video is crap!
You're welcome.