It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dove Chocolate commercial with CGI generated Audrey Hepburn.

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Is anyone concerned about the level of quality this CGI has achieved? When will actors no longer be necessary to produce anything from movies, commercials, or TV series? Does this make you worried that this further complicates the issue of media manipulation driven by an untrustworthy government? Are you sure you're seeing the president and not a CGI during the state of the union? Can we even be sure something Ukraine is even happening?

I don't think we are there yet, but I would like to ask the members when they think this will be possible, and are they concerned the truth could easily be fabricated in the near future. It's one thing to produce credible Sci-Fi space and ships and inanimate objects, it's quite another to produce believable people. Is the Matrix approaching?

You Tube Commercial Link




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Its very convincing until CGI Audrey blinks.

Facial movement is something we are hard-wired genetically to notice and its almost impossible to fake.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


As far as the CGI, that has been used for many years in the movie industry.
That is how some unfinished films can be finished when an actor has died,
special effects & as well for other reasons.

Cheers
Ektar



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The problem is for a minute of video month of work is required, so for a state of the union address the cgi should be started years in advance.

We are close but not that close, I wonder how it was made,my bet there was an actress completely blue making the movements and them a skin was cgi on top of her.
edit on 24-4-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I think we're very much there,
I was going to insert a still picture but for some reason I am unable to
But here is a link for a cgi video

I think the commercial for the candy wanted us to see it was cgi.

I always thought that the people would be fed untruths by holigrams, but no longer, cgi is more convincing now



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Personally, I loved it. She was such a classy actor (actress?) and enjoyed the idea of it.
I recall a much rougher version in an older commercial years ago using old footage.

I think if cgi actors could get to the level as to be used in movies, it would be incredible.
Imagine John Wayne making a movie along side some modern actor and having him outshine the star?
The possibilities are mind-blowing if you ask me. Visualizing some guy copying someone's every mannerism and inflection into a database that can be called up, fed a script and bang out a part in post production for different movies anytime. With enough of these virtual actors, you could have a library of various talents for anything from commercials and series on tv to big screens.
Wow....



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I could tell it was fake. Our brains just notice if something looks human or not. One day I do fear that it would be easy to fake a surveillance video or fake a crime to make it look like something is occuring. The best thing to do is to question everything you see. At the moment I think we aren't quite there. Most CGI does not include little imperfections such as, dry skin patches, dead leaves, trash..

Even if CGI did have imperfections, there would be some algarhythm to it, and in including imperfections the eye would still notice something is not real or random about it.

CGI looks too "clean an" to me. I don't know. The world just doesn't look gritty enough. There needs to be more dust, wrinkles, hair, imperfections. CGI worlds still don't get the realism of the real dirty gritty world.

Hair needs to be out of place. People aren't always perfectly groomed or shaved. I don't know how to explain it, but the eye knows the real world when it is seen.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I could tell it was fake. Our brains just notice if something looks human or not. One day I do fear that it would be easy to fake a surveillance video or fake a crime to make it look like something is occuring. The best thing to do is to question everything you see. At the moment I think we aren't quite there. Most CGI does not include little imperfections such as, dry skin patches, dead leaves, trash..

Even if CGI did have imperfections, there would be some algarhythm to it, and in including imperfections the eye would still notice something is not real or random about it.

CGI looks too "clean an" to me. I don't know. The world just doesn't look gritty enough. There needs to be more dust, wrinkles, hair, imperfections. CGI worlds still don't get the realism of the real dirty gritty world.

Hair needs to be out of place. People aren't always perfectly groomed or shaved. I don't know how to explain it, but the eye knows the real world when it is seen.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shadow watcher

Agreed I would love to have the Duke back, all of his movies made sense to me. It is impressive what can be done now, but makes me worry what it will be like in 10 years. We could live in a world where false flags in foreign nations are just a matter of programming.

I didn't know they could have a blue person and put the CGI as a layer over the blue person. Amazing



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It's getting better all the time, in places I couldn't tell but a lot of the time it wasn't quite right. You notice the facial motions were really constrained, too.

One day, it'll be "Looker" quality. Probably not that far away either.



They finished up "Gladiator" this way by CGI'ing Oliver Reed's face onto a body double for a few scenes, IIRC.
edit on 24-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

About false flags and stuff, I always liked this movie

Wag the dog



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This is the evil side of advertising (well, most advertising is the evil side of advertising as long as they hustle people into "wanting" something with tricks and psychological brain manipulation). They even used the Moon River song (not Hepburn singing it). Would Audrey Hepburn have wanted this? No way to know, which is why this should never be done. Whoever in her estate ok'ed this should be removed from having anything to do with the estate, imnho.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
It's tacky... someone from her estate is just cashing in on her fame. She's deceased so it's not like she can give any approval to her likeness being used to promote a bar of soap. She might not like Dove soap any more than Sean Connery liked Apple computer. (seriously, Google that for a laugh).



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Sean Connery is still alive, last I know anyway. So if he is in an ad it's probably with his agreement. Or not.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: MarlinGrace

About false flags and stuff, I always liked this movie

Wag the dog


Yes it was an eye opener for me, you just kind of go through life then something like this smacks you in the face.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

If you need the estates approval for something like this and there is a possible cut for using her image, then why do it to begin with? Why not just use a real actress? I thought the whole reason was so you didn't need anything in the way of agreements or approvals.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Great stuff, it will be interesting to see how the relatives of the deceased deal with the rights and business end of things when this gets more popular. I care not Bring on Bogart.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   
You know, for everyone saying how we're not there yet and that they could tell this was a fake.. remember this is just the technology they have released for mainstream use which is probably at least a decade behind what tptb really have at their disposal.

I can't say I'm that comfortable with how the technology is progressing either, it's a little scary when you think about it.. what they have the power to do now, they can pretty much create anything they want to nowadays. When you look at what they're doing with cgi, holographic technologies and the like.. just even the stuff they're using for advertisements and entertainment. We're fast approaching the point where it will be near impossible to distinguish between what's real and what's not.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I can tell you watched the ad


edit on 25-4-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: & read the title, you are a special snowflake



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: jessieg
I could tell it was fake. Our brains just notice if something looks human or not. -- I don't know how to explain it, but the eye knows the real world when it is seen.


its called "the uncanny valley" theres a book called "stop staring!" about it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join