It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Scientists create animated human that bridges the "uncanny valley"

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:20 AM
Hot damn this is cool. I'm studying game design, and this is more inspiration right here. Like many have pointed out...this could get out-of-hand, and what you see will have to be put under much more scrutiny. Ahh...and the UFOs vids are already always considered CG...this won't help at all.

On a side note...I'd do her

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by kleverone

That is a pretty cool vid. There are a few facial expressions that still need workd but for the most part that was very real. Certainly the most realistic computer animation that I have ever seen.

Cool Post.

Really? I used to do animation, I built and rigged human models in Lightwave the same software in a lot of different movies. Now I do just stills like my avatar for fun.

That was seamless I have a trained eye and that was creepy.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:56 AM
Very disturbing! I can see this being used to produce false "confessions" for trials. It could be used for propaganda. Make your political opponent say whatever you want.

On the other hand, if this gets enough publicity, maybe it will finally make the general public stop believing what they see on the boob tube!

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:04 AM
Whoopteedo. Its the chips that do the real work.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:07 AM
Also, this is still crap in my opinion. Watch the eyes. Dead.

If this were in any higher resolution, it would suck.

Create a face with some actual character (an old man) and try pull this crap off. Gollum was far better.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:00 AM
From what I understand, it's just an overlay on the actress' face? What's the point (other than a sinister conspiracy plot)?

Films have tight enough budgets as it is. It seems like an awful lot of time and money for just some fancy makeup effects. I realize that this is just the beginning of what they can do, but, really, I find it hard to believe that even with the Uncanny Valley being bridged, people will accept this in everyday life, no matter what the application.

I see more harm coming from this than good, but the technology might eventually surprise me!

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
put ur stock in that company simple loophole in the economic system

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Gollum was far better.

Uncanny valley effect does not apply to unrealistic or fantasy characters. Humans have never seen a gollum, but they have seen other humans for millions of years and they see them every minute in their lives.
Thats why its hard to achieve a convincing realistic human CG fake. And thats why this is important step.

More details here :

What professionals say ? Obviously they have different eyes.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:51 AM
Gah! her mouth creeps me out. There's still the issue of the eyes though, but this is almost spot on 100%. There's something about human eyes that you can't capture with animation, some say it's the "soul." By some, I mean a few of my friends, not exactly credible sources even if a few of them are trained graphic designers.

This is frightfully close though. Excellent work, but that mouth just creeps me out.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:09 AM
In an effort to find a better audience for this thread, we're going to move it to the Science Forum. Feel free to U2U either myself or any staff member with questions.

Forum Member / Moderator

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:46 AM
I'm a learning 3D artist. I must say I would love to get my hands on this technology

But you know everything is evolving so quick, I'm finding it hard to catch up
all these new programs I have to try and catch up and learn all the time zbrush or animation programs etc for example.

But I must say I'm suspicious, only the face looks not real to me, they got the clothing hands and hair to perfection which makes me think that it might actually be real and the face is the only 3d object?
I'm not THAT impressed because at first I thought the whole thing was animated, but if it's only the face, well good work but not uncanny valley yet.

Check out their website for more video!

This one looks more 3d to me, as you can see this time the hair is obviously 3d. check it out it's funny haha

[edit on 19-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:55 AM
One thing I noticed after watching it a couple of times was that the eyes seemed to lag behind the larger head movements. What I mean is, during the more pronounced head movements it appeared that the "physical" position of the eyes didn't move quite as quickly to where the eye sockets went. Does that make any sense? Anyway, It's barely noticeable, perhaps it's not even there and i am imagining it. I dunno. Also when the eyes changed direction they seemed to move together almost too perfectly.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:56 AM
Well now I've seen it all.
No...I am sure there will be more to come.

Video evidence can now be created to realistically make anyone appear guilty.
Brilliant and terrifying all at once.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Crud... see my avatar... that's my own work...
and right now I am ashamed...

Hey its the best redheaded amazonian choking a scrawny Grey I've ever seen.
Some people work things out through art.

- Lee

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:57 AM
They mentioned the future for videogames.
Perhaps, but to have such quality in real-time rendering (thus, whilst playing) will probably still take a while to achieve. (Because of calculations etc.)

That and the low res makes it easier to seem ''better'', as it becomes harder to distinct all the details on the face.

There's still something on her face that looks fake.

Can't really pinpoint it but it has to do with the skin. It still looks fake, though it's really really subtle.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:05 AM

Originally posted by -0mega-
They mentioned the future for videogames.
Perhaps, but to have such quality in real-time rendering (thus, whilst playing) will probably still take a while to achieve. (Because of calculations etc.)

Yeah they won't be able to get real time rendering to that quality so quick unless we see some huge technological improvment with computers.

But they can still apply it maybe? but with the same old graphics we have now.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:08 AM
Two things grabbed me right away...In the part where she said
What do you think?" the mouth movements did NOT match
the audio at all and although the facial movements generally
looked real, the specular highlighting and rendering on the face was
"Too Perfect" and "Too Smooth", so more crows feet around the eyes
and some tiny skin blemishes and more irregular colour ramps
on the cheeks would have put her over the edge into ultra-realism.

I also suggest using a bump map to "frizz up" her hair more
so it doesn't look too rendered with specular highlights...
Ironically I do know the hair PROBABLY WAS REAL but the lighting
in the scene made the hair LOOK ARTIFICIAL.

More irregular edges on the lighting diffusion and more small gouges,
bumps and imperfections that have tiny shadows that move about
on the wall behind the actress (induced by "Faked Camera Shake")
would also "Sell" the animation more.

In modern film-making, actors eyes are highlighted by shining
"Spotties" (small lights) into the eyes so that light is reflected
back out from the iris and retina...the effect created is similar
to using a star-point lens filter that is pointed at a bright light
where streaks of light eminate from the point light source
in a usually 5 point star-like pattern.

Thus I suggest the eyes have a moving shimmer effect that
emulates the wetness of the white-parts of the eye surface
and then a moving or rotating tiny star-like pattern overlaid
onto the pupils and iris that emulates light being reflected out
of the inner eye from a point spotlight source. This would make
the eyes seem more realistic and life-like.

The corners of the mouth need more cracks and wrinkles
as the lips close and open and the lips should slightly purse
as certain vowel sounds are made and the front part of the
lower lip should very slightly protrude outwards just a
smidgen more than the upper lip to make mouth movements
more natural looking. There should be a slightly moving dimple
on the middle of the chin that moves and wrinkles in time
to the movement of the lips. One corner of the mouth
should also be slightly more indented or have larger crows feet
than the other to give more asymmetry in lower facial features
so the mouth and chin doesn't look too perfect.

The hair also doesn't flick around enough...truly NATURAL
hair that hasn't been stiffened by hairspray moves, waves about
and bounces slightly during head movements. Again knowing that
the animated face was painted onto a real actor, the unmoving
overly stiff hair made the CGI look "More Fake".

Another issue during film-making, is when gaffers (lighting people)
fill the background with spot or diffuse light that causes a slight glow
around the outside edges of people which causes the foreground and
background to "Separate Out". Emulating this moving, shimmery,
irregularly edged glow would also "Sell" the CGI into being
more realistic looking.

On top of that, in order to make the VIDEO look even more
"Real", put ground-bars that roll from top to bottom in a regularly
timed manner. Ground bars are a 50hz/60hz electrical
disturbance that shows up as very slightly darkened horizontal
lines about 3 to 20 pixels wide, separated by an inch or two
that slide from top to bottom of a TV screen which is caused
by a video connection that hasn't been properly isolated from
other electrical sources. The modern human eye is so used to
seeing ground bars in improperly isolated video connections,
that it is one of the factors that the human visual system
uses to measure "Realness" in a video. Even expensive
DV cameras get ground bars because of radio frequency
interference or improperly grounded AV connectors.
So put in those barely visible ground bars...

After about 2000+ hours of 2D and 3D computer animation,
I think I can make a professional opinion as to
how and why moving images look real or not!

I hope this critical look helps the 2D and 3D animators out there....


Henry Eckstein
aka StargateSG7

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:09 AM

Here's a different longer video of it. Check it out.

Remember in my opinion only her face is 3d, the rest is real.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Yeah they won't be able to get real time rendering to that quality so quick unless we see some huge technological improvment with computers.

But they can still apply it maybe? but with the same old graphics we have now.

The ''pre-game'' advertisements in Metal Gear Solid 4 already take a step in the right direction.

Though if I remember correctly there it was the other way around
, real actors and fake environment.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Nice to see a fellow 3d artist

Good points there.

I disagree with the hair thou, that's what instantly gave it away to me, that the hair was so real, but the face lacked many important features that a natural real woman has.

The hair was stiff because of the hair style she has.

But I do understand what your saying thou, it's the art of making things look real, so even the real hair can be improved haha.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Crud... see my avatar... that's my own work...

and right now I am ashamed...

lol, but i'm not working with proprietary software...

This is amazing inspiration from me at a time where I need to go an extra mile in my career... Kudos... great Post

Ah I see it's you that made that avatar. Nice work. I love the idea.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in