Slashdot Mirror
Digital Mouths, Synthetic Faces at MIT and Lucasfilm
jfengel writes "Two separate articles about generating faces automatically. From the Boston Globe, there is a story about MIT scientists putting words into somebody's mouth by splicing together footage. In the samples, I couldn't tell the difference between the synthetic footage and the same person really saying the same thing. (Though it's a little hard to tell at only 81kbps video). And Wired as a lengthy article about generating purely synthetic faces at Lucasfilm. It discusses some of the difficulties in getting it right."
I feel even more violated about this that I do about face recognition.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
boy, gives a whole new meaning to putting words in someone else's mouth...
Isn't this similar to what was done in Final Fantasy - The Movie?
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Sounds difficult. I guess it's a bit like Photoshopping video, rather than a still image. Kudos!
This is some really scary shit. Just think of the possibilities. Like my girlfriend asking for a threeway... hard to resist the temptations possible with this sort of technology isnt it? Maybe it should be banned, limited, etc. But, in order to do that, people would have to know about and care... oh, nevermind. we know we're the only ones that care about these really scary technologies. thats why the internet went bad, only us geeks know the dangers in this sort of thing, and who listens to us?
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
First client... SNL
I've been waiting for the ability to put together new movies by stars long since dead, possibly stars who weren't even contemporaries. I'm sure it will soon be possible, and this looks like they're heading in the right direction.
The biggest hurdle I can see isn't technological, it'll be legal. Who really owns the rights to use the films made by famous people? It might be interesting to see just which ??AA lays claim to it first.
Lemon curry?
Using Poser, I found natural body movements fairly hard to create. the main difficulties I can see in getting facial expressions correct are simple: They have to be 'real'. Because everyone's face is different, the most accurate way to do faces is to'sample' a real face. Purely computer generated faces are not hard. The hard things are the TRANSITIONS between the expressions. These are extremely hard. Just ask the disney artists who did snow white. Moving from story-board to story-board is the hardest part. Computers have done a lot to help the transition problem. But sampling a real face is the best way to get things accurate so far.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
People seem to be alarmed that this will be used for malicious purposes, but the truth is in order for this to be indistinguishable from real life the "victim" will have to go through a complex semi-3D imaging process using all the possible range of motions of facial muscles. This could hardly be done discretely, at least with todays technology.
Patching together old footage of someone speaking and changing it into the desired context may work for lower resolutions, but at higher resolutions even sophisticated effects design firms can't do it effectively- think about those cheezy ads for dog food where the puppy dances around.
this is great. Maybe the lip-syncing in Britney Spears' videos won't be so obvious.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
This about somes it up for me....
Although imagining Ted Kopel speaking in spanish is a riot.
I remember being in europe some place, listening to the BBC for ten minutes on a shortwave radio, desperately trying to understand what the guy was saying through all of the static. It then occurred to me that the announcer was speaking in spanish in a really thick and proper british accent. The accent was so strong it threw me off, between the static, and everything.
So I wonder if Koppel would even be understanding.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Read my lips: Strategerie means no new taxes. P-o-t-a-t-o-e.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
No new taxes! Har!
SEE! R. Kelly was right. They really did fake those flicks of me and the shorties.
(;->)
;)
henrik wann jensen is developing some of the most usable algorithms for skin and other translucent materials. He gave a talk last month at Cal as a prospective faculty member. It was fairly impressive.
his home page
rendering skin
rendering smoke
replace 'berserkeley' with 'berkeley' to respond via email.
haven't you all seen the maulibu stacy simpsons episode?...
"Hello Smithers, You're Quite Good At Turning Me On."
sig - .
Perhaps this will lead to greater adoption of digital signing?
Not sure whether the President's speech is real or fake? Just see if he signed the authorised transmissions with his PGP key.
I've said it before. Real must be destroyed. Please stop using this offensive and anti-consumer product. Run away!!
..the US government has aquired even MORE video tapes from "unknown sources" of Osama bin Laden admitting to the 9-11 tragedy.
I work with 3D design, and can certainly attest to the difficulty in mimicking people. The huge numbers of muscles and tiny details of morphology that make up a human face is a tremendously important part of making realism. However, ultimately a surface is needed, as it is, in the end, the light that is reflected back to our eyes. How real the surface looks is a required part of the equation, and some of the new advancements being made in rendering are quite exciting to me. For instance, many older raytracers only handle how light directly reflects off the surface of a texture. But in reality, things like human skin are not opaque, but are slightly translucent. The light passes into the skin, reflects off things like blood vessels, and exits again. Light also behaves in other interesting ways in certain situations. And some effects are simply dependent on computational power. Radiosity, for instance, can make scenes look much more realistic, but is too cycle-hungry to be used all the time in full-screen video. Being able to set these sorts of properties without having to program complex custom render modules for each movie will go a long way towards making artificial people more common.
we'll soon see a video of Dan Rather singing Rocked by Rape?
The shareholder is always right.
I don't think I'm special in this respect, but I didn't find the example clips that were given too hard to discern.
Look for enunciation of certain latters such as P and M, and you should be able to tell the difference. The generated image gives a sense of moving the mouth but not enunciating the words clearly. Almost as if she is gliding over the words. With the real movie, however, you can see the woman completely changing her mouth formation to form the sounds required to pronounce the words.
Another, more benign use of the tech could be in entertainment. There was that episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where they integrated the actors in with footage from the classic ep, Trouble With Tribbles. Great fun, but they were limited to using footage that exisited from the original series for intereacting with Kirk, Spock et al. Imagine being able to track Shatner's 60's face onto an actor and use this tech to lipsync 21st century Shatner's dialog. Best. Time Travel. Episode. Ever.
And I don't even like Trek that much :-)
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Thousands of slashdotters now can have a video of brittney spears going down on them..
Impress your friends!
Speaking of Trek, there was a fairly recent episode of Enterprise where some odd aliens used spliced images of the captain to send a threatening message, because, I guess, they could not speak human themselves. (I don't even think they had mouths.)
It was kind of a freaky affect.
Table-ized A.I.
Now Lucas can add even more annoying cgi characters to the Star Wars franchise! Plus MIT can splice together scenes to make hilarious new edits, like Luke joining Vader and ruling the galaxy as father and son!
how ppl, governments, and corperations could take a video of some like gwb or osama, and "change" the whole meaning of the video.... just think.... yea, troll me, i dont care
Suddenly coherent, and outspoken, George W. Bush, begins to act as a real president, and less like a pet monkey.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
...to learn of this breakthrough. Since the Child Pornography Prevention Act [slashdot.org] has been ruled unconstitutional and over-reaching, virtual oral sex given by computer-generated altar boys is still legal. I know that the Catholic Church has been throwing a lot of money at R&D on this so that priests can find release. Hurrah!
Why does this sig rock so hard?
Clicking on the link in my post will only bring up one slashdot.org article - not two. A shame it is.
Why does this sig rock so hard?
Hah... these MIT gurus think they have originality, huh? Well, I'll have you know that the guys behind South park have mastered the skill of matching voices to moving mouths long ago.
Damn Canadians and their flapping heads... and Saddam Hussein, too!
A new wave of those Elian Gonzalez doing WASSSSUPPPP videos, oh joy!
Remember this?
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Is cheek movement..
though it's getting there.
Scary stuff.
the year is 2095. the reviewer speaks:
...[and they] show a wide range of competence. Some scenes, such as //this//, are nothing short of brilliant. However, I can't agree with those who believe that a large quantity of sublime art was lost. OSc was in its infancy, and the original consensualists tended to be technical personnel with vivid but unsophisticated imaginations. I have seen all 18 remaining snaps of OS-LOTR, and am convinced that nothing of value was lost to the Tolkienist or to the viewing public.
//graph// of the isologs: precipitous in the higher dimensions, almost flat in D1 through D5. Midlands is universally available and is the vehicle through which most young people first meet Tolkien. It is still maintained, although the classic version stabilized in 2072.
....
Let me begin by once again repeating the truism: no video whatsoever can match the scenes as they appear to your imagination during a simple, unaided reading of the three volumes of Tolkien's original text.
With that out of the way, I will say that my own favorite among the video versions is the recent blockbuster edition, followed by the "Midlands" OSc 2072 dist (tuned 2,-1,4,0); and after that, the 2001-2003 movies using the Gibson/Taylor overlay. This review concentrates on videos; I will leave VRs for another day.
There is no need, at this remove, to cite the failings of the Bakshi anime (1978) or Jackson's groundbreaking 2001-2003 live action movie.... However, when WWM re-released the "long" version on tab with a selection of overlays, including Mercer/Tran/Lopez and Gibson/Taylor, the movie was transformed from a mere classic to a paradigm of style. Its effect on a generation resembled the effect of the original books on the "Sixties Era" (roughly 1964-1972). The wildly popular M/T/L overlay, its unearthly beauty toning down the somewhat brutal original video, went straight to the heart of the virals.
At the same time, the first underground OSc version, "OS-LOTR", was in process. Remember that this was before the Hurst case and copyright law was still in the postmillennial phase. Nevertheless, thousands of people participated. By any standard, the first version was pretty primitive. The base disappeared during Hurst. Only 18 snaps survive;
The first legal OSc version ("OurRing") is also available at universities, but is not worth the casual viewer's time. The maintainers provided no guidance. Story elements of an unsavory nature, having nothing to do with the original books, found their way into the base. Tuning was in its infancy: OurRing provides only five settings in each of three dimensions. The project became overlarge, and never gained popularity outside a hobbyist community. It is of historical interest only, as is the short-lived "Bakshi", based on the anime, begun and closed within a year after OurRing.
"Midlands", on the other hand, became a classic within weeks of startup. It derives most of its visual imagery and pacing from the centennial remake, but retains none of the bizarrer elements. A comparison of snaps is extremely revealing. The earliest still archived (two days in) is almost an exact copy of LOTR-100. In one week more, participation skyrocketed by 6000 percent, and the nine-day snap contains none at all of the odd politico-academic coloration. Note the gradients in this
Midlands is far more tunable than OurRing. The original tuner, which is part of the OSc v. 5.4 kernel, allowed for 15 dimensions. Addicts and purists apply the 500-dimension Gordon tuner. I have viewed several allegedly "perfectly" Gordon-tuned versions and could see no difference at all. These decimal-place variations invisible to anyone else fuel quite vitriolic disputes in the hobbyist community.
"Zealand" and "Hildebrandt", Midlands' two nearest competitors, have a much smaller following. Zealand is of course based on the 2003 video. Hildebrandt is experimental; it combines OSc and overlay technologies. There is no dist--as the maintainer states in true twentieth-century fashion, it is intended to be a "work in progress", to be "as dynamic as the events it portrays". This can lead to surprises if you view over a period of days instead of capturing the whole thing at once. Its consos also tend to be outside the standard demo.
Last year's remake is, in my opinion, the best of all. Yes, it condenses the story, but this is not a bad thing, as anyone will agree who has played one of the realtime VRs. Stern's directorial imagination could not possibly be closer to Tolkien's original vision. There is, of course, no truth to the rumor that he is a clone of Tolkien made for the purpose.
I'm sure personalized videos are just around the corner.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
From the Wired Article:
"Of all the things I witness during my reporting, the one that most shakes my faith in the Cusan impossibility of fabricating synthetic souls ex nihilo is Hugo, an 18-second short created by the guys at ILM a few years back.
"Hugo is an entirely synthetic creation - a phantasm of light and algorithm. A wrinkled figure with Spockian ears, heightened cheekbones, and a sunken chin, he gazes off to the side of the camera, stammering, "Me? What do you mean I'm not real? Oh, I see. This is a joke, right? You must be talking about the other one." He then gulps nervously and gives a forced smile."
I HAVE to see that. We want Hugo ILM!
This virtual lip was very obvious in episode two... we just thought they had to use the method because the acting was so horrid. Read some good reviews here.pop1.org
hopefully joe average will be a lot more skeptical of those videos ussama bin laden apparently made
What's ethical about the propaganda system in place now? When the President of the US accidentally says something the President of Russia was supposed to say, then people will begin treating the media with the respect that it deserves, ie. zero.
Afterall, with sufficient CPU power, anybody could make anybody talk about anything!
This will also mean that the court system will then ask for eyewitnesses since videos will not be admissible.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad.
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
Hopefully they'll use this to have convincing (even more convincing!) video of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and others saying funny thing. Now they have a still photo of him, and have like a hole cut out by his mouth with someone elses mouth there. It's funny already, but this would be really interesting.
I can really really see this being used in war. Yes I know, hand it to us humans to take something like this and make it a weapon for war, but anyways...
Imagine Osama broadcasting on Afghani telivision to his troops to surrender to the nearest US platoon. I'm probably overestimating the stupidity of your average afghani al quaida member but chances are, you might get a good number of them to actually buy it, and surrender.
Going even further, we could fake Osama's capture, have him broadcast to the country that america is a nice place and to quit being player haters. Yeah I know this all sounds far fetched but i'm sure the military would already be looking into this.
Whoa, I didn't understand a word of that. Can you explain it to me, it sounds interesting.
Damn no-one writes lyrics like that anymore... not even Mr Bungle it seems. Where the hell are they now?
You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
I wonder when will the courts stop accepting videotaped material as evidence?
They already like doing things like dropping flyers around Afghanistan depicting Osama living it up western style in order to degrade morale.
I mean, this is pretty cool and all, but there's no reason to start worrying if someone's gonna put words in your mouth anytime soon. First they'd need:
1. a few minutes of footage of you saying stuff that has the full range of mouth movements directly into a camera.
2. an audio recording of you actually saying what it is that they want you to say. It's possible to cut and splice seperate recordings together, but 99% of the time, differences in the sound space would make it obvious that the recording was spliced together.
And then after that, all they'd have is a video of you saying the thing and staring like a zombie into the camera.
It's cool in theory, but I think Hollywood has done a lot better job at achieving better results.
Mmm, Gummi Venus De Milo...
c-hack.com |
First, we couldn't believe every thing we heard...
Then, we couldn't believe everything we read...
Now, we can't believe everything we see...
I can't help but wonder what potential uses this could have. "Tonight at nine...Bill Gates admits Linux is superior to what he now refers to as 'Windoze'"
I actually got it right (before looking at the answers, even). :)
What do the synthetic pictures have in common? Well, in both cases the woman moves her lips a bit less (the second) or does slightly less facial expressions (the first one).
With this movie at low-quality post stamp size, I have my doubts regarding a full size TV newsreader. But I guess the technology is still in prototype stages and in a few years, we'll likely have synthetic newsreader indin.. indisti... indistinguishable from the real thing. But still probably far away from the same synthetic person actually performing some action more than talking.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
... This could hardly be done discretely, at least with todays technology...
I don't think it would be that hard to gather data on someone's face, especially if your program was merely plotting facial movements as data - as one side of the face is more or less the same as the other, you can interpolate and mirror one side of the face if that's all you have. So you video tape from a concealed location, and play back that tape, with enhancements, etc, for your "thief" program. Plus, if you really needed a range of facial expressions, you simply set up the person you are "stealing" from:
A very gorgeous woman walks next to a guy ( the mark) and screetches suddenly - he cringes at first, then his face turns to a smile as the woman begins to rapidly utter things like "Oh my God! it's YOU! Do you remember me? It's been so long!" He utters a few words of "maybe" and "I'm not sure" until some big brute comes out and sees "his woman" hanging all over the guy, and roars this I'm-gonna-kill-you roar, at which point the mark cowers in fear for his life, and the brute and the girl just go away...
All of which is recorded on-the-sly. The actors involved don't even need to know why they are doing what they are doing, as long as they do it well - you've got your data, and you secret away back to your nefarious face-stealing lab, to sample this guys facial expressions, and create an image of him doing whatever... And thats only if he's NOT famous. Most famous people these days are all OVER video, thus more sampling material for you.
When I first read this I thought he was joking. As I read further, I realized he was dead serious. Does anyone else find this highly ridiculous? I'm not suggesting that the concept of people having souls is ridiculous; I just think the idea of the presence or absence of one giving away a computer rendering is absurd.
For anyone who feels the same way as the wired author, I propose the following hypothetical question: If some rendering was constructed (that is, produced algorithmically with the help of an artist) that was a truly perfect copy of a view of an actual person (i.e., every photon given off by either was matched), would a viewer be able to visually distinguish the two?
If someone answers "Yes", then this becomes a matter of belief in supernatural powers and will not benefit from further discussion.
If someone answers "No, but any rendering that could actually be created would be distinguishable from the human", I would give the following argument.
First of all, I don't think the rendering of the actual surfaces involved is a point of contention. If believable "bellies or thighs" can be done, then we can adequately render the surfaces of the face as well. The issue is positioning those surfaces to create a convincingly human expression. What if the artists were to take photographs of the actual person and use points of reference on the person's face as control points to position the artificial model? (Of course, they already do this.) As more control points are used the model will become increasingly like the original. The wired author essentially addresses this very point with his analogy of approximating a circle using many-sided polygons:
This concept falls apart when you consider the content of the final phrase (in parentheses (heh-self describing)). While a face can be considered continuous, human vision is just as discreet as computer graphics. We have a finite number of rods and cones in our retina. The number of possible responses of those rods and cones to different intensities of light may be harder to quantify, but it is certainly true that given two light sources of increasingly similar brightness there exists a point at which they will be humanly indistinguishable. A rendering does not have to be actually perfect to be perfect as far as human vision is concerned.
Anyway, my point is that the problem of creating believable computer representations of humans is a matter of engineering. It certainly is a very difficult problem, but I don't think you can reasonably claim it is insurmountable due to a computer's lack of a soul unless your argument is based on something like telepathy.
Wow, did you write that? That was an impressive bit of sci-fi prose. I found it fascinating and believable. I think the 'review' seemed very real to me largely because of the unfamiliar jargon and details interspersed in it. Reminds me of the entire slang language Anthony Burgess made up for A Clockwork Orange.
Where do you think all those vids of Osama came from? If you believe they were actually really made by Osama you're waaay too trusting of the US government. It's just too American to want to get your message across like that. It may make sense to the average American / westerner but not to me.
Do you wonder if there's a soul behind those synthetic faces? There sure is; it's Japanese. The Japanese are the most likely to perfect synthespians. They already got off to a rocky start with Final Fantasy.
All the pieces are in place: their economy is terrible, they take cartoons seriously, and they envy Americans.
A holy grail of Japanese animation is to look and sound exactly like an American live action movie. They could save their economy by replacing Hollywood actors with Tokyo animators. They could make movies their next great export, after cars and electronics. I think Americans won't lead the synthespian wave: We love our actors too much and we have little to gain. The Japanese don't love American actors (economically) and they have everything to gain.
Final Fantasy's failure to profit has scared them, but they're already improving. They're learning how to write and act like Americans from Americans. That's what Square has done with Kingdom Hearts, translated by Disney and starring Haley Joel Osment. And the Metal Gear games, made in Japan and voice acted in USA, also sell well in USA.
So I think the Japanese will do it. They need to.
Seem almost prescient considering what happened in Florida in 2000 :-)
Sheesh, when will you democrats stop whining? It's like losing on penalties. If you can't score one more goal in over two hours of football, then you really can't complain about losing on penalites (even if it was a duff decision). BIG :-)
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
You're assuming I'm an American - hell, I'm not even in the northern hemisphere... :-)
And considering the state of Australia's government, I really shouldn't be making fun of yours :-)
..that's one of the best-written articles I've read anywhere in ages. Top show!
I don't really follow Trek that much, but I *loved* that episode (having for some reason also seen the original Trouble with Tribbles).
I think that only being able to use the original footage was most of the fun: they had to think of clever ways to integrate the dialog, and movements, etc... Just think, if they'd have had free reign, it wouldn't have been nearly as good!
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
Just think of the film possibilities in the future!
:) We could have Brad Pitt as the main bad guy (we all know he's crazy), and Sean Connery as the local sheriff... oh, and then pick any half dozen supermodels/really effing hot chicks for the town whores/barmaids.
:)
When we consider Final Fantasy: The Movie, and contrast it to what should be viable within just 5 years from now, it boggles the mind.
I, for one, would love to see a digital-quality old western film - but with both the Duke and Eastwood, not just one. Oh, and while we're at it, why not have Arnold Swartsenager (spelled wrong, I'm sure) be a henchman. And hell, throw "Han Solo" (Harrison Ford) in there as a local traveling trader, but in some western chaps.
That'd be a really fun movie to watch.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This seems like a natural evolution of what can be done with audio.
Have a listen to this crude but effective splice up of George W. done by Chris Morris.
It sacrifices any attempt at authenticity in favour of humour, but shows the idea well - getting someone to appear to be saying the total opposite of what they meant to say. With video added imagine how much more effective this could be.
Looks like you need RealOne to play these clips...
Why can't people encode video in someone which doesn't require system-hijacking software? Are there any other versions around?
a minor point, but Lucasfilm is a production and licensing company. ILM is a seperate company (yes, owned by George) that treats Star Wars like another project (maybe not like very other project, but you get the gist). They are not on the same campus, and in my experience they don't even work together that closely. Even after ILM's planned move to the Presidio (which consolidates many of Lucas's companies), LucasFilm will be some 40 miles away.
yes, yes, they worked closely for SW, but after SW is done ILM goes on to many other projects and LucasFilm goes back to ordering Yoda jammies.
Great - so what we're saying now is that Bush's malapropisms and obvious discomfort oncamera are sure signs that he's actually a human? Vote for me, I sweat and stammer on camera!
I thought the synthetic woman's delivery was very Gorelike, i.e. too wooden and perfect to be human.
-Styopa
The Digital Animations Group (http://www.digital-animations.com/) have been doing computer generated characters very well for a couple of years. They are responsible for Ananova, the Talking Head and their latest creation the singing and dancing virtual pop star Tmmy (http://www.tmmy.co.uk), which BTW I submitted to slashdot but it was refused.
Sheesh, when will you democrats stop whining?
Only when President-in-exile Gore overthrows the usurper in a bloodless coup.
Not quite....those are the times when the language algorithm craps out. Still haven't fixed that "nukyular" bug either, dammit. Besides, this technology means that they'll be able to edit those verbal gaffes out of the video records just as easily as they already have doen with the text archives.
Didn't they do this already a few years ago with Elian Gonzales, Fidel Castro and Janet Reno?
Read any good sonnets lately?
I guess we don't need to see a documentary on the making of the Osama bin Laden video now, do we?
Personally, I cannot wait until the day when someone takes all of these artificial acting programs, combines them with a quality artifical voice program and then I can make full length movies on my computer with any actor I want and my own plot lines.
:-) As well as some... ahem... interesting ones. ;-)
Man, that would lead to some awesome fan films.
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)
~ kjrose
Thanks! Yeah, I wrote it after I saw the movie a few months ago and wished I could make a few slight changes.
For Martyn S., here's the key--
- Overlays: Computer-generated actors, or sets of actors, replacing the originals.
- Tuners: Some kind of technology that allows you to set the amount of romance, scenery, violence, history, magic, humor, or other features (up to 500 with the Gordon tuner software) to your personal preference. Sort of like adjusting brightness/contrast/colors in an image file, on a conceptual level.
- OSc is "open source creativity." It means that a lot of people modify the "base" video, under control of maintainers. These people are called consensualists or consos.
- Snaps = snapshots of the what the video looks like at one point in time, because with OSc it's changing all the time.
- Virals = nickname for a generation, like "flappers" or "hippies" is to us.
Check the reply to the next message below.
Consider combining the technology for extracting a full 3D model of a head from only a single image with this technology for rendering video sequences of a person with different models.
All of a sudden, audio becomes the only issue. And someone else already said that it's possible with only short clips...
The Clutch Cargo cartoons (?) did that 40 or so years ago... :-)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
The video I saw, you'd be looking at her mouth. And what some guy was sticking in her mouth
8===D ' . ,
Conan O'Brian has been doing this for years.
I've overclocked my brain!!!