Slashdot Mirror


Virtual Stuntmen Ready for Hollywood

Kerhop writes "Discovery Channel has an article about a new form of virtual actors in movies. In particular "Endorphin's virtual actors learn how to move and react independently, unlike most computerized characters now that depend on fixed databases containing animated clips". MSNBC also is featuring a news video (no direct link is available, stream must to be added to playlist). The featured software Endorphin is created by Natural Motion."

120 comments

  1. Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we get to hear the people in Hollywood complain about having their jobs outsourced to computers.

    1. Re:Oh great by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could be worse - they could have followed the tech industry model and outsourced everything to India.

      "Coming this summer to a theater near you, 'Mission Impossible 3' starring Tom Cruise!! (as portrayed by Amitabh Bachchan). Costarring Star Wars' Jake Lloyd! (as portrayed by a bowl of warm curry.)"

    2. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im tired of hearing people complain all the time about "outsourcing" as if it were some great evil plot against all those poor people who are "losing their jobs to offshore cheaper labor"

      personally i think "outsourcing" is GREAT. If somebody is willing to do your job for half the pay, then you were probably getting over paid anyway.

      If you dont agree with it, dont buy stuff made in other countries, and dont work for companies who outsource. vote with your dollar. and stfu.

      now watch as my arguement gets modded _way_ down not because its actually trolling but because it contrasts with the cookie cutter / robotic and sheeplike mentality that is the slashdot mob

      god i hate greedy bastards.

    3. Re:Oh great by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      personally i think "outsourcing" is GREAT. If somebody is willing to do your job for half the pay, then you were probably getting over paid anyway.

      Fuck you, man! Their cost of living is also lower. Indian programmers often have maids. I cannot control my cost of living. Plus, bidding low does not increase one's chances of getting a job here. I have tried that. It is such an uneven playing field that the ball automatically rolls into their goal. It is like being sentenced to unemployment simply because you are born in American. If it is a choice between programming and living in India or working as a greeter at Walmart and living in the US, I would chose the first. But, I don't have that choice simply because I was born here.

      Plus, India does not have to be a parasite of the US to lift itself out of poverty. Why does everyone think that being a US corporate parasite is the only way out of poverty for those countries?

    4. Re:Oh great by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Now we get to hear the people in Hollywood complain about having their jobs outsourced to computers.

      Animators have been plagued by both computerization and offshoring for the last 2 decades. It is true that most of the "creative" side is still done by humans, but the rest has been ravaged. But, it has also affected the creative side because those on the less creative side (assignment-wise) tried to shift their career up toward the creative side also, creating a general glut in anything remotely resembling animation.

    5. Re:Oh great by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If people can work for less and enjoy a lower cost of living, then isn't your cost of living a bit too high? Lose the SUV, lose the big family home, lose the regular eating out

      I don't do any of those. I am not the one voting for Cheaper Walmart Trinkets At Any Cost. That is not me.

    6. Re:Oh great by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Is this this the Blender3D 3.0 that I've read about?

  2. Next we need...... by LordPhantom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Virtual porn stars!!!

    1. Re:Next we need...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little secret for ya... porn stars have been fake for about the past two decades.

    2. Re:Next we need...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but we're that much closer to being able to direct our own virtual porn movies.

      The possibilities are endless...

    3. Re:Next we need...... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I don't know about replacing the porn stars with computer generated ones, but I think we should be asking the more important question:

      With so much silicon inside, how many frames per minute can those boobs render.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Next we need...... by nolife · · Score: 1

      Funny yes but I belive there was actual provisions in a recent law that made it illegal to even simulate certain types of sex acts and pornography created or modified with computers. Meaning you can not even use photoshop to paste the face of a 13 year old on a 18+ year old person or use computer rendering to simulate a 16 year old showing something. In theory, child pornography is illegal because of the age of the person and exploitation of people not legally old enough to make their own decisions which is the actual crime. With computer animation, modeling, fabrication, no real minors are injured or exploited but the resulting session can still be considered illegal. One of two reason come to mind. It would be too easy for a real criminal exploiting real minors to claim it was done with computers, or the government is really trying to provide moral guidance or laws by making such creations illegal. Sooo.. Make sure all of your virtual actors are older then 18!

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    5. Re:Next we need...... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      Actually the law you speak of was struck down by the courts. However, most people don't realize that current obscenity laws are extremly commonlplace and most of them would almost certainly make porn films with, say, fake 5-year-olds very illegal.

      Why? Because the supreme court has determined that "community standards" prevail in obscenity trials. I think you'd have an extremely difficult time convincing any jury, anywhere that a portrayal of 5-year-olds haveing sex, fake as it may be, is not obscene.

      People have been found guilty (recently) of obscenity for selling comic books depicting acts that the community judged to be obscene. If a comic is illegal under current law, then almost certainly a realistic computer portrayal of child porn has no chance of being legal.

      BTW, the preceding is meant to be informative, not to place a moral value. That said, I need to point out that I engage in a virtual murder (via video games) and watch others engage in pretend murder (via movies) on a very regular basis. I find it quite interesting that the law makes no attempt to regulate Freddy Kruger as obscenity, but has no problem arresting people for selling just as fake depictions of rape. My personal opinion is that, as long as they're both fake, deplorable depictions of rape are moraly equivelent to deporable depictions of murder and should be judged so by the courts.

      TW

  3. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So now we have to teach our virtual stuntmen how to act, instead of just telling them what to do? ?_?

    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will Ben Affleck do?!?

  4. Ain't this a bit OLD? by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dated: June 26, 2003
    and from the article "...will make their debut next year in the film "Troy,"..."

    Frist psot?

    --
    ^_^
    1. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by Psykus · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not news, it's Slashdot!

    2. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by captnitro · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've also heard about this new site that plans to post links to "News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters". I can't wait until it goes live!

    3. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've also heard about this new site that plans to post links to "News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters". I can't wait until it goes live!

      Sounds almost like slashdot, except for the "matters" part.

    4. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the article was still rendering until yesterday.

    5. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by abandonment · · Score: 1

      all it does is add a bit of AI on top of a standard physics engine - and yes it is very old. they had a video demo up in 2003 after Siggraph

      http://www.pureanarchy.net/?page=NM_Siggraph03_S ho w_Reel.mpg&videosection=/Games/TechDemoVidz

      And, as some of you can read - the movie troy has been out for a while ;}

      the video is really hilarious though, they just throw these cg-stuntment around, so funny...

    6. Re:Ain't this a bit OLD? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Heh, couple of things from slashdot on that day...

      Yahoo Will Use Google Instead Of Inktomi

      and

      GPL To Be Tested In Court?

      and also

      Microsoft Releases C# Language Reference

      Those of you that remember these articles really should get out more ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  5. Article from 2003?!?! by ceenvee703 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I started reading the Discovery Channel article and saw they'd make their debut "next year in the film 'Troy.'" And I thought, hey, they just made a movie about Troy, they're going to make another one? Then I saw the June 26, 2003 date of the article. Slow news day I guess.

    --
    "This? I can make a hat, I can make a brooch, I can make a pterodactyl..."
  6. Adding a "learning" process.... by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

    ....seems to be a good idea. And I'm quite sure that it'll be interesting to see what movies take advantage of this new technology....as well as which actors, just to be macho, will still do all their own stunts.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:Adding a "learning" process.... by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are advantages to doing your own stunts. At least today the virtual actors are shown only from a distance, since facial features still don't quite look real enough (though even before Troy there were some lovely examples in Lord of the Rings. Those were keyframed rather than virtual actors.)

      Being able to focus up-close on an actor doing a stunt gives a verisimilitude that the audience really appreciates; they believe that the character is in danger. But they can also detect the jump-cuts that usually surround a stunt (since a stunt is shot on its own, with lots of preparation beforehand, and the camera is immediately stopped so that everybody can be checked out.)

      So when they're ready to seamlessly slip a virtual actor into the frame, then back to the human actor at the end, and make it look like a single shot, you'll really be thrilled. You will believe Brad Pitt can kick ass. (I once played Achilles myself and I loved Brad Pitt's work.)

    2. Re:Adding a "learning" process.... by fizban · · Score: 1

      Although it wasn't with a virtual actor, they actually did something similar in Jurassic Park towards the end of the movie, when the girl falls through the ceiling panel. The stunt was done by a stunt-woman, and then they digitally replaced her face with the actress' when she looks up toward the camera while hanging above the velociraptors.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    3. Re:Adding a "learning" process.... by malducin · · Score: 1

      Actually Jurassci Park does have another better example than the face replacement. The shot where the lawyer guy in the bathroom stall gets chomped by the T-Rex. You only see him from the back as a midshot so it was a perfect candidate for an early CG stuntdouble.

    4. Re:Adding a "learning" process.... by roedb · · Score: 1

      In the real world of movie making this programs possible uses are extremely limited. As a simulator this is a great piece of work and hats off to all involved. But until they create a simulation that can conform to the average inane request by hollywood directors these days, we won't see very much of it in actual production use. It could be handy for crowd sims and the likes. Also, some have referred to this as Virtual acting. This is purely a dynamic simulation of how the body reacts in the real world. Virtual acting it is not! When is the last time you saw real world anything in an action movie? The reason CG is slowly replacing the real stuntman (aside from safety issues) is because the directors want more than real world physics! I see this having a much better application for things like Car crash simulators for motor manufacturers and such where real world physics actually matter.

    5. Re:Adding a "learning" process.... by therealbev · · Score: 1

      "...And I'm quite sure that it'll be interesting to see what movies take advantage of this new technology....as well as which actors, just to be macho, will still do all their own stunts."

      Anybody remember Lee Marvin as Battling Maxo?

  7. Just now!!! by hey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I assumed many "stunts" were done my CG!
    How about the burning Terminator emerging from
    the fire in Terminator 2?

    1. Re:Just now!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many "stunts" are actually compositing and involve both real actors and real fire, just not in the same frame. Compositing can actually be done with classic film techniques, and does not require CG, though CG has become cheaper for most of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Just now!!! by malducin · · Score: 1

      Not really a stunt since what emerges is a CG character, not something trying to pass for a real human. SOme early examples were on Executive Decission and Jurassic Park.

  8. They'll still need fixed databases... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...to reproduce the robotic movements of the virtual Stallone and Bronson.

  9. As a Gamer..... by Kazrath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forget movies...this would/could revolutionize gaming. Could you imagine actual thinking/reacting NPC characters that are not just set to a script. And if literally you can get fluid muscle movements... the graphics could be amazing. Okay, I'm done fantasizing. Regardless of how many times I see new "Revolutionary" technology it never seizes to amaze me.

    1. Re:As a Gamer..... by psetzer · · Score: 1

      This needs to be combined with better ragdoll physics, so when I'm playing Chaos Unreal Tournament Evolution, I can really whack people with the warhammer. There's nothing better than flying corpses.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
  10. Is this really news by mailman-zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    June 26, 2003
    The world's first virtual stuntmen, born out of an Oxford University zoologist's research into human motion, will make their debut next year in the film "Troy," according to a press release issued this week by the university.


    I thought this site was supposed to be News for nerds. This story is over a year old.

    --
    Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    1. Re:Is this really news by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      >>June 26, 2003
      >>The world's first virtual stuntmen ...

      >I thought this site was supposed to be News for nerds. This story is over a year old.

      It was news to me. Does that mean I'm not a nerd? Or maybe it just means that I don't read University press releases.

    2. Re:Is this really news by GreenPenInc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Olds for nerds. Stuff that mattered.

    3. Re:Is this really news by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Olds for nerds. Stuff that mattered.

      Stop picking on GM cars. They last.

    4. Re:Is this really news by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      ..."News" is "North east west south" not "New stuff.." :P

  11. I forsee the return of... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    Celebrity Deathmatch

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:I forsee the return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer my celiberties live (or at least starting that way) for a Deathmatch.

  12. Manny the Virtual Stuntman... by GreenPenInc · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... he'll come on at the start of every movie, and tell the kids to quit downloading his code!

  13. Slashdots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Olds for Amnesiacs. Stuff that mattered.

  14. Toy Story by Ced_Ex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did Buzz Lightyear do his own stunts, or did he have a stunt double?

    --
    Live forever, or die trying.
  15. Did ANYBODY Know About This? by ColdZero · · Score: 0

    OMG OMG THIS ISN"T NEWS ITS A YEAR OLD.

    Did the vast majority of Slashdot hear about this already. This is the first I've seen it, so its news to me.

    Dupes are one thing, but if the article has never been posted and most people don't know about it...whats the big deal?

  16. A much simpler solution by elid · · Score: 4, Funny
  17. Running Man... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the scene near the end of The Running man. The lame movie, not the awesome Steven King novel.

  18. In other "news" by ValuJet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple is rumored to be developing a portable MP3 player that has a hard drive, leaked sorces say it's name will be the 'I-Pod'

    1. Re:In other "news" by UFOGoldorak · · Score: 1

      Will never take off. Apple is dead. iPod will be a bust.

  19. Union? by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Outsourced actors......well, the next logical step would be to somehow figure out a way to force them to belong to the screen actors guild (union), before the are allowed to "act"

  20. I'm still waiting for virtual actors. by dickeya · · Score: 0

    You could taking a new attractive star and keep them that way for eternity. You could fill a database with movements and speech from the person, pay them a hefty royalty up front, and put them in whatever movie you want. They'll never get old, at least age wise. This kind of service probably won't fly with the actor's guild. Another lawsuit for the pile.

  21. cease v. seize by mailman-zero · · Score: 2, Informative
    cease
    1. To put an end to; discontinue.

    seize
    1. To grasp suddenly and forcibly; take or grab: seize a sword.
      1. To grasp with the mind; apprehend: seize an idea and develop it to the fullest extent.
      2. To possess oneself of (something): seize an opportunity.
      1. To have a sudden overwhelming effect on: a heinous crime that seized the minds and emotions of the populace.
      2. To overwhelm physically: a person who was seized with a terminal disease.
    2. To take into custody; capture.
    3. To take quick and forcible possession of; confiscate: seize a cache of illegal drugs.
    4. also seise
      1. To put (one) into possession of something.
      2. To vest ownership of a feudal property in.
    5. Nautical. To bind (a rope) to another, or to a spar, with turns of small line.
    --
    Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    1. Re:cease v. seize by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      Yea well if you didn't notice I said I am a gamer. Never once indicated I was an English major or that English was my first language. People like you sicken me. You cannot post anything constructive. And your pathetic attempts at "Putting somone down" are sad compared to even the standard "Schoolyard bully"

    2. Re:cease v. seize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech includes the freedom to point out when someone else is factually wrong. In the case of "seizes", you were wrong. The poster chose a very gracious and noncritical method of pointing it out to you. Now this is the part where you say, "oh, it should be 'cease' and not 'seize', thank you," and then you shut the hell up.

    3. Re:cease v. seize by Joe+Random · · Score: 1

      Never once indicated ... that English was my first language.

      If English isn't your native language, then I would think that you would like being corrected when you use the wrong word, since it is an opportunity to improve your language skills and learn new vocabulary.

    4. Re:cease v. seize by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      He was being constructive. He attempted to correct an error in your writing.

  22. Yeah right. by cjpez · · Score: 2, Insightful
    May added, "In future there won't be many movies without digital doubles, and those movies without them will seem boring by comparison."
    I know that *I'm* always excited when I know that it's just some videogame onscreen. I'd love to see him explain how CG stuntmen would enhance a Jackie Chan flick somehow. It certainly didn't work for the Matrix sequels. Or practically any action flick I've seen since CG started becoming popular.
  23. Physics and gravity. by eggegg · · Score: 1

    At least there will be less of the "actor hanging from wires in front of a blue screen" inaccurate physics and gravity simulations.

    1. Re:Physics and gravity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it'll all be "This looked kewl in an old anime" inaccurate physics and gravity simulations.

      Because there's nothing I want to see more than apparently massless film characters who look like they're moving underwater.

  24. Massive look-a-like? by xnot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What relation does this technology have to the Weta Digital's Massive program, which was used to create the characters for the war scenes in the Lord of the Rings movies? That program used sub-elements called Agents which could be tailored to give you certain randomated AI actions for characters. (Check the LOTR DVDs or google for Weta Massive for more info... I don't want to slashdot anyone in particular ;-) )

    1. Re:Massive look-a-like? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Most people don't tend to read the comments on news postings, and even fewer click links that people post in comments.

      There's not a big risk of a /.'ing from the comments.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Massive look-a-like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a lot of relation. Endorphine is a "virtual ragdoll". It means that if you pick up the character and throw it into a wall, it will bounce and move in a realistic way. They have even perfected their software and now you can even detach members from the ragdoll.

      Here's a review made by profesionals.

      Endorphin characters can have certain behaviours, but it cannot match Massive's crowd controls. What I would see possible, however, is to atach animations generated with endorphin to individuals from that crowd. (BTW, Alias/Softimage also has a software similar to Massive, called Behaviour.)

      You can also do ragdoll type animations with reactor in 3dsmax and you might be able to reconstruct the ragdoll contraints using RBD systems in any other highend 3d software that has them (Maya, XSI, etc) (real body dynamics)

    3. Re:Massive look-a-like? by Relyx · · Score: 1
      The techniques behind Endorphin could indeed be incorporated into a crowd simulation system such as Massive. But it should be stressed that Endorphin draws from a field of research established by many people across the world.

      There already exists a sizable body of work on mixing artificial life with rigid body dynamics. Even back in 1994, people like Karl Sims were evolving their own rigid body creatures

      You also want to check out Craig Reynolds (who also did lots of work on flocking)

      One of the toughest challenges Natural Motion face is integrating their software in existing VFX pipelines. Many Slashdotters will already know that Linux is the OS of choice in the world of cutting edge visual effects. One issue is that Endorphin is Windows only, meaning an additional box must be placed under the operator's desk.

      A more serious problem is that you cannot create your own virtual stuntmen - you have to rely on the skeletons, physiques and behaviors they supply (you cannot evolve or construct your own.) When Endorphin was first released, you needed a seperate piece of software (for example, MotionBuilder)to retarget the motion from Endorphin back onto your own characters. Thankfully though they have now implemented their own "dynamic retargetting" algorithms which smooth the workflow considerably.

      To integrate it into Massive, they would need to expose the Endorphin engine as a set of libraries. However, from what I understand, Endorphin was designed from the ground up to be a stand-alone application. That after all is Natural Motion's business plan. One then wonders how easy it would be to expose an API, considering the software was never meant to be integrated into another package at all.

      In its current form, Endorphin is really good for quickly generating libraries of variations which can then be fed into more traditional motion blending engines. If for example you have a crowd of people who are all falling to the ground, it can be prohibitively expensive to motion-capture enough variations to make it realistic. But with Endorphin, you just perturb the forces applied over and over again. In the end, that's their market - others are free to draw upon the underlying body of research and implement their own systems.

    4. Re:Massive look-a-like? by Number+110 · · Score: 1
      As one anonymous coward has already said, there is not a lot of similarity between the two, though on a superficial level they might look the same.

      Endorphin works by taking either a clip, pose, or preprogrammed behavior and making a virtual actor attempt to complete that action. In attempting to do so it generates a new animation sequence.

      One example that is shown is a virtual actor running along (getting most of its animation from a looped running animation, I believe). A second virtual actor comes up from behind and at a certain frame is instructed to leap and tackle the first actor. The sequennce of animation from that point (actor 2's leap and grab of actor 1, how the two actors fall, etc.) is then generated almost completely by Endorphin. If actor 2 is too far away when he is told to tackle he will completely miss actor 1 and fall on his virtual face. If he is a bit closer he will grab actor 1 about the lower legs to bring him down, if he is closer he will grab him about the waist. If he strikes from a different angle the animations will likewise be changed.

      In short Endorphin creates whole new animations from the events it is given.

      Massive on the other hand is actually quite a different beast. Massive will take a group of virtual actors and decide that at this moment they will attack or dodge or parry or run away or any one of a number of choices. It will then make each of those actors play the appropriate clips. As a quick example Orc A and Orc B are close together and in combat. Massive decides through its mechanisms that Orc A will attack Orc B with a forehand swing and will hit and kill Orc B. Massive then tells Orc A to begin playing its forehand attack animation and Orc B to play its failed dodge animation. At a certain part Orc A plays the animation for a forehand hit and Orc B will begin to play its killed by forehand attack animation.

      Massive never really generates any new animations but instead will use the clips that it has already been given.

      So essentially Endorphin will make a new clip but has to be told what the event is. Massive on the other hand will decide what the event is but uses pregenerated clips. Hope that helps.

  25. The cliche, redefined. by InfinityWpi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow... imagine a whole bunch of these taught to do Beowulf...

  26. i hope it's not all cheesy by LiquidMind · · Score: 1

    i didn't RTFA (i'm at work...i can only waste so much time ya know), but i hope it's not all dopey and video-game looking.

    anyone remember certain fight scenes from blade 2?

    *shudder*

    --
    This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
  27. Endorphin is about the third package for this by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Softimage has what used to be Motion Factory. There are others.

    There are two main approaches to this - the "animation splicing" systems, where canned bits of motion are spliced together by a program, and the "behavior" systems, where control programs are trying to optimize some goal. The first major appearance of a good "splicing" system was the baby 'zillas in Godzilla 2000. That's what most feature films are using today.

    Kinematic motion generation has been around for years, and that's what you see in games. It doesn't look real, but it works well enough for gameplay. The physics isn't realistic. That's why, from across the room, EA Football looks different from NFL football. Those jerky motions really pop out at you, especially when they're alternated with nice motion-captured moves.

    Endorphin isn't as automated as it looks; much manual tweaking of the motion is necessary. Motion Factory has more automation, but it's kinematic. Automatic physically-realistic animation is hard, because you have to solve the robotic control problem. The animation community may yet do this. But they're not there yet.

    (I've done some work on this.)

    1. Re:Endorphin is about the third package for this by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Godzilla 2000 had no baby Godzillas in it. Godzilla 2000 was all "suit-imation" as far as I'm aware with a good amount of CGI for the UFO and the first metallic alien creature.

      You're probably thinking of Sony's horrible "Godzilla" movie with Matthew Broderick and those moronic French secret service guys. I always assumed the technology behind that movie was the same as used in Jurassic Park, but now that you mention it there were some shots that had a LOT of the baby 'zillas moving around at the same time that would be hard to accomplish without some sort of motion software.

    2. Re:Endorphin is about the third package for this by Animats · · Score: 1

      Right, it was the Sony version of Godzilla. I met the guys who did the baby 'zillas at the Softimage offices in LA. They hand-animated a standard set of nice-looking moves, and had a probabilistic state machine driving them. Moves were animated so that the tangents matched, and about 5-15 frames were overlapped during the blend, to avoid jerks at the transitions. There's no physical simulation, but the behaviors try to prevent collisions.

    3. Re:Endorphin is about the third package for this by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      But to me it looks like they have (and what they say) is they are using (for now slight) AI (+ kinematics of course) to control the virtual actor. Tough if this isn't just a fad and the development continues (as given the similarities to computer games is so big, that they compliment each other, and the need for background animation for hundreds of animations, they will), the AI might get to be pretty good and the need to tweak the animation minimizes. (Their demos, what with those stick-figures, do look like some game engine test for the rag doll effects

      --
      Store with salt
    4. Re: Endorphin is about the third package for this by gidds · · Score: 1

      Interesting. My uninformed, ignorant approach would be to do tons and tons of motion capture, both real people and dummies &c, but instead of recreating it verbatim, use it to 'train' some software -- maybe neural net-based, or something of that ilk -- and then use that software should be able to create natural-looking movements for just about any situation. Is that at all feasible?

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  28. I thought we were responsible... by hende_jman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't it people who download movies that put people like stuntmen out of jobs?

  29. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/downloads/protected /world_of_warcraft_open_beta_installer_downloader. exe

  30. Acting CG by INetEngineer · · Score: 1

    REAL actors can "act cg". Why have virtual actors when the actors could act virtual? Watch actors acting virtual!

    --
    --I smoked my sig.
  31. Stop complaining about the time by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although the article may be a year old, this news was only aired on the Discovery Channel this week.

  32. Time to counter with a by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...virtual Darwin Award.

  33. Virtual Voices!!! by sciop101 · · Score: 0
    I want virtual voices!

    Entire movies without a single ego!

    "You cannot say NO to me! I will not allow it!"

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  34. Predictions for the future by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Within 10 years, someone will make a full-length, CGI feature film that's indistinguishable from "live, shot on film."

    It may not be cost effective, but the cat will be out of the bag.

    The actor's guilds will moan and groan. Actor's "trademark voices and mannerisms" will become protected intellectual property, with exemptions for spoofs and other "fair use." There will be court fights for awhile.

    You won't see many new film actors after that point.

    Porn will be among the early adopters go "all digital" for hygenic, financial, and other reasons. We'll have a lot of unemployed former porn stars.

    On the plus side, the division between movies and games will blur. As someone else already hinted, games of the future will look "live" rather than animated. Sports games will "star" real NBA players that look as real as they do on TV. Movie-based games will "star" the same characters as in the movies, and will look just as real.

    One potential downside to this technology that must, and will, be worked around:
    Videotapes of crimes will become suspect. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tape was NOT created in a computer, it will be inadmissable in court. You'll see security cameras equipped with "electronic seals" that stand up in court. These seals will say "this is what the camera saw and this is when it saw it."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Predictions for the future by babybird · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong about the porn thing, I think one of the main attractions to porn is that real people are really having sex. It's less about the act than it is about seeing someone actually engaged in the act.

      I think that's why in the last couple of years there's been a new trend in movies to feature unsimulated sex scenes in one form or another (mostly in foreign or indie films, but it's making its way to the states as well now).

      --
      Keith D.
  35. Stair Dismount! by glorf · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article may be old news, but fully reactive software stunt men have been around since 2002. I did hours of "research" on this topic with some really good software.

  36. The eFallGuy by the+darn · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not the kind to kiss and tell, But I've been seen with Farrah
    I've never been with anything less than a nine, so fine.
    I've been on fire with Sally Field, gone fast with a girl named Bo.
    But somehow they just don't end up as mine, so fine.
    It's a death-defying life I lead, I'll take my chances.
    I've died for a living in the movies and tv.
    But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies,
    Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee.
    I might fall from a tall building, I might roll a brand-new car,
    'Cause I'm the unknown stuntman that made Redford such a star.
    I've never spent much time in school, but I've taught ladies plenty.
    It's true I hire my body out for pay, hey hey!
    I've gotten burned over Cheryl Tiegs, blown up over Rachel Welch
    But when I wind up in the hay, it's only hay, hey hey!
    I might jump an open drawbridge, or Tarzan from a vine,
    'Cause I'm the unknown stuntman, that makes Eastwood look so fine

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post.
  37. Great by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So now the backgrounds are virtual, the actors are virtual, the script is formulaic, and the whole thing is financed by funny money.

    Clearly the next step is to make the audience virtual. You send your movie-watching robot to watch the movie for you, and it e-mails you a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down", freeing you to read a book or take a walk. Perhaps this is progress after all.

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    1. Re: Great by gidds · · Score: 1

      An Electric Critic? Mmmm. It'd go nicely with your VCR and Electric Monk.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  38. Hmmm.... by gandell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which isn't much different from directing a Seagal film.

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
  39. Come on lines we don't need..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey there - I love a woman with 64 bits

    1. Re:Come on lines we don't need..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer a woman with just 2 tits. There just isn't room on her chest for 64 tits, unless they all get really small or distended.

  40. idorus by heikkih · · Score: 1

    These guys are so behind the times. Al Pacino created the perfect virtual actress and super-star celebrity *2* years ago, and Rez (of Lo/Rez-fame) married one *7* years ago.

  41. Virtual actors aren't new... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

    ... didn't Keanu Reeves originate the form?

    Eric
    Why Vioxx is like Prozac for lawyers
  42. Tojan Horse of the acting profession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This system is supposed to debut in the movie Troy. A very apropos irony isnt it? First virtual self-learning stuntmen replace real stunt actors. Then very soon, they will replace the main characters...

  43. The Next Governor of California by Prototerm · · Score: 1

    Will be a virtual actor!

    (insert insulting reference to your favorite politician here)

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  44. We have just evaluated it by MrEntropy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or I should say we just had a demo. I work for a Digital Post Production house and we also use Massive for crowd simulation. Endorphin is an interesting technology which I believe demos very well but practical use may prove to be a bit harder.

    The basic concept is intersting. Actors are "trained" using a neural network setup. The actions are not captured or keyframed, they are "learned" based on a fuzzy set of rules that allow the actor to adapt to its environment. These behaviors can then be combined to create a complete motion. For instance, in one of the demos you can have one actor tackle another. This is something you could easily motion capture, but the interesting bit happens when you change the direction of the tackle. The actor adapts and falls in a new way because the "tackle" is a behavior. The combination of dynamics and adaptive motion allow you to make changes without having to build lots of new in-betweens or blend shapes. It also allows you to set target poses, not target positions. For instance, in that tackle, if you want the actor to end in a Hesiman pose and then change the animation to a different position, the actor will finish in that pose in the new end position, not snap back to where you set the pose.

    Unfortunately, this also has some big drawbacks. These behaviors that are taught to the nueral nets can only be built but the software's creator. You cannot create your own behaviors. I'm sure this type of thing will be opened up in the future, but for now you are stuck with some canned behaviors. Again, makes for great demos but I can easily see hitting the wall with that limitation in production.

    Secondly, it only works on bipeds, or more specifically, their biped. Motion re-targeting will allow you to remap the motion to non-human bipeds, but you are still limited to bipeds with human like bio-mechanics.

    I also wonder about low level noodle-ability. In animation production, it doesn't matter if it is physically correct, it matters if it looks good and the director is happy. That usually has very little to do with reality (i.e. how interesting would the Matrix have been if people moved in real-world way instead of an interestingly choreographed ballet-fight?) I wonder how adaptable such a sytem is.

    This product has a different market than Massive. Massive includes a more simplified fuzzy brain system that allows your motion captured creatures to adapt to their environments or even interact with dynamics. Endorphin is more about syntesizing motion from neural net behaviors. (That is a gross simplification, but hopefully gives some context.)

    I like the idea of where this is going, but I think it has to mature a bit more before it is really useful to us.

    1. Re:We have just evaluated it by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Something that surprised me was to see that Endorphin is a standalone Windows App. I thought that was strange. Aren't pro animation people all using Unix / Linux and maybe some Mac? Massive, for example, seems to be a native Red Hat app. Doesn't it seem odd to create something for a niche market that doesn't run on the same platform said niche market already uses? Any thoughts from the trenches?

    2. Re:We have just evaluated it by MrEntropy · · Score: 1

      Not neccesarily. Almost all "Big" houses do have windows machines. Photoshop, texure painting software are almost exclusively in the windows domain (except for Mac Photoshop users.) And yes, most people use Photoshop for matte painting, not Gimp. You would be VERY hard pressed to get a matte painter to struggle though the pain of doig work in Gimp.

      But I digress. I suspect that they developed in Windows because it is easier to find windows developers and easier to support a common platform (no worries about which toolkit to use, which version of libc, etc. a Win32 has a common API and works on all windows machines) Also, I think game developers are a larger part of their target market, and that is a predominantly Windows crowd.

    3. Re:We have just evaluated it by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Makes sense... Thanks

    4. Re:We have just evaluated it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I attended a talk by Torsten Reil (CEO of Natural Motion) 3 years ago. The Neural Networks are taught using artificial evolution, but already then he was pretty secreative. The techniques are pretty standard by now though so it wouldn't be that hard to replicate.

      If you want to know more try to track down his publications. This is his website, but the links are dead: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/pub/publications.h tml

  45. Re:Oh great ... and in 20 years... by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the computers will be complaining about having their work outsourced to cheaper systems abroad.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  46. Direct Link by ebonkyre · · Score: 1

    Direct link to video (requires Windows Media):

    mmst://od-msn.msn.com/14/mbr/DTW_Virtua lStuntman.wmv

    (Don't bitch that I didn't make it clickable, and that it has a space in it; both are due to Slashdot issues)

    --
    "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
    1. Re:Direct Link by imroy · · Score: 1

      Downloaded with MiMMS and played with MPlayer. No Windows Media Player or Windows required.

      Oh, and there shouldn't be a 't' in the protocol part of the URL:
      mms://od-msn.msn.com/14/mbr/DTW_VirtualStuntman.wm v
      (remove any spaces)

  47. CG body doubles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone excited (or, alternately, annoyed) over the prospect of CG body doubles? Rather than brining in large-breasted, ugly-faced body double lady for the love ("love") scene, they just load in a well-proportioned CG actor?

    ...I'd still hit it.

  48. Ohhhh... Virtual _STUNT_men... by alefbet · · Score: 2, Funny

    I almost misread that as "Virtual Statemen Ready for Hollywood," which made me think "don't they have those in congress already?"

    --

    A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
    1. Re:Ohhhh... Virtual _STUNT_men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already happened: he's the governor of Califorina. No, he isn't an actual human being. He's a simulation that fronts for big money special interests. He rents by the hour like any other whore.

  49. but, MSN video? by philipacamaniac · · Score: 1

    Since we're all running FF here, how the heck do we play MSN video without IE? More importantly, how the heck do we watch it in Linux??? Grumble, grumble...

    1. Re:but, MSN video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mplayer.

  50. Truck Dismount... by Glove+d'OJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe that I have seen this before, in both the "Truck Dismount" (Rekkaturvat) and "Stair Dismount" (Porrasturvat) versions. They are available for download.

    My favorite was trying to get the truck to throw the guy *completely* over the wall, or go for bonus points getting the guy's head to rattle back and forth between the wall and the truck grill.

    Great for getting stress out on a boss (at the time) whom we imagined we were putting on the truck, etc.

    ---

    wwjd? jwrtfm!

  51. With any luck... by stealth.c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...we can turn movie making into a completely safe, risk-free and boring enterprise.

  52. Re:I thought we were responsible... by danila · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it's ok to download clips about virtual stuntsmen, though...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  53. In a dull monotone... by Bionic_Baboon · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new CG overlords.

  54. Life imitates art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be precise, Looker.

  55. Star Wars Episode II by cparisi · · Score: 1

    Star Wars Episode II already had virtual stunt men. Some of Obi Wan's fight with Jango was done with CG characters. Like, when Obi Wan is grabbed by the grappeling hook, and when he does a back flip down the roof of the building...

    1. Re:Star Wars Episode II by cparisi · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I just read the article...