Digital Replicas May Change Games and Film

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Steve Perlman is touting technology that he says can create animated digital reproductions of the human body that are as accurate as photographs, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Game makers could use the system, called Contour, to create very realistic animated characters in videogames with fully controllable movements and facial expressions. Film makers could use the technology as a kind of digital makeup, changing an actor's looks or words or switch camera angles without costly retakes. The technology can even substitute one actor's face for another's and create exact replicas of long-dead historical figures.'"

Comments

Virtual Stars?

[dave1791]

Given that TV studios already like reality TV in large part because the cast is cheap, will we start seeing 100% virtual actors? From a business standpoint, intellectual property beats a human face that ages, gets into tabloids ( and potentially ruining the carefully marketed image ) is costly and needs to be recycled regularly.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[paul248]

We've had those for years. They're called cartoon characters.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Most cartoon characters aren't 100% virtual. There's still a voice actor behind them. And those can be just as demanding as ordinary actors. See the whole "we want a raise"-situation of the Simpsons voice actors recently.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[bm_luethke]

However, the virtual actor doesn't fare so well signing autographs, making appearances, and quite a few other things that real poeple do. Plus it seems that having a "realistic" fantasy (in the sense that it is physically possible) with a particular actor motivates a alot of stardom. For many shows this is most of the popularity, even the fans don't care much for the story.

Plus we would loose all the nice scandals - but I'm not too sure if this would be an overall plus or minus.

I do believe this type of stuff will really help small production films. I'm not so certain how it would work out for major shows - it may be that even with 50% of the current popularity it would still be such a profit maker that they wouldn't care (just like the mentioned reality shows - they are just so cheap to produce it doesn't take much audience to make a lot of money). Though in the long run that just leaves open a great void for another form of entertainment to rule, at the least such lowered production and distribution costs would really reduce the studios influence (much as what the RIAA is currently thinking of with home studios and digital distribution).

UNLIMITED P0RN! and some serious comments

[davidwr]

This may revolutionize the porn industry. Imagine taking all the best porn actresses in their primes and putting them all in one movie. Check that, 1,000 different movies. Now it's possible. On a serious note, the less actual sex involved in making the porn, the less risk to the actors.

Leaving the p0rn industry for a moment, anyone who ever sold a picture of themselves and waived all future rights and royalties is going to be in for a surprise, especially if the picture is them in a birthday suit. You may see congressional action to protect people from having their images used in such ways if they signed "all rights" contracts before the technology became available.

Someday, we will have the ability to create totally new "people" for movies, without relying on any existing images. That way the whole concept of royalties and rights is avoided altogether.

Rtfa

[BeardsmoreA]

And this is a form of motion capture. And if you believe the slashvertisment, a quicker, cheaper one, with better results. So that would be why.

And to deal with your second question, textures will still be added after capturing structure and movement information, so you could make people blue, tweak the models or whatever after the fact still. (Like in the example, the teeth, skin, hair etc are all being slotted back in from photo's)

Did you go near the article? Yes yes, I know, I must be new here...

The tin-foil hatter in me is screaming

[Alranor]

I bet Homeland Security will love this.

Suspect that someone is a terrorist, but have no evidence at all to support your allegations. - No problem, just whip up a photo-realistic animation of them attending a local bomb-making class. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Create replicas of long-dead historical figures?

[Anonymous Coward]

create exact replicas of long-dead historical figures

I don't think you want to witness this, judging by how the process is described in TFA:

First, an actor's face is coated in ordinary phosphorescent makeup like that worn by children at Halloween. The actors then conduct their performance in a studio surrounded by fluorescent lights and digital cameras.

Dig 'em up, cover 'em in phosphorescent makeup and dangle 'em in front of the camera?

Ah, but the danger lies not in accusatory power...

[TheNoxx]

Now I see some are afraid of forged "photos".... Actually, the larger problem with this technology is not that you could possibly manufacture photographic evidence to damage someone else's ambitions, goals, or whatnot; it's that in creating that possibility, hard photo/video evidence loses its credibility in court, and will only continue to do so with time.

I guarantee that when this becomes mainstream (just as most CG geeks knew would happen years ago), that implicating a person of influence/wealth will become nearly impossible, as any time any damaging photo/video evidence pops up (oh, say, like photos of torture at the hands of the US government at Guantanamo or a worse and nameless fascimile) the powerful will declare that it's been manufactured by the opposing side.