Slashdot Mirror
GPU Accelerated Realtime Skin Smoothing Algorithms Make Actors Look Perfect
dryriver writes: A recent Guardian article about the need for actors and celebrities -- male and female -- to look their best in a high-definition media world ended on the note that several low-profile Los Angeles VFX outfits specialize in "beautifying actors" in movies, TV shows and video ads. They reportedly use a software named "Beauty Box," resulting in films and other motion content that are -- for lack of a better term -- "motion Photoshopped." After some investigating, it turns out that "Beauty Box" is a sophisticated CUDA and OpenGL accelerated skin-smoothing plugin for many popular video production software that not only smooths even terribly rough or wrinkly looking skin effectively, but also suppresses skin spots, blemishes, scars, acne or freckles in realtime, or near realtime, using the video processing capabilities of modern GPUs.
The product's short demo reel is here with a few examples. Everybody knows about photoshopped celebrities in an Instagram world, and in the print magazine world that came long before it, but far fewer people seem to realize that the near-perfect actor, celebrity, or model skin you see in high-budget productions is often the result of "digital makeup" -- if you were to stand next to the person being filmed in real life, you'd see far more ordinary or aged skin from the near-perfection that is visible on the big screen or little screen. The fact that the algorithms are realtime capable also means that they may already be being used for live television broadcasts without anyone noticing, particularly in HD and 4K resolution broadcasts. The question, as was the case with photoshopped magazine fashion models 25 years ago, is whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having to have "perfectly smooth looking" skin to look attractive, particularly in people who are past their teenage years.
The product's short demo reel is here with a few examples. Everybody knows about photoshopped celebrities in an Instagram world, and in the print magazine world that came long before it, but far fewer people seem to realize that the near-perfect actor, celebrity, or model skin you see in high-budget productions is often the result of "digital makeup" -- if you were to stand next to the person being filmed in real life, you'd see far more ordinary or aged skin from the near-perfection that is visible on the big screen or little screen. The fact that the algorithms are realtime capable also means that they may already be being used for live television broadcasts without anyone noticing, particularly in HD and 4K resolution broadcasts. The question, as was the case with photoshopped magazine fashion models 25 years ago, is whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having to have "perfectly smooth looking" skin to look attractive, particularly in people who are past their teenage years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If not, I don't see much need for it.
"The question...is whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having"
blurry, featureless skin.
So eventually, it will work in realtime to make 60-year-olds look like teenagers?
GPU accelerated skin roughning to make healthy body stereotypes again
It looks silly to me, especially knowing the actors' real life appearance, to see a bunch of living mannequins in a movie. Even the piled on makeup opera or play performers wear looks ridiculous, they're like clowns and I must laugh.
This technique has been used for still photography for years now, and has the same issue under video (even more so)... There's a very fine line between skin smoothing - and making it look like plastic. When it's overdone, even slightly, you do notice it, and it doesn't look right.
Though granted, it means less time putting on makeup. No more Myspace angles!
If the resolution of movies is so high that they are essentially applying a blur filter everywher, then maybe we should back off the higher resolutions. What's the point of high res capture if you're just going to muddy the image in post processing?
by the porn industry?
..the porn industry having a field day with this.
I have no problem doing this for fiction.
So, actually, you really don't have a problem with using it in political ads.
Just what we all want, 4k footage with blurry faces.
Now that's some deep learning tech!
No jackoff, it wasn't invented by your mom.
whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having to have "perfectly smooth looking" skin
As the article alludes, this is nothing more than a digital form of makeup. And that has been used for decades for TV and films - and even longer in the real world.
There really aren't any additional issues here. If is simply a modern version of an old, old, tradition.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Anyone trying to sell a beauty product and using this should be sued.
Other than this, yes, I think it's a problem that people can't be accepted as they are. Of course we already use makeup, etc., but if anything we should move in the direction of accepting how people look instead of trying to stylise them further.
I hate political ads - I dont really mind seeing signs in peoples yards but on my TV it is the worst. And this technology doesnt make the ads any better.
Have to wonder if the 4K revolution craze and high definition has cause people to now want a technology to hide all those imperfections the 4K exposes. Maybe just go back to filming in SD and nobody will know.
That's why I prefer English movies and series.
There at least you see real people, not a bunch of 27 year old model types with fake hair, fake teeth, fake boobs and fake noses.
That just makes it look unreal and this will make it still worse, if that is possible.
Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question.
Why do you care? Do you base your vote on zit counts?
because young people don't have acne, moles, freckles, warts, scars etc.?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I great computing achievement that raises the bar of illusion higher over a person's head....requiring them to use even more sophisticated solutions to try to reach it.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I can't wait to get a pair of Google Glasses with this software installed so I don't have to loot at your all's ugly faces anymore. Is there a setting of 11 on this menu?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Nude pics, please beau. You didn't answer his question. How do we know you didn't get genital warts from your bf?
Actors and actresses already spend huge amounts of time in makeup, how does this method compare to that?
Does it compound the effect of makeup so some actress in her late 40s can still get a lead role? Or is it one or the other, meaning that a lot of makeup artists will be out of work once this tech matures.
I stole this Sig
If blemishless looks carried that kind of importance, the movies featuring supermodels wouldn't flop the way they do. This is the action movie fallacy repeated: you can fill a movie with explosions and facial closeups all you want, if you don't actually cater for a convincing plot and convincing actors, you'll bore your audience.
This is not what "here is looking at you, kid" was about.
The blurring effects are obvious, and they give me migraines to watch.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is surprising. I am used to complaints. My older friends use tons of makeup. I bet others could easily follow suit
There are 3 kind of 3D images:
1. The true reality captured by the computer.
2. The ray tracing simulated by the computer.
3. The hologram simulated by the computer.
How to compress the realistic images?
Apparently the best predictor of electoral success is candidate appearance (not money spent). So many people DO base their vote on zit counts. Although beautifying might not be the best idea for political ads. The predictor for US presidential elections was the candidate who looked "most presidential," which might not be the same as "youngest" or "prettiest."
Make sure you include snippets of other videos which bounce around so much you can't tell what you're looking at.
That way you can show off your product to its full effect.
Saw your mom in porn. Wrinkles zits stretch marks saggy boobs and gaping brown big lipped cunt. But she took it up the ass like a pro and did not gag on it after.
I can finally return to acting despite my hideously deformed face.
Next we can alter a person's age so that childhood actors can reprise their roles 30 years later. Bring back Small Wonder!
Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question.
Why do you care? Do you base your vote on zit counts?
Looks are a big deal.
It wasn't a factor for me, but male beauty was a large factor in the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy election. I was not yet voting age in 1960, but it do remember the female swoon. Also, I guarantee you that had Hillary Clinton looked like Helen Mirren she would be in the White House right now.
The real question I have is, when can I get it as an Instagram filter?
Better yet, can I get it installed on my date's glasses? Come to think of it, maybe it'd be better to have installed on my glasses.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's good to be young and not need this *giggle*
xXx XxX xXx BeauHD xXx XxX xXx
Also, this technology is irrelevant for those whose entire sex life is face-down.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
lolz no don't offer or suggest to show pics to random 54 year old guys on the internet
your face might not be as perfect as you imagine, there is nonzero chance people with that username such as yours might have inflated opinion of themselves.
no big pores, no wrinkles...heh......suuuuure
step one : get rid of need for actors
step two : create software to make voices
step three: make places to create animations and games without AAA
step four FREEDOM
Apparently the best predictor of electoral success is candidate appearance
That explains AOC. Maybe I just have a thing for latinas, but I think she is hot, and a great dancer.
Too bad she is a total bubblehead when it comes to advocating policies.
Does it really have any other purpose? Really?
I had no idea it was so popular. I always saw it as an affordable, lower end tool that allows me to take the edge off of shots with harsher lighting. (The dreaded "Fix it in post!") I've used it with celebrities and non-celebrities, but what I do with it is more along the lines of making video, which can appear overly harsh in contrast if you don't spend a lot of money on careful lighting and makeup, look a bit more natural. I don't do beauty commercials so I'm not running into the realm of false advertising. This is mostly just interviews.
it is very CPU/GPU intensive, so it's only enabled for final render. With my equipment, I definitely would not call it 'real time'. It's also not a magic bullet. There's a lot of adjustment to get it to work right and look natural. It's something I only pull out when I feel that someone looks less flattering on camera than they do in real life.
Honestly it looks like watching 480p upscaled.
If everything was stuck in low def, wouldn't be a "need", but with 1080p, 2k, 4k, 8k, higher definitions make it much easier to "see the flaws". Just get rid of the overhyped "actors" and use CGI. Movies would be easier to make, without the "drama" of the overpaid hollyWEIRD crybabies.
Sounds legit smart.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think realtime is what's significant here given the frame rates and resolution. That's an impressive amount of computation whereas historically crude analog (blur or special filters on the lens) techniques had to be used if makeup wasn't available or enough.
Or face down in a pile of shit...Rusty Trumbone style.
Bill likes petite colored girls that look 14. Explains your wifes appearance.
Do you even know what farm to table means?
Nobody cares about you. Everyone knows you're ugly and dumb. You're not talent.
I made no claims about beauty or lack dummy-tude or talent.
Please read with more comprehension before posting. Better yet, holler up the stairs to your mommy to order you a pizza so you feel better and not so grumpy.
As if the definition of Beauty is not manipulated enough by magazines and digital retouching as it is. :|
Whole generations of folks striving to reach the levels of Beauty their idols achieve, clueless to the fact it is all digitally and / or makeup enhanced bullshit.
Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question.
If you're choosing a leader based on their physical attractiveness, you deserve to be disenfranchised.
If this supposed to be a commercial for the software it's a failure. The side-by-side results show an obvious muddy texture on the skin on the after side. If you're entire production is really soft focus, I guess it might blend in, but otherwise it looks like you hired a moron for a video compressionist.
Bubblehead? What the everloving fuck are you talking about. She is freaking awesome.
Is this step one in getting us used to accepting the visual uncanny valley (autotune has already done this for audio)? When it gets to the point where we cannot tell the difference between a real actor and an animation on the screen, will Hollywood go the same way as Detroit?
Let people look ugly, that is how the world is. All this unattainable beauty portrayed by Hollywood ruins peoples self image.
Maybe we can all maintain a facade by webcam? Perfect Tinder date, perfect salesperson or camgirl.... as long as we never meet in the flesh. Think my cyberpunk reading list is coming true!
... CGI-ification of human actors so that, in the future when movie studio profits need a boost, they can get rid of the human actors altogether---by then we won't recognize the difference. There's no Actor's Guild pay scale like no pay at all.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It looks silly to me, especially knowing the actors' real life appearance, to see a bunch of living mannequins in a movie.
Sure, but sooner or later it will all be new blood that you haven't seen without the filters.
Eventually they can start using actors for their acting skills since the appearance is just something you pick in the filter selection menu.
We've been automating this for years (and moving it to the GPU isn't really worth it tbh - it's just a one shot process on the incoming plates). It's not actually done as a beautification process, it's done to avoid continuity errors. A film may be shot over a number of days/weeks/months (and that's before we even talk about reshoots), and those shots need to work together.
There is one famous actress that springs to mind (who isn't actually all that concerned about her own appearance), but when we edited the plates together into the final running order, the pimples would be jumping all over the place. It's jarring, and distracting. So that's the reason we automate the removal process....
You think political ads aren't already retouched?
The only thing this changes is that live video feeds can be changed.
It is going to be jarring when the talk-show doesn't use the same filter as the ad.
I'm not so sure it is going to be beneficial for politicians to use this.
Sounds more like something that is going to be used in movies to cut time in makeup.
Well, that and any ad where you sell a product and not a person.
Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question.
Why do you care? Do you base your vote on zit counts?
There is a pretty sizable part of the population that would never vote on people based on their skin color.
While not exactly the same thing as zit count it isn't far off.
Bubblehead? What the everloving fuck are you talking about. She is freaking awesome.
I agree that she is awesome, and I agree with her on some issues.
But when she talks, listen to the details. Write down the numbers. Then go to Google and do a reality check. Many of the "facts" she rattles off are off by a factor of ten or more. And some of her policy proposals are what destroyed Venezuela. She is reality challenged.
We've actually been doing this for decades, it's called a soft-focus filter, they've been used to make people's faces look better since at least the 1920s. Before that, you just left the lens slightly unfocused. So this is just an expensive GPU-accelerated (and thus hype-attracting) way of doing what you could do with a bit of glass for over a hundred years.
About 10 years ago I was doing photo restoration in a small camera store. I had a large stock of noise/texture patterns to put back into photographs after retouching them so they didn't look too perfect. Even modern retouching tools meant for still photographs don't do that well, so I'm not surprised these "AI" video tools do such a bad job.
The software company's demo reel looks like shit. As someone who's worked in (low-budget, low-scale) films, I seriously doubt that any self-respecting film production would use it, much less a major Hollywood studio. Some "A"-list stars would probably sue the producers if they saw their faces digitally blurred like that without having approved of the procedure in their contracts.
There are many better ways of smoothing actors' skin: good lenses, soft lighting, lens filters, subtle make-up. In good hands, they all yield amazing results with very little effort and at negligible extra cost.
I think this software was designed for TV, music videos and ads, where the producers can get away with it either because the whole show is of shit quality (live TV) or because the final image is so artificial that everything looks computer-generated and will probably be watched on small screens anyway. But I seriously doubt it would be of much use for the cinema.
Oh great, this will make the girls on this planet even more insecure and boys have even more unrealistic expectations... just what we need :(.. Why cant we all just be ok with who we are exactly as we are? I love technology but this is just adding to a cultural phenomenon that is already pretty sick.
nt
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
We are a sad little species at times, aren't we? Vain, self obsessed and unpleasant. Don't get me wrong, some people have serious anxiety about their appearance and maybe a toned down version of this over a video chat might help but sooner or later the world must see you as you really are. I remember seeing Joan Collins in the 90's, perfect hair and face but her hands were always out of shot, when you did see them they were exactly what you expected for a woman of her age.
What we need is to change attitudes, not change appearances. We cast off women of a certain age they're once perfect porcelein skin blemishes with age. A man gets older he becomes "rugged". Change attitudes, not appeareances and maybe we might evolve.
old school technology: beer goggles, is likely cheaper
I've worked on a number of projects and know a number of facilities that do "beauty" work. None that I have worked at or know use this plug-in. Working on high-visibility projects needs a more professional touch than using a sledgehammer of a blur to make people look "younger". I'm sure there are plenty of corporate and quick edit pieces that may use this, but as has been commented it's a bit obvious.
It strikes me that this is related to the pushback against high frame rate movies. Apparently a substantial segment of people like 24fps, because of the "cinematic feel" it gives you. It's an artifact left from a previous age, but some people want to preserve the lack of realism it portrays.
Hiding actors freckles and blemishes is perhaps part of the same mentality. I remember when HDTV first came out: I was struck by the fact that I could actually see the wrinkles and freckles and little blemishes on people's faces. Apparently this is unwanted - too much realism?
It's also probably sheer egotism on the part of Hollywood & Co.. An actor or actress is no one special - they just have a talent for playing pretend in a convincing way. Yet they feel entitled to tell us all about their views on politics and society, and how we should live our lives. They think they know better. They certainly don't want us to see that they are just people with zits and wrinkles, like everyone else - that might dent their mystique.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
For TV shows and movies, it doesn't concern me in the slightest. Movie stars have always been chosen for their looks, physique and so forth; they are supposed to be archetypal after all. Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question. The difference is that between the intent to deceive (the latter) and the suspension of disbelief (the former). I have no problem doing this for fiction.
There's a different between picking people that look good and putting them on TV and picking people that look good and then enhance them to unnatural levels before putting them on TV. Most people see more people on screens that they do with their real eyes. It already warps the perception of reality and it will only get more warped in the future.
Personally I can't wait for cyborg eyes so we finally will see a world that meets our expectations.
it doesn't only work for faces, but the video also shows hands, complete bodies and...
paper.
in the youtube video one person is holding a wrinkled paper and in the 'processed' stream the paper is very much less wrinkled.
i think the whole thing is stupid, if you need to modify people so much, might as well just use complete digital models instead.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I want an algorithm that'll take these artificial faces and make them look real again.
"whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having to have "perfectly smooth looking" skin to look attractive, particularly in people who are past their teenage years."
It can only "create" an "unrealistic expectation" among people who don't actually interact with real human beings...
She is a great dancer.
"Outstanding, Private Pyle! I think we have finally found something that you do well."
I don't like this idea one bit because it is just another way of creating "dishonest photographs". Now they are changing skin texture/tone, but wait until they start changing body proportions, waist sizes, etc. In real time. (This is where I really hope bad Photoshopping comes in; Imagine a celebrity ending up with a freakishly small waist and super broad shoulders on live TV, and all of the embarrasment and gossip this will cause).
Yes, dishonest photographs existed scince the dawn of photography, but to be able to do this with video, in real time, with little or no human intervention is very disturbing. Wait until this becomes consumer grade and gets used to frame somebody for someone else's crime.
Using it in things like political ads, well, that's a different question.
If you're choosing a leader based on their physical attractiveness, you deserve to be disenfranchised.
At least one thing you cannot blame Trump voters for.
I would agree with "bubblehead". It's like they elected a college sophomore who took one poli-sci class and thinks she knows everything. Yes, I'm aware of her alleged degrees.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.