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.
In photography, the basic algorithm is to use a high-pass filter to identify high-contrast regions (places with lots of edges. Turn that into a mask and invert it. Apply a blurring algorithm to the picture, using the mask to exempt the high-contrast parts of the pic (places with lots of edges.) The final result is a pic where low-contrast surfaces (like skin and sky and blurred backgrounds) are blurred, but high-contrast edges which contain detail are untouched.
I never liked doing it (I prefer realistic photos), but it was sometimes necessary to counter a sharpening algorithm run across the entire picture, and prevent skin blemishes from being exaggerated. Also, I found that if I first showed my female friends their photo after running it through the above algorithm, they were much less likely to threaten to kill me if I ever released that photo to the public. Who says flattery never got you anywhere?
If you watch the demo reel, you will see that it is being used with regards to beauty products. That is a level of deceit that should not be tolerated. If the industry cannot effectively prohibit this, then the government needs to step in.
If you can achieve the result in the real world with your cosmetics, go ahead and do so. If the result shown requires digital effects, then it should be banned.
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.