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
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.
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?
I saw a discussion with a few professional directors at Broadcast Video Expo a few years ago and the interviewer goes 'so are you excited for 4k'? and one answered that as most ladies wouldn't want to be seen in that sharp detail they would have to use smoothing filters (like real glass ones) so you didn't have 4k and so was a bit pointless. they were all more interested in HDR.
on personal opinion.. whens the last time you watched a film and said 'that was quite good, but it would be better if it was sharper'. my complaints about movies dont involve being sharper (unless the focus puller fucked up)