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
"The question...is whether the technology creates an unrealistic expectation of having"
blurry, featureless skin.
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.
Americans have been using 60-years-old as teenagers in sitcoms for decades, so it's not really going to change anything.
#DeleteFacebook
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 have no problem doing this for fiction.
So, actually, you really don't have a problem with using it in political ads.
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.
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.
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
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.