Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Models Come To Life
K. turned us on to this one: an announcement by Elite, the world's largest model agency, about a new division they've set up that supplies nothing but computer-generated models. Plastic surgeons may be in trouble if this catches on, but we all knew it was inevitable. The idea has been an SF staple since the 1930s, but this is the first time that computer-generated, animated models have been offered by a big-time modeling agency as a serious alternative to real, flesh-and-blood (and silicon) supermodels. I'd go into more detail, but you can get it all by going directly to the press release.
Ehm, lack of technology is not the reason Lara looks unreal.
She'll never look real until the "artists" or whatever are given some education in human anatomy.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
I know there are plenty of Women who bemoan the fact that they "don't look like the models do". How are they going to feel when the models are computer generated and may have anatomical configurations not even possible in real life? In the computer they can tweak everything, muscle tone, body fat, hell they can even tweak gravity if they feel like it.
Women will deal with it exactly like they deal with the rest of real life. Are you telling us that extra-beautiful is bad because it may make some people have lower self-esteem? So what? If they have a problem with that, they should go to a shrink and sort out the insides of their heads. Not to mention that too-beautiful-to-be-real women have been around for ages. Should women have fits because they don't have the eyes of Boticelli's Venus? or the smile of da Vinci's Mona Lisa? or the body of Goya's Maja? What about the Vargas girls (Playboy 1960-70s)?
To continue this line of reasoning shouldn't Arnold Schwarzenegger be prohibited from public appearances because 99.99% of male population has nothing like his physique? Shouldn't we prohibit Ferrari and Lamborgini to make cars because the same 99.99% of population cannot afford it? Should we ban the TV show "The lifestyles of rich and famous"? (actually, the answer to the last question is 'yes', but for different reasons).
Nobody is perfect. If seeing perfection gives you psychological problems, it's your problem -- fix your head.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
It may make a change, but probably not for the better... Sure people could interact *online* in that manner, but when you get down to it, if people get interested they will want to meet in person, and with higher expectations of what the other should look like. I see this as furthering the phenomenon of (especially women) looking at what the society creates as beautiful (and in this case, potentially more impossilbe to reach) and have self-esteem dashed more...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Why should that matter at all? I've never understood the point in outlawing child porn just for being child porn. If pedophiles wants to watch child porn, why should anybody care? As long as they don't rape children in order to produce it! Wich is definetly not the case with cartoons and computer animations.
This is what they did here in Sweden just a few months ago. They even changed the damn constitution so now we officially have censorship! (Even the so called liberal party voted for it. The only ones voting against it was the traditional right party. Just shows again (surprise) that all they care about is the power.)
Rko said:"I don't feel that gender has anything to do with competance."
You're right. I'm sorry I made a gender bias comment.
I do think trend-setting as a career goal is lame, though. Having a trend develop out of a creative endeavor is great. Declaring something a new trend just to get attention is weak.
Computer Generated Imagery
-- Paperwork is the embalming fluid of bureaucracy, maintaining an appearance of life where none exists.
I for one will impersonate meself as a dirty old man on crack. Or perhaps add an extra head or two :)
cu there / jens
send + more == money?
Well, yes I agree the "little kids" should stop trying to measure up to the super models.
However, I don't know where you live, but size 14 is average? Not in this part of the world!
I don't have any female friends which are over size 12 and most are around size 6-8. That would include my sister, my cousin, my g-friend, etc. So I know DARN WELL what they eat, which is A LOT! My sister and my g-friend especially continually graze all day and any given meal, they'll be able to wolf down as much as I can. And that is a lot!
(No, they don't really work out either).
Ranges around 5"-5"4 checking in at 100-120lbs is the norm here.
Feminists ranting about models implicitly take a position that "if I cannot be as beautiful as that model, then that model has no right to be beautiful at all, or at the very least she should hide her beauty and not annoy me by reminding me of my imperfections".
With all due respect, I think the statement above is a simplistic and tenuous generalisation. I believe most feminists would not be comfortable with the "implicit position" you assign to them. I would imagine most would say that their ranting is mostly at the presentation of the tweaked images of models as if they were the real thing, and/or the implicit value placed on "beauty" rather than the other aspects of women, and the follow-on effects of that in society and personal relationships.
When you have people (especially impressionable young people) viewing these images and comparing to their own image in the mirror, the implicit assumption is that those images are "reality" and attainable. They are not - as any half-decent amateur photographer, or anyone who's played with Photoshop for 5 minutes will know. Failing that, take your closest "normal looking" female friend to a glamour photographer and be prepared to be surprised at the images that result. The image in the mirror is very rarely anything like the image on the page or screen - even for those "supermodels".
If feminist ranting about models is based on this sort of reasoning, I think it's perfectly defensible. Their argument is firstly more about the disingenous presentation as reality than about the "fact" that the models in question are more beautiful on some measure than the feminist in question. It is secondly about the whole beauty-as-measure-of-worth thing that is implied (or perceived to be implied) by the whole model/glamour/beauty business.
For what it's worth, I met "CGI" as a abbreviation for "Computer Graphic Images" (or something like that) years before I met it as an abbreviation for "C(omputer?) Gateway Interface". I think the first time I saw the term "CGI" was referring to the visual effects in Babylon 5.
I belive CGI is useg here to refer to "Computer Generated Image"... Yeah, the use of acronyms can be confusing...
Well.. it's good to see that no matter what, the fasion industry will be dominated by silicon...
"From small chips, to big tits... silicone is really great!"
If not, then there is no point. Might as well head back to one of the generic asian schoolgirl sites. *again*. sigh...
I think the reason people don't talk about men self-esteem as much as women is that women are affected more by it. Sure guys sometimes have problems, or are a bit envious of the people on tv, but women are worse off in this respect.
For one, notice on tv, that there are quite a few guys who I would not think would be considered that attractive. However, it is far more rare for an unattractive women to get anywhere in showbiz.
For another, the way a man looks is less important to women than the way a woman looks to men. I think we can pretty much accept this as truth. Not saying that women never look at looks, just saying that it impatcs them less. That's just the way society has developed through the years. Certain reasons as to why this has developed go through my mind, but I won't waste space with them because I figure people can think about it and form the hyopthesis on their own..
And I am a guy, and I was just speaking from my own observations, like how I know guys who have a bit of a gut and when someone taunts them they will stick it out further and laugh, while I don't know a single woman who'd NOT be hurt by a comment like that...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I always understood CGI as meaning Common Gateway Interface in the manner you refer to it.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I avoided this problem in the story (above) by spelling out "computer graphics." If I had used an abbreviation it would have been "CG" to avoid confusion with "the other CGI."
I avoided this problem in the original posted story (above) by spelling out "computer graphics." If I had used an abbreviation it would have been CG to avoid confusion with "the other" CGI.
if this is what you mean, 'cause I haven't gotten to Neal Stephenson's stuff yet (so faaar behind in my reading)...
I came across a piece of software at Fry's the other day called "Face3D" or something like that - basically, it allowed you to take a couple of pictures of your head (front and side shots) and make a 3D model with your face mapped on...
Now, of course, this was all for Windoze shit - but anyhow, the resulting head texture would have been symetrical - so it probably wouldn't look totally correct. Couple this with an age morphing filter of some sort.
It is also possible to take a scan of your face and crop it to fit to a Poser model's head (for Poser 3, I think - the older Poser software didn't have enough resolution for the maps to handle it properly). Some guy did this not too long ago - check out my links for more info (in another earlier posting).
This whole virtual character thing makes me think of things like "Running Man", where they faked the video of the main character (played by Arnold) doing something real notorious to get him into the "game" (can't remember if it was the same in the short story or not). I would imagine we are close to the day where we could do this now (maybe not real time, but in the studio)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
the colors are off, and everything else is kinda too "perfect" to look real - not bad, but it still looks *really* fake
Did you know that there is a video of a german band ("Die Ärzte") where Lara is playing a major role (beside the musicians)?
Go Lara, go!
Gery
The answer is yes, me.
A beautiful model you can shut up with a mouse click. I will be curious to see what companies use them tho, besides videogame co's and their Laura clones.
my cats breath smells like cat food.
Hackety-hack ...
"And I would have to disagree -- DARK eyes and hair."
I was using lightly-colored eyes as a mere variable, not necessarily the desired choice. Personally, I prefer brown eyes even though I have blue.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
There are of course other examples, like Video Girl Ai. But if you're really interested in Anime, you must watch Ghost in the Shell. IMHO it's better by far than even The Matrix. How can you consider yourself a geek if you haven't seen Ghost in the Shell??
The people that are rendering these virtual models have become extraordinarily good at making them look real. They are a litle too perfect, but they aren't too far away from something that could fool much of the market.
It would be an interesting sway if the modeling world was overtaken by CGI. Then, perhaps, the exploitation of beautiful women all over the world will halt.
If you can call big money, great drugs, lots of traveling and fabulous parties exploitation...
Talisman
Man is the only animal capable of blushing, and he is the only one that needs to. - Twain
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
If they are powerful, that is. The band is on the stage. The rich guy can buy stuff. I remember a Cigarette boat ad from quite a few years back (watching the go-fasts off of the docks growing up made me want to get one) showing a sweaty, post-coital woman and man in bed. She is asking him "So now do I get a ride on your Cigarette?" So true, so true. Of course, growing up in Miami in the '80s may have warped me, but I did grow up seeing rich geezers with young chicks by the double handfuls.
...
I knew (a few years back, at college) a rather shallow woman who finally gave in to a persistant geek who kept asking her out. It was not a match that I expected would work -- she was a model and he was an EE geek. She did it out of a sense of obligation, I think, as he had helped her through calc. Out of pity. She ran into an old boyfriend that evening in a bar (I didn't see it, I heard). He was abusive to her. The little geek stood up to him and defended her (verbally, fortunately for him, as he was short and weak, although now he his not so weak due to judo, which he started the next week after this). She decided that he was worthwhile because of him taking a nearly suicidal stand against a guy who was threatening her. He married her a year later. They just celebrated 10 years last year. He is still a short geek and she no longer models but is still attractive. Logical? Well
Women leave the bar with the guy with "Born to Lose" tatooed on his lips because he seems powerful due to his lack of concern for social mores. The want the guitar player because everyone likes him, so he is therefore powerful. This is a basic need of women -- they want a powerful guy so their children will be protected. "Power is an aphrodesiac." Who said that? Henry Kissinger. Need more proof? The cave is still within us. That is tough for geeks, because we mature over a longer period, and women are looking (or their bodies/reptilian hindbrains) to breed by 15, so we get to be rejected for about ten years after than until we actually are recognized as powerful by most women and thus worth their time.
Hemmingway was supposed to have said something like "I know wimmins and wimmins is difficult." Well, yes, Ernie. But they are a little reliable.
Looking at this from the low end of my 30s, I see that my choices have gotten better and better, because the women on the dating scene have been burned so badly they deliberately deal with the fact that I am boring to see if they could put up with me long term. I like that. But waiting for that change was a pain.
These photos look pretty good - the model "herself" is pretty realistic, IMHO the skin tone and cloths are good but the hair is a little under defined currently - its the backgrounds that are not fully up to scratch.
That said I can imagine this sort of model being used on top of conventionally filmed images. Be interesting to see if it works.
Tom
PS:
As I remember actors contracts have had clauses in them dealing with electronic versions of themselves for years - personally I wouldn't be suprised if in 10 years time a big name film star was "working" on 10 films simultaneously.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:
/. refer to the SILICONE breast implants as silicon?
Why is it that so many here on
Remember boys and girls
silicone == fake boobs
silicon == computer chips
Sorry about the rant, but I'm sick of this.
LK
Certainly quite a number of American women are obsessed with weight. I know a number of fairly intelligent women who work desperately to acquire or maintain a medically unhealthy weight. They feel they are "too fat", no matter what medical science tells them.
I tend to agree with you: self image problems are a result of the individual, not this whispy "cultural ideal" that is supposedly formed by models and entertainers. However, our voices are dwarfed by the large number of people who do blame the media. I find that quite a lot of women resent the modelling industry even as they try desperately to resemble models.
--Lenny
I remember a few scenes from it, it always seemed to be on at 2:00 p.m on a saturday, or was it 2:00a.m. on a friday, can't remember I think I was 12.
+&x
I happen to like the unrealistic standards. It gives humans a goal to shoot for. We are one of the last, perhaps THE last generation that will not benefit from genetic engineering.
Our kids may and certainly their kids will benefit from superior genetic sequencing. In that sequencing can be included:
Big, firm tits
Nice, round, tight asses
Long, muscular legs (incapable of developing arthritis)
Flat stomachs (and the ability to eat anything you want)
High cheek bones, light-colored eyes, any hair color they want
and on and on and on...
Those unrealistic standards aren't too far away from being realistic. Keep 'em high.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Looking at the bit mulle managed to get, it looks like it's the same as the outfile.mpg movie from Steven Stahlherg's Galleries.
BTW, take a look at the bulked up action-figures that boys play with today, and compare them to the normal human forms of the G.I. Joe or Six Million Dollar Man of twenty years ago. Not a healthy trend.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Except that Max was an actor in a rubber mask with the videotape post-edited to make it really jerky. No CG there. But it WAS cool...
Unless you are from another country, the average size is a 14. I have read this in many many articles and if you look beyond your circle of friends you will understand that it is true.
A size 14 is not just big. It also has to do with height. From your statement of 5"-5"4 being average.. that is on the low side.. and most likely they probably arent wearing a size 14 because they arent tall enough.
Womens clothing sizes are not as cut and dry as a mans. When you buy mens jeans, you go by length and waist. However, women have hips.. and it makes things a bit more difficult. So lets say you are a women who is 5'8" and weighs 175lbs. Now.. not only do you need to get a larger size for the height.. but you need to find the right cut and style.. depending upon your hips.. and where your weight resides.
I am not saying that men dont have the same problems. It is not just as cut and dry as you wear a size 12 or above and you are fat. So before we judge what fat is.. we need to look at all the factors.
Besides that.. muscles also play a role.. the more muscles you have the larger your clothes will need to be.
So just because the average size of women is 14.. doesnt make the average woman fat.
And regarding how much you eat.. it isnt how much you eat.. but what you eat.
Given that the name in your signature is very much a male name it is slightly worrying that you *want* a skimpy black dress ;-)
---- Backwards compatible -- If it's not backwards it's not compatible
Did anyone else get the feeling while looking at the pics of the models that the site reminded you of RealDoll? Not the sexual part, just the same eerie look...
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:
Looker scared the poop out of me when I was a kid.
Not so much because of the murders, but because of that light pulse gun. I believe it was Albert Finney who was in that movie.
Anyway, I also believe that before George Burns died he agreed to have is likeness digitally recorded so that after he was gone they could make a 3rd "Oh God" movie.
While I'm at it, does anyone remember that episode of tales from the crypt where they tried to re-creat Humphrey Bogart through CGI?
LK
I mean really, where can I get one of those skimpy black dresses to try on?
I can just image going out on a hot and heavy date wearing only software. That would be an eye turner!
This must be some new meaning of the word "free" of which I was not previously aware.
Pretty good, I'd guess. To be blunt (pun intended) I don't feel threatened by dildos. In fact, with CG models, maybe there will be less mental pressure to conform--the model isn't even real, it may not be possible to look like that, even. (And maybe, just maybe, it will cause a relevation that imperfections are what makes us human?)
What's the point of having a model that doesn't really exist?
You mean, like the mannequins they use to creat the clothes on? Or the paper sketches? These move, relatively realistically. I don't think they'll replace the final test on a real-life human model, but they'll certainly speed the basic testing out a lot.
Maybe, after the technology advances further, they could be used in an evolutionary system where a designer feeds in conditions (show thigh, don't ride up, show at least 50% of total skin area, but not more than 70%, etc. etc. and user that to design new and weird dresses in minutes...
Maybe this will begin a desktop designing industry much like word processors created a desktop publishing one.
I think it's cool.
And no, actually, I don't own Tomb Raider II.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Yeah his image of "The Chair" was also used in a video card manufacturer's ad in Game Developer about two months back....
My four and a half useless Canadian cents worth...
Oops...
My mistake... Its actually a censored ad for Duck Corporations Truemotion 2X Codec.... and the image is not quite the same as "The Chair" but its still kind of humorous.
Oh yes! In fact when I saw this article, "Looker" was my very first thought -- after all it's one of my 5 *favourite* films! (to anyone who hasn't seen it yet -- you *won't* get it all on the first viewing; it's oddly edited and takes a couple times thru to digest. So don't be discouraged if your first viewing mostly leaves you confused.) Albert Finney, James Coburn, and IIRC it was Susan Dey's first adult role.
Details at: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0082677
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hopefully, they're going to react the same way my wife did upon seeing Storm in an X-Men comic.
"Oh come on, no woman can possibly twist her back into that position!"
I'm sure they meant well. So did the makers of Thalidomide.
There will be plenty of people who would choose certain skins for the sake of humor. I remember something from the book SnowCrash about how certain rules had to be added restricting avatars to human form because some people decided to walk around as giant penises or something like that.
-Chris Andreasen
In "W0m1n" (by Anonymous Coward) on Thursday, we saw
One thing that will remain, at least, in the "new world" is the continuous fruitless prognosticating of doom- and brilliance-sayers, telling us that things in the future will be such-and-thus.
There is nothing about a technology which is inherently evil or good. Of course, since people are, mostly, venal and distasteful, the results of most technologies will be (or, to keep with the empiricist theme here, have ever been until the present) mostly bad. So what? Humans are nasty? Big surprise!
Sure looks like it, this is now available here.
Imagine the implications: as the processor speeds, 3D acceleration and modelling techniques constantly improve, virtual porn utilizing 3D characters will soon be available to anyone: in stand-alone programs as likely as in virtual chat rooms.
Most porn industry customers would be more than willing to play around with virtual on-screen models (or avatars controlled by real people, for that matter) that will humbly obey every perverse command, position, sexual intercourse, fetish, torment and humiliation the user can think of and wear any clothes, outfits and gear one wishes.
As the modelling process gets easier and easier, there eventually will be customisable X-rated 3D dungeon software, for which e.g. pedophiles can design their own 3D child models to play with (or animal sex scenes or any other weird fantasy world).
As soon as these products emerge and are of sufficient technical quality, there will be a huge pirate XXX software distribution all over the world. (Open Source, anyone?)
Combine this with computer-controlled, vibrating stimulator peripherals, and you'll get the whole picture.
It looks like it was /.ed and pulled. Anyone have a copy they could put up?
We _know_ that some girls are starving themselves, period... This IS A PROBLEM.
Sure, some guys probably work so hard that it's definately not healthy for them... this is also A PROBLEM.
First, no, this is not a PROBLEM. This is a [small font] problem [/small font]. PROBLEMs are things like post-AIDS demographic situation in Africa and handling of nuclear weapons in Russia.
Second, aren't you telling people what their value system should be? Let's assume that for me being thin is more important than eating a lot. I made a choice and decided on the trade-offs. Yes, I will not pig out at all-you-can-eat buffets, but my body will not look like a mound of jello. That choice is for me to decide. Sure it may be medically unhealthy, but so is living in a large city, eating cookies, not exercising each day, etc. etc. Your point that I should not want to be this thin, but who are you to tell me what I should want and what I should not want?
People make choices and take the consequences. They have a right to make the choices they want even if other people think them silly, medically unsound or politically incorrect.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
They used digtally created actors to partially block some of the nudity and more graphic acts in "Eyes Wide Shut", and compositinig them into place. All this to knock the rating dwon to R from NC-17.
"The final mystery is oneself" Oscar Wilde
I would like to note that I find almost all supermodels to be too boney and skinny. When I think of the ideal female figure I see someone who is of average weight and size. Not someone of whome I can see the outlines of their pelvis through clothing.
The CGI model was of a good size... Ideal in proportions, firm in the right areas. Whomever did the model, has the same taste as I.
!Xabbu
- Jimbob
... all you Linux users can now get a date!
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
FWIW, Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 also.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I always felt that models were just overblown clothesracks. It's not that they look good, but that they make the clothes look good.
Ladies, here's a mantra for you: "She's not good looking, she's just Well-Dressed." :-)
Look at Kyoko Date, the virtual Japanese pop icon. Lots of polygons and lots of 3d artists made videos, and magazine spreads starting in 1996. This is just the latest iteration.
Kyonko Date still looked better. I don't have a valid URL for info on this, but if you search for "Kyoko Date" about a million fan pages will come up.
I was thinking along those lines as well. Take this software a bit further, merge it with those poorly done FBI scans of "what the criminal looks like in 10 years", and you'll have an instant face-o-matic program.
Then some algo will be made where your face could be decoded down to some 0s and 1s, where it would be easily indexed into a huge database. INteresting...
Kids love the rich taste of web content! http://british.nerp.net
Watching a virtual model swaying her hips on a screen is nothing compared to sitting in a crowded room watching real-life models wearing real fabrics sashay down the runway. Try selling this to a market which thrives on glitz, glamour and high-profile events aimed at the fashion elite and it won't work. Smaller manufacturers, maybe, but there's a lot present in even a small fashion show that a virtual one could never hope to accomplish.
ian.
ian
Prevalent as a theme in science fiction of old through to cyberpunk of the modern day we have been tempted and teased by the virtual world and the fabricated beings who dwell within them. Now especially realtime we flirt within the boundaries of the mediums.
William Gibson captured this beautifully in his sequel-like novel Idoru which shared similar characters as Virtual Light which preceded it. Set in typical Gibson-esque post apocolyptic Tokyo, Idoru focuses on many convuluted complex characters and sub-plots. The central theme however is the cultural shock exhibited through the love/obsession of Rez [pop star] with a software construct [the idoru] who manifests herself as a hologram and on the Net... there are even wedding bells...
How many teen angsty boys fell for Lara as she fell and grunted sexily after the first few addictive moments of manipulating her with mastubatory strokes with the hot Playstation control firmly clasped in hand? I'm figuring a shitload...that breast enlargement "mistake" really paid off for Eidos.
Elite is a natural progression of what we've been spoon-fed for years as technology improved and our visual expectations become more impossible to meet in the physical realm. We're at the threshold of making our science fiction fantasies true. A little fantasy never hurt anyone..
Fashion photographers discovered Photoshop a long time ago and the airbrush has been used to make already impossible looking creatures something even more difficult to aspire towards for prebubescent females.
Yes this does create social illnesses such as anorexia blah de blah, feelings of inadequacy for many women as they try to emulate what they obviously cannot. The fault is not with women. We're not stupid. I'm thinking George Orwell here...some are more equal than others. It's the fucked up attitude of society and the confusion which reigns in the seperations of reality. There's no clarification... too many lost sheep out there [virtually speaking]. We're typically all ants being projected images which will maintain our consumer bent path. Fantasy sells -- some just have a little difficulty disengaging. It is unnecessary to make further social comment on this development.
I say a little appreciation of virtual babes [someone mentioned Vargas before and what about the fantasy pinup work of Hajime Sorayama?] on their own merits is in order -- nothing more nothing less. In the words of The Jam: That's Entertainment.
Ultimately I know that there's no way in hell that pair of Levis is going to look the same on my beanpole legs as they do on those 3D cyber goddesses [sheeeet... I'll have to turn on the filters first].
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
What's interesting is how this puts our images of the world into still fewer hands. At least Cindy Crawford and Leonardo DiCaprio control a degree of self-expression -- they can select what they do, more or less, and can be held responsible for those choices, more or less. Not Lara. More cutting out of unknown variables, I guess.
Interesting too what it means when different people create different 'identities' for virtual people. I forget, is Lara generous and easygoing or withdrawn and sarcastic?
Quick note on standards of female/male beauty: in our (still patriarchal) society, men can be sexy/desireable without being attractive. Not women. That's the difference.
It's irrelevant what size the average woman wears. In the U.S., "average" does not mean healthy or beautiful. Forty percent of Americans are obese.
--
The pressure doesn't come from most men. It comes from other women.
I'm 5'10" and last time I was at the doctor's office, I weighed 187 pounds. This makes me 15-30 pounds overweight depending on who you ask (though the doctor said not to worry about it because other than that and my ever-present hypoglycemia, I am in very good health).
When I was a 13-year-old wannabe model, I was 5'6" or so, weighed in at 115 pounds, and thought THAT was fat. It's a damn good thing I'm hypoglycemic -- the headaches and dizzy spells I would get if I skipped meals stopped me from becoming anorexic. No joke.
I was also not-particularly-attractive-to-boys. After I went to college and gained weight, I had NO trouble attracting the opposite sex, or interested parties of the same sex. (Started college at 155, ended up at the aforementioned 187.)
Those who have seen my picture will swear "but you couldn't possibly weigh that much!"
Here's a clue, guys
I'm 5'10", and the average woman is 5'5" or so.
Women tend to lie about their weight because the socially accepted numbers are, for some bizarre reason, 5'7" and 115-125 pounds.
A man with my height and weight might be thought to be slightly heavy but wouldn't get the "you must be a fat PIG!" reaction. Granted, women on average weigh less than men on average. But even at the IDEAL weight for someone of my height (155-170 or so), others would have the "fat pig" reaction to the numbers.
Now, all that said, I've only been told that I must be, or am, a fat pig by two groups of people: clueless net-trolls (like the one who told me I'm too fat to fence), and heterosexual women.
Anyway, guys, whatever you may have been led to believe, the ladies aren't putting on makeup, obsessively dieting, etc. for YOU. They're competing with each other, at least in part because "beauty" is one of the few traditionally acceptable areas for women to compete with each other (or at all!) in.
And ladies
*grin*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
It would be an interesting sway if the modeling world was overtaken by CGI. Then, perhaps, the exploitation of beautiful women all over the world will halt.
I'd worry more about women in general. "Perfect" CG models being held up as an ideal aren't going to do much for the average teenager's body image.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
body.mpg
hipwag1.mpg
hipwag2.mpg
hipwag3.mpg
walk-1-dress.mpg
walk-2-dress.mpg
walk-3-dress.mpg
speech.mpg is over 5 megs but I'll upload it as soon as I get it here.
I've seen this girl somewhere before (no, really...) :)
It was a website somewhere, got the URL from the Hash AM mailing list. The personal site of (presumably) one of the guys who's been working on this. I'll see if I can dig out the URL when I get home...
Otherwise, can anyone here fill in the blanks?
Paul
Steven Stahlberg's 3D Gallery:
http://www.optidigit.com/stevens/
Yes, virtual idols are real. Hmm, that didn't sound right... um, anyway, check this out: There is a virtual idol called Kyoko Date, she has a life story and everything. Nice graphics, not quite photorealistic, but very nice.
http://www.etud.insa-tlse.fr/~mdumas/kyoko.html
As much as I hate to deal with the social implications of most issues this one strikes me as particuarly insidious.
I know there are plenty of Women who bemoan the fact that they "don't look like the models do". How are they going to feel when the models are computer generated and may have anatomical configurations not even possible in real life? In the computer they can tweak everything, muscle tone, body fat, hell they can even tweak gravity if they feel like it.
Further, aren't models supposed to show us what the garment will look like "in real life"? What's the point of having a model that doesn't really exist? It's going to be an idealized version of what the designer thinks the clothes should look like. You might as well just look at his inital sketches.
insert mandatory silicon/silicone joke here
I am not a layer, consult yours!
Okay, this question (of weather pics that **appear** to be children are treated identicaly to pics which **are** of children) has been raised a few times here before. As I recall, the legal concensus was that any **image** that sufficiently emulates children is technically covered by the child porn laws. Now in some cases (where there is a REAL model) this can be defended in court, (see your honor, she looks young, but she is ACTUALLY 20, etc.) But if there is no **real** model, I imagine the law will treat it **exactly** like kiddie porn.
-Crutcher
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I think you answered your own question. (IIRC, the other CGI is Common Gateway Interface.)
You think that's bad, what does ATM mean? (I can give you three options off the top of my head: a networking technology, a cash machine, and a MUD/IRC shorthand.) Isn't acronym overloading great?
If you want the real scoop on virtual models, take a gander at what people are doing with Poser by Metacreations.
Here are some links to get you started:
RATTERS.COM - Poser Links
A Mess of Poser Links
Poser Props Guild
Greylight Internet - Poser Stuff
Baumgarten Enterprises (Poser Stuff)
Paul Hafeli Poser 3 Inspirations - Great Poser Work
The Blacksmith - Poser Props
Paul Hafeli Poser Tutorials
Bushi's Graphics Homepage - Poser Stuff
Digital Puppet Magazine (Poser in Movie Making)
Poser Forum
This is where the real action is...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Yep. It'll be like having Lara Croft doing bra ads for Victoria's Secret.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not all models look that way. They aren't all Kate Moss. Seems like now a lot of female athletes are doing modeling on the side. They are usually much better looking and in a lot better shape. They aren't just thin. They are well-toned and healthy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I wonder how many sites that are pointed to by /. even know where this sudden deluge of traffic comes from. I hope the Elite people don't think they've hit something 'big' just becuase their server is about to come to a complete crawl. My tracert to them was hopping along nicely at 25, then jumped up to 600. :-)
:-)
As a girl geek, I think the site is funny. The whole thing is so far removed from selling clothes it's ludicrous. "setting new trends in beauty" by a guy. That's about as funny as it gets.
Oh, I should mention I'm on NyQuil, so just about every thing is funny.
--Becky
Join the SCA and/or hang out at RenFaires.
True story:
I have these two SCA friends, both female. One is quite petite, the other is quite large.
The petite one was pacing around her bedroom complaining that she felt unattractive because she didn't "fill out" her garb enough and men in that particular SCA group have a real tendency to go after the larger ladies.
The larger one replied, "Now you know how *I* feel next to *you* outside the SCA!"
And the lesbian fashion show sounds fun
-fable2112, out-and-proud bi-chick
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Actually, be afraid. Look at Squaresoft's current work towards the Final Fantasy movie. It's so lifelike it scared me the first time I saw it.
I don't know if there is newer sriff, but check this out.
It has gone that way already. The model's called Lara. She only exist in computers and she advertises for different products (I've seen car ads at least).
Of course, Lara doesn't look real enough yet, but that is because the technology needs to be upgraded a few notches first. We'll get there. Soon.
I wonder how difficult it would be to write a supermodel AI? Do they think? Am I stereotyping now?
- the Crazy Fraggle
This movie was made by Mr. Jurrasic Park himself back in 1980. Basically, this computer company takes scans of real-life models(just like they did in T2), and then the models get plastic surgery from the results.
Then, through the magic of computers, these models are synthesized, and some big thug with a gun kills off the real-life models.
It's a really weird, but worthwhile movie, and the computer graphics are a bit ahead of their time.
This could get interesting. Imagine taking a JPEG of someone, and have some program render a synthesized model to do anything you like. You could make that hand-puppet like in Johnny Mnemonic. fun!
Kids love the rich taste of web content! http://british.nerp.net
- Is the look of the model copyright-able? Anyone with a sufficiently powerful computer will eventually be able to generate virtual models. Will anything stop them from cloning the look of each other's models?
- I think a picture of a person has a different legal status than other types of pictures or computer generated images. What are the implications of this?
- Computer porno - these girls will do ANYTHING for free.
- Clothing, in particular fabric texture and the way fabric moves on the body is devillishly hard to simulate. Sure, they will have some stock simulated fabric types but what the model is wearing will never look/behave exactly the same way the garment does in real life.
- Some other people have pointed this out already: These models are not constrained by the human genome. They will eventually mutate into a gross caricature of the human form. Each fashion mag that uses them will tweak the current look just a bit. Bigger boobs, smaller waist, etc... Presto chango, eventually we've got barbie all over again.
-josh
Back when I was a skinny 13-year-old wannabe actress in dire need of learning to be graceful, I was interviewed by a modeling school and told that I "had the look" and would be a wonderful model.
My family paid almost $1000 for the classes -- and that didn't include the high heeled shoes I had to bring so I could learn to walk gracefully in them, or the makeup and makeup brushes we were "required" to have, or the photo sessions.
None of it ever went anywhere, of course. And now that I'm a not-quite-skinny 21-year-old, I'm told that I'd be a good artist's model or perhaps "large size" model (I really hate that term -- the average woman wears a size 14, folks -- try "average-sized" model).
I agree with the person who pointed out that giving teenagers CGI models to "measure up" to is likely to cause more problems. It's bad enough that in some cases, men with padded bras are considered "better" models for women's clothing than WOMEN are, because men can get down to a lower % body fat without it causing health problems.
Sorry for the rant -- this just brought up some bad memories.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Look... /Nobody/ looks like a fashion model anymore anyway -- not even the fashion models. See one in real life sometime; you're in for a shock.
I don't see that there's any difference between a human faked up and a tatal fake.
-- Slashdot sucks.
The best moment in the movie Lost In Space was when someone said "Sensors indicate they're silicone-based life forms." I laughed my ass off! OK, for the last time, let's get this straight:
Silicon: a metallic element, located directly below carbon in the periodic table and therefore (hypothetically) able to be the basis for complex molecules. A common SF device is to have a silicon-based life form, putatively different than the more commonly encountered carbon-based life form (e.g. humans). Ok, BTW, it's the semiconducter that makes up the processor in your computer.
Silicone: a synthetic gel used as a lubricant, a sealant, and as a reasonable approximation of breast tissue. Silicone, by the way, was responsible for helping a lot of lawyers get a lot richer in a class action lawsuit claiming exposure to silicone caused connective tissue disease in several women with breast implants. This has now been proven to not be the case...but neither do the lawyers have to give back the money, nor does Dow-Corning (which declared bankrupcy as a result of the settlement against it) get to go back into business.
Now, to make sure you've all got this straight, let's go through a few exercises:
Silicone implants--bigger boobs for chicks! Horray!
Silicon implants--the next step after wearable computers: the USR/3Com Breast Pilot XXI.
Silicon Graphics--builds kick ass servers in purple cases.
Silicone Graphics--a.k.a. 'Bay Watch'
Are we all clear on the difference, now? Good. Next time I'll explain the difference between "public" and "pubic."
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
Just think... when this technology becomes common place, people will start using "skins" as such online with the chat protocols of the future!
Everyone will be able to interact with each other as "beautiful" people. I wonder what that will do for societies perception of beauty, because such an image will no longer be out of reach from anybody.
Perhaps we might see inner beauty become the commodity of the new age?
Exactly. I think that as long as unrealistic body types are held up as standards of beauty, women will grow up with an unrealistic self image. CG models, which can be made to look like anything, will only exacerbate the problem.
Yes, this is a nitpicking question, but is it "CG" or "CGI"? Unless there's a new meaning for CGI that I'm not aware of, I thought CG meant Computer Graphics, and CGI meant C(omputer?) Gateway Interface. The former being computer generated imagery or special effects, the latter being the early web mechanism for web servers to run external programs to generate web pages. It seems that the latter is being used more and more when the former is meant.