so you can shoot her face off mid sentence without actually killing anyone.
how about taking her head mesh, sculpting a cool monster face in it, then using that same animation and releasing it as a video? i want to see her face displace into something that would show the true power of this tech
I was thinking you could scan in an actor in heavy makeup and then capture his facial animations without makeup and superimpose the scanned face over that. That works too though.
check out on their demoreel, it contain various model,
including monster and cartoony stuff face animation.
Wow, such believable! I thought she was real ! 
Sorta Creepy (no pun intended). I thought the teeth/lips were the giveaway…they had too much gap in them so it looked like she was talking with her jaws clenched. Good thing they kept the scale of the video to a medium size. Outstanding capability but I agree with others…why?
What are you dense? The purpose of this tech is stated in the video, for film, video games, etc. I never understood people who ask “what’s the point of creating a realistic 3d human”. These people never seem to understand the amount of craftmenship, skill, and technical knowledge that goes into shaping, texturing, and rendering polygons into something that appears to be a living breathing human being. How can you not appreciate that? Realistic 3d humans are used all the time in movies, sometimes exclusively (Beowulf) and video games are getting closer to that standard too. Various media outlets want to be able to capture realistic human emotions and this tech is a great step forward to meet that goal. If you can’t understand that, I think you’re in the wrong forums.
oR_Creeper thanks!
I was starting to think I was the only one thinking that it wasn’t looking that convincing.
First of all the face is the only part that has a strong reddish colour. The other parts of the body have a bit if a yellowish colour. So right from the start you could understand that something was going on.
The second giveaway was the lips and the eyes. The movement was a bit strange and I think it was because it lacked some sort of definition.
Anyway it doesn’t really matter. Things are progressing really fast and to the right direction. So congrats for all the hard work.
The criticism on this thread is coming from 3D artists and enthusiasts who are analyzing the footage after already knowing it’s CG-based. I actually showed this to some “laypeople” without telling them it was digital, and they had no idea it was fake!
I’m personally stunned by the rapid progress being made by you guys at Image Metrics, I’m positive you will totally nail digital humans in the very near future. I’m just concerned you will be putting many modelers and animators out of a job… :o
awesome work guys!! you are on a good way to future technology…
cg emily looks very real.
only if you know its animation you might see that there is something artificial about her eyes and sometimes also at the corners of the mouth.
how many and which texture layers did you use for the skin?
anyway great project.
your light stage is cool! 
hope to see more…
I’d love to see more information about how ZBrush was used in this project. 
Hi Black Crane.
For games, stunt work and special effects, I definitely agree with you. And I definitely appreciate and admire the artistic skill required to produce perfect photorealism. I should have benn more clear.
My argument was that it is pointless to create a photorealistic human just to use as a “virtual actor”. What is the point of a virtual actor? If, for example, someone wants to put say, Elvis, or Marilyn Monroe, in a movie, would it not be more efficient to use makeup FX?
To me, the most successful use of photoreal characters are ones that are somewhat fantastical. Gollum and King Kong, and to some extent the Hulk from Ang Lee’s movie, were perfect.
Grendel was a great movie in and of itself, but the character’s facial expressions and emoting were severely lacking. They never smiled or frowned or blinked realistically, they had no small facial ticks or squints or any of the tiny facial movements that a real flesh and blood human would have.
Can you honestly say that Grendel would not have been exactly the same movie had they used real actors for the human characters?
emily motion is pretty good.
seems like it would be much harder to make look real if you didn’t put an 8 pixel blur on the image, and if you posted a high res video instead of small compressed web videos.
…
Where is reality?
What is reality?
Splendid and Amazing work :eek: :o
BRAVO !!!
…
A few decades ago the super realistic art form flourished in the US before the digital age and it was an immediate hit until the novelty wore off.
The same is going to happen here and that is by no means saying anything bad about the great efforts of the Emily Project people etc.
The problem is that the idea that being able to create something that appears totally real has very little art and creativity inherant in it.
Great draughtsman have existed throughout art history but seldom did they really move people in ways that many other artists did eg Dali, Klee, Klimt et all.
This needs to be realized by the digital community and its devotion to super realism which may be a great thing for the games industry or film and TV but then what will they do with it? Replace actors and then what?
Tell even worse stories?
I do not get the point!
I’ve been debating with myself on whether I wanted to chime in on this.
Personally I’m kind of disappointed that this thread has become something you would find on other forums.
ZBC has always been known as a creative forum where we can discuss Art without being over sensitive or judgmental.
The mean natured responses don’t seem constructive or conducive to dialog.
Lets focus on what the good people at Image Metrics have accomplished and what it could mean for us in the future.
I know that evolution can sometimes be hard after all with change always comes much resistance.
All you have to do is think back a short few years and the impact ZBrush has made to the production pipeline.
This too was met with much resistance.
Now I must admit… I am biased on this subject.
After all I am privy to inside information as I was their (Image Metrics) modeling supervisor.
This was before heading out on my own to Freelance last year.
So I can speak from experience I have seen it applied practically on games and feature films… which BTW will blow your socks off once IM is allowed to talk about their latest project.
All I want to say is that the debate of why, might be missing the point.
The technology is here because facial animation is extremely time consuming and complex.
The process that Image Metrics employs allows the director the freedom to get the performance he wants from the actor he hired, In a big way, I might add!
So the long delays of tweaking go away and better performances are on the horizon.
I think we all will benefit from this process.
Yes maybe this Demo doesn’t have an Oscar award winning performance, but do we really need that to get the point?
I think it demonstrates quite clearly what IM can deliver and yes the people that I saw watching the demo at the Siggraph booth were consistently blow away.
So judging it with knowing eyes is much easier after all you are automatically looking for what is wrong.
BTW, Many, many, many years ago I remember SAG (Screen actors guild) being up in arms over the new fandangle CGI. How dare these computer people think they can make actors.
In fact a few very high profile films at the time were shelved due to the pressure.
Time has taught us that there will always be a need for actors, the beauty of this process is that we actually get to use more of their performance and I’m all for that!
My congratulations to the entire team that put this demo together.
I know I was blown away when I saw it.
Keep on rocking, I know how much hard work goes into creating one of these. I for one am proud of all of you.
Hats off!
Cesar Dacol Jr.
Aka, The Voodoo Monkey
[font=Times New Roman]
Photorealism in art does have very little purpose at this point. It used to have a purpose, because photography was impossible. Even after the invention of photography, realism still had its purpose, but then it could be used to create fantastical images that would be difficult to photograph. Things that defied physics. Now, even that is unnecessary, as we have photoshop. Still, I think the one purpose it has left is to be admired by people that appreciate the skill necessary to produce the image. Its quality is not so much in the image, but the understanding of what it took to create.
This technology is different, however. Videogames do not have the luxury of using photographs. They may want to use a realistic look as a backdrop for their game. They may think a realistic look is the most appropriate for their game. Some will still use a styilized look, but it shouldn’t be compulsory. In movies, traditional makeup may always have a purpose, but it has its drawbacks, as it may be probitively heavy or uncomfortable for the actor. They could also give a makeover to a skilled actor that doesn’t have the right look for the character he is playing.
This is part of the rabbit hole from The Matrix.
I can’t wait to plug and join a world where I look like anyone I want - or anyTHING I want, like the World of Warcraft.
Wearing a lightly wired face mask, which is connected via USB, WOW.
-Brandon
Simply amazing best ive seen.I have a few actor friends whom are very well known I always warned em about the day They all will lose their jobs lol.I love it well done…
the girl`s face is blury…about her hair i cant say that its CG or Real…great !
That is outstanding!!! Is that girl on the video entirely CG or just the face plate ?! I’m really confused - everything is so real! B
Really stunning job - which needed a great dedication and labor of love. I bow in front of you with respect…
ps. I got it now when I finished watching it - really amazing! :eek: