Image Metrics Emily Cg Facial Animation Blows My Mind
August 20th, 2008
The other day, I showed you guys what I thought was some really impressive computer generated facial animation. Then, the guys over at Image Metrics sent me a video clip of their latest CG creation, Emily, and I was bowled over.
Emily is a truly monumental achievement, recreating every nuance of human facial expression, even though what you’re actually looking at is the face of a digital actor. Created through a partnership with USC’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), the team’s primary objective was to create a completely convincing, animated computer-generated face, and I think they succeeded.
Using ICT’s special scanning system that can capture facial details down to the individual pore, the face of actress Emily O’Brien was transformed into a digital representation of herself, which could then be entirely machine-manipulated. A special spherical lighting rig captured O’Brien in 35 reference facial poses using a pair of high resolution digital cameras. The facial maps were then converted into 3D data using Image Metrics’ proprietary markerless motion capture technology.
Image Metrics then generated a new animation sequence and precisely superimposed it onto the live actress’ head. As you can see from the video below, you’d be really hard-pressed to tell the difference between digital Emily and real-world Emily.
Amazing, no? Be sure to check out some of Image Metrics’ other CGI projects, which include work on Grand Theft Auto IV, Devil May Cry 4, and a most excellent Gnarls Barkley video featuring a anthropomorphic singing heart.
Comments (112):
Post a Comment:
Categories: Digital Imaging Technology
Tags: animation cgi face facial ict image metrics mo-cap siggraph
that is classs
I find this really impressive… because I know how difficult this is.
My wife does not. My wife would represent the average computer user, and to that average computer user it does not sound very impressive to make a digital reproduction of a real actress. I mean, in theory that is what a digital video camera does. So to an average user this does not sound any more difficult than some advanced video editing.
So maybe it would be a good idea to wow a bit more silently about this, or you know, detail what you are wowing about a bit more, so you do not sound quite as such a sad geek.
@frank:
maybe you should tell your “wife” to read the second paragraph since you obviously didn’t bother to explain “how hard it is.”
You can only explain so much, some people just have a hard time understanding anything to do with technology.
hum Frank is right, lol! no more then 2 people i know have an idea how difficult it os to mimick life with CGI. even my workmates who are cgi passionates think it is all about tool that you “press play” then you have your 3d character lol!
Frank is wrong. Anyone with half a brain can figure out how hard it is to do this. You need only try to figure it out yourself.
Frank, your wife isn’t using her imagination. Challenge her to describe how she would approach this CGI process. She doesn’t even have to know how to use a computer to do this. Challenge her to describe the aspects of a photo or animation that are just so easy to analyze empirically. Also tell her that the human brain is a very impressive supercomputer, and that the way she thinks is different from a digital equivalent. The human brain runs on analog signals (which is why we can have fuzzy memories; otherwise, we’d either have the memory or not have the memory).
*essentially a crystal clear video, like a HD picture resolution x 4, or more relatably, like natural human vision.
The problem with humans is that they don’t try to describe stuff. They let their brains do the thinking, so instead of commanding their brains, their brains command them.
that is truly amazing!.. can you imagine video games in years to come WOW!
I appreciate how difficult this is (now through my own personal experience, but I’ve been in the industry long enough to know), but I wouldn’t go so far as to call the clip mind blowing. If I didn’t know what I was watching, I’d think there was something wrong with her face…why are her mouth and eyes floating around? Very impressive, no doubt, but we’re a ways off from mind blowing if we’re striving for hyper-realism.
Hi levels retouching.
waooow
So maybe it would be a good idea to wow a bit more silently about this, or you know, detail what you are wowing about a bit more, so you do not sound quite as such a sad geek.
That is freaky but very cool. I dont know the first thing about creating these but enjoy the renderings very much
Thanks for the blog loaded with so many information. Stopping by your blog helped me to get what I was looking for.
regards
weber grill recipes
Very interesting article! I enjoyed reading it and watching the video.
It is amazing what they can do with images it just blows me away. You got to love it!
Thank you for sharing. Great!
Wow .. that’s great.thanks for sharing
Impressive…
This is awesome
Yes it is very amazing. Do you think that people are smarter today or they just have more to work with? lol
Wow, technology at it’s best.
I have to say you’ve got to be really dumb to think just anyone can jump on a pc and produce this, this technique involved Avatar the movie -Learn to use a computer how about trying learning how to do this all by yourselves it would take years.
I’m an animator and I still don’t understand how to do all these things.
Go figure sure “its totally the same as someone videoing themselves “_NOT!
It’s impressive and definitely many hardwork and thinking has been put in to reach such achievement on developing such intelligence in adapting specified subject to different facial style flawlessly. Great work!
Not sure if it’s the same but I wouldn’t mind getting my hands on the software that created “Avatar”.
that is classs ? that is wonderfule
Wow, love the new technology..
The imagery blows my mind as well.
I actually heard this interview on an MP3. It was converted from youtube to mp3 so it lost a little but I still got the message. Great post
I am very interested with your article. I think your article is very good much can I take. I say thanks for the amount for all
Incredible. I imagine the applications for this will be far reaching. It makes you wonder just how far. Very impressive.
This is just amazing. I love the color nuances and lighting diffusion of every little pixel
That is really impressive. I have been doing some research for a side project and another impressive use of CG and 3D technology is the david 3d scanner. You can get accurate 3d CG models with a simple web cam and laser level found at home depot.
I can’t wait to see where this technology takes us.
It’s really amazing thing. Thank for this great article.
My wife does not. My wife would represent the average computer user, and to that average computer user it does not sound very impressive to make a digital reproduction of a real actress. I mean, in theory that is what a digital video camera does. So to an average user this does not sound any more difficult than some advanced video editing.
This is absolutely amazing. I can’t believe they can make this look so lifelike. This could mean trouble for extra actors in the future.
the latest version of Grand Theft Auto have more detail on its graphics, nicely done.,,*
Thank you for posting this description of the process. Ever since I had seen the original video of the computer-generated Emily, I had wondered how it was done. When I stumbled across your post today, this was the first time I had seen the description of the process that they had used.
Getting this level of realism is incredibly difficult with CGI. The advantage of motion capture technology is that we are able to record human motion, but getting the look and feel of a living, breathing human being is a real challenge.
My wife does not. My wife would represent the average computer user, and to that average computer user it does not sound very impressive to make a digital reproduction of a real actress. I mean, in theory that is what a digital video camera does. So to an average user this does not sound any more difficult than some advanced video editing.
Truly impressive. I’m not an artist myself but knowing a couple people who work in this area, I am aware of the complexities. I never would have guessed that Emily was computer generated. All I can say is WOW!
The level of detail in the face is incredible.
Facial animation in movie production today is very impressive, as you can see in Avatar in 2009 is improved method from this technology in 2008.
I remember seeing a pretty crummy movie with Al Pacino about a disgruntled director fed up with eccentric and annoying actors. He discovers some software that can animate the whole thing and replace the actor entirely.By the way, he ends up blowing it when his ego gets in the way and he has to take credit for his creation.
This could give fussy actors a thing or two to worry about.
came across the post and was amazed at how old it was, how possibly can this have moved on
Came across this now, 2 years later, and it is still impressive. I work with characters and wouldn’t consider anything like this without the setup, process and professionals Image Metrics had.
By the way the process is very nicely opened on this very good TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ed_ulbrich_shows_how_benjamin_button_got_his_face.html
However the presenter on TED neglects to mention something and lately Cameron has done the same with his Avatar. This neglect got my blood presessure up. See what it was, here:
http://www.cgmascot.com/animation/downplaying-animation/
The movie “Simone” with Al Pacino featured a cgi created ‘star’ whom he managed to nudge into stardom. Cgi is one of the new generations of techno-crafts that become art.
Well, if you don’t think the average person would be impressed by this, show them the video first, then tell them her head isn’t real, that a computer made that. Then they’ll be impressed. Probably even a little freaked out.
It is amazing what can be done these days. I hope they are well compensated for their technical prowess!
Yeah, but think of the possibilities. Next thing you know, you’ll be in an erotic chat room with the person of your dreams and come to find out it’s a cgi. Well, maybe it’s better that way anyways.
Yeah, that’s probably the case. Perfection is something I believe should remain in fantasy, because there’s no real fun in that.
This is really impressive. The video was mind-blowing it’s amazing how far cgi has come in the last few years.
I was totally blown away by the video! This really is the next stage in the evolution of CGI to the level whereby you simply cannot tell the difference! I am off to watch Toy Story 3 tomorrow and I am hoping the recent improvements in CGI can be seen there also.
It’s really amazing how good Emily looks in CG. I am predicting that within 10 years, all stunt-men in Hollywood will be out of a job because it will be cheaper to recreate human stunts digitally than it is to use real people. I also predict that within 20 years, real actors will not even be required for movies.
We saw in Avatar how realistic the characters looked, but that still required real actors to capture motion. That will soon be a thing of the past as CGI programs accumulate thousands and thousands of built in motions.
It’s getting exciting — And Scary!
I don’t think it will go that far. Stunts are done digitally more and more, but actors are not replacable. Either you need actors to capture the motion and emotion or animators to animate the acting – in fact act.
Motion libraries are not the answer. While human face muscles are the same for everyone, variables like muscle size, bone structure, fat placement and amount, skin type, and imperfections in all of them vary so much, that there is no bank of motions that ‘fits all’. Even taking all those factors in consideration, and many more that I forget, there is still personality that makes each face move in very different ways.
Additionally while they can construct a pretty complete pose bank for one particular actor, like they did for Benjamin Button(see my TED-link above), it is just for that actor. And even when they have motion capture to drive those poses, it is not enough. If you see my other link, you will find out they still needed animators to make it work.
Some in the industry like to paint an image that the technology has gone far enough to bypass the need of animators. Camerons flashes his new tech and neglects to mention (or downplays) the need of animators to fix motion capture and to improve it. Many years of work in that step. I have yet to view the Avatar DVD or Blueray and extras to see if he does remedy that neglect there.
I just ran across this post today, and its funny, because as impressive as it was at the time, only 1.5 years later we have avatar….