Computer-Generated Media People?

[Joe]

How convincing are computer generated media people and what are their possible uses?

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o

 

[dant]

Creepy. Don't believe at first what you see,
what then, how to tell the difference? I cannot
vouch for hearing, being hearing impaired,
what then? Ugh... what a conundrum! :/

 

[darksai]

Creepy. Don't believe at first what you see,
what then, how to tell the difference? I cannot
vouch for hearing, being hearing impaired,
what then? Ugh... what a conundrum! :/

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. If you understood the message or what was said for what it really is, would it make a difference whether or not the person's face was "real"? If it was being used to convince the public that someone who died was alive or something like that, then sure, it would be relevant to know, but in general, I think this is mostly just another case of New Toy and Because We Can syndromes.

 

[paralleloscope]

I don't know if it's just me having worked with visual FX, but I'm quite aware when I see animated CGI in use, especially humans. But that's of course only for what I think I recognize, being in line with what the topmost visual effect agencies have on their reels or demonstrations of emergent technologies (like the one posted) that get public awareness, but the MIC possibly have technologies that go way beyond that, the hyper-dimensionals certainly do.

Off the shelf programs have made it fairly easy to create photo-real human models, although when you study them close for a while you'll find the flaws. When they get animated it's given away much faster. Usually it's the eyes (the light variations on pupil contractions) and rigid facial muscles (no micro expressions) that give it away, also hair is expensive (man-hours/ cpu power) to do completely realistically.

Possible uses? Replacing controversial statements made by unruly citizens or political figures comes to mind.

Maybe they don't even need perfected technologies for it to be useful as a political media tool, just as long as most (the sleepers) buy it, and critical voices could be buried in the conspiracy pile. Come to think of it my parents probably wouldn't have spotted the give away details on the girl in the video.

 

[Palinurus]

Interesting topic!

First time, when I watched it unsuspectingly, I just thought something is off but couldn't pinpoint exactly what or why. Rather creepy feeling not to be able to recognize any specifics...

Second time I could clearly see from the beginning that the face color of the animated part is slightly different up front from what you see alongside the ears and around the neck. So when you already know what you are dealing with, it clearly is fake and can be recognized as such in more and different details like others have mentioned.

I've found a similar other specimen which can be watched in HD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF2pAsaaiw

I have also found a tentative explanation of sorts for the creepiness feelings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ar7WO1T5Cs

Then I remembered some articles a few years back about a virtual pop star in Japan and even found a thread about that one too:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20547.0.html

http://www.sott.net/article/217778-J-Pop-Star-and-3-D-Hologram-Hatsune-Miku-Sells-Out-Stadiums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatsune_Miku
http://www.crypton.co.jp/mp/pages/prod/vocaloid/cv01_us.jsp
http://www.sott.net/article/247924-Japanese-man-dates-virtual-pop-star-using-video-goggles

Finally, in similar vein but more realistically looking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ji3R_gVWDw

http://www.sott.net/article/230340-New-Japanese-Pop-Idol-Shocks-Fans-With-News-Shes-Not-Real
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fake-japanese-pop-star-surprises-fans/story?id=13926819
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimi_Eguchi

Some of the possible uses are implicitly given with the referenced examples, I think. ;)

 

[Joe]

Creepy. Don't believe at first what you see,
what then, how to tell the difference? I cannot
vouch for hearing, being hearing impaired,
what then? Ugh... what a conundrum! :/

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. If you understood the message or what was said for what it really is, would it make a difference whether or not the person's face was "real"? If it was being used to convince the public that someone who died was alive or something like that, then sure, it would be relevant to know, but in general, I think this is mostly just another case of New Toy and Because We Can syndromes.

Well, if only on a symbolic level, the fact that there could be entirely fake TV "personalities" or even "idols" that people think are real is pretty interesting in terms of what it says about human society and how inhuman it actually is.

 

[Palinurus]

Well, if only on a symbolic level, the fact that there could be entirely fake TV "personalities" or even "idols" that people think are real is pretty interesting in terms of what it says about human society and how inhuman it actually is.

I quite agree. Nevertheless, taking into account that many are in deep sleep and re/act as automatons themselves --not to mention the organic portals and authoritarian followers among them-- it has a ring of self evidence around it which would be highly symbolic in itself now that I come to think about it... :D

EDITED to add:

Associatively I further thought of the Frank Zappa song Plastic People and the Czech rock band from the Prague spring time (1968/69) named The Plastic People of the Universe. Talk of symbolic!

Sources:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_People
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plastic_People_of_the_Universe

 

[Pierre]

While digital creations look more and more like human beings, some human beings look more and more like digital creations. The "barbie flue" is apparently developing in Ukraine. After Barbie (Valeriya Lukyanova), two new "living dolls" called Dominika and Anime have emerged on the media scene.

 

[lostinself]

as far as i get it, she's not exactly computer-generated. she's a real person whose performance has been recorded in specific technology allowing for 3D playback, so to speak. this may be useful for playback in arbitrary resolution, for easily incorporating FX or for some kind of holographic 3D reproduction, but it's far from creating ultra-realistic performances from scratch (ie. without having them pre-recorded).

 

[Buddy]

How convincing are computer generated media people and what are their possible uses?

I don't know, but I think "made from scratch" CG 'people' will eventually become very convincing and used for all sorts of entertainment. Concerning possible uses of computer generated media people, my guess is that eventually all establishment news and views will use CG 'media people' so as to avoid Freudian slips, signs of lying, body language 'tells' involved in making stuff up or that awkwardness inherent in being upstaged by the calm, rational, knowledgeable arguments of a 14 year old or whatever.

 

[Rich]

Well, if only on a symbolic level, the fact that there could be entirely fake TV "personalities" or even "idols" that people think are real is pretty interesting in terms of what it says about human society and how inhuman it actually is.

You may have seen this Japanese virtual pop star who is a 'real' virtual example of idolising virtual idols. _http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/10/mf-japan-pop-star-hatsune-miku/all/
Interesting that for this example that there is a deliberate effort not to make the virtual idol appear too real since previous attempts ended badly:

In the mid-1990s a Japanese talent agency hired software designers to create Kyoko Date, a virtual idol, with the hope of turning her into a music sensation. (Coincidentally, William Gibson’s novel Idoru, about a Japanese virtual pop star, was published at the same time.) Kyoko’s image was taken from the features of real models, her voice from real singers. She sang, she danced, and she looked very real doing it—and, after a glittery debut, she proved a flop. Japanese fans found Kyoko just real enough to be creepy.

So far they’ve not had that reaction to Miku, who is just unreal enough, it seems, to be relatable. At a fan convention, Condry told me, he asked some kids why this was. “They said, ‘We know she’s not a person. We like that she’s a machine. Those of us who are into this like dealing with machines more than with people.’”

 

[spyraal]

Hello everyone,

I have been interested in visual effects and 3D graphics since I was a kid, and I work as a freelance 3D/VFX artist for the past 15 years. My take on this after the few things I've learned though the years, is that it's only a matter of time before computer graphics completely match reality and computer generated people appear to be as real persons. And when I say "it's a matter of time", I mean with the use of consumer grade software and hardware. I can only imagine what is currently possible in advanced image labs employed by governments and the PTB with access to supercomputers and customized noncommercial software. We might have witnessed some fully or partially computer generated "news" already. But if you think of it, this technology is useful to the PTB as long as it's applications are concealed by people and treated as "impossible". Much like photography was in it's beginning: An old-time photograph used to have some value as evidence, until our days when image processing and Photoshop have installed some major "disbelief" in the reality a photograph now presents. It is easier today for the average person to come to ponder "is this photograph real or not" than it was some decades ago.

Still many people nowadays take whatever they see in a monitor or TV at face value, since even the current potential of image processing technology is unknown to a great part of the population and especially to older generations that lack a computer education. But it is again just a matter of time, as new generations of people grow to consider this technology as second nature. I think the same principal will apply to moving pictures, video, and computer generated people eventually. Once their use becomes so ordinary, with realistic virtual people greeting you when you visit the website of your neighborhood's video store, then I guess people will be less prone to take every "person" they see on the news as real, too. Knowledge protects, and once the existence of "digital-doubles" becomes common everyday knowledge, the power of this technology to be "weaponized" will be greatly decreased. Until then though, there still a window of time for the PTB to manipulate reality with fake computer generated "news" and "characters" that suit their agenda. Sure, in the future, news people could and probably will be replaced with robot-perfect animated doubles, but if by that time the public knows that they are but common synthetic virtual characters maybe they will treat them accordingly. Time will tell, once again. :)

Thank you,
Spyros

 

[Divide by Zero]

Usually I can tell when something is CGI, even when it is photorealistic.
The way the object moves is "too smooth".
What I mean is that in normal film, they use 24(film), 25(PAL europe TV), 30 (NTSC north america/Japan), 59, 60 frames per second. When filming at those rates, the movement isn't absolutely smooth because the camera itself has a delay which makes a form of "mixing images". Take a video and pause it and go frame by frame, and you see motion blur and jumpiness sometimes.

However with CGI, when they render this, it is scaled to the frames per second wanted too perfectly, which I guess is sort of a "blink" where this perfect fitting of movement into frames makes it look "too smooth".

You can also see the same thing happen when they take a widescreen movie and make it fit a standard screen (using a strategy called pan/scan). At some scenes, they video edit the shot across the screen + sometimes zoom in/out to keep something on the edge of the screen at the center. Since this isn't done by the camera, but on an editing machine, it moves too smooth to look like the camera did it.

There is a response from Nestle to the RT show Breaking the Set, where the host jokes that it seemed like a computer reply. Although it is a real person, it is spooky when the future is heading towards this!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dcxf9UtltFuY&ei=bGEXUtbXMvLF4APLtIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNFnfUzbQyYisBJ_e0Nvg7V4Orgteg&bvm=bv.51156542,d.dmg

 

[H-KQGE]

I don't know, but I think "made from scratch" CG 'people' will eventually become very convincing and used for all sorts of entertainment. Concerning possible uses of computer generated media people, my guess is that eventually all establishment news and views will use CG 'media people' so as to avoid Freudian slips, signs of lying, body language 'tells' involved in making stuff up or that awkwardness inherent in being upstaged by the calm, rational, knowledgeable arguments of a 14 year old or whatever.

A good point. Even people who don't study these things often know that something isn't quite right. If pointed out it gets easier.

There is a response from Nestle to the RT show Breaking the Set, where the host jokes that it seemed like a computer reply. Although it is a real person, it is spooky when the future is heading towards this!

I've always been able to tell CGI in movies & don't know why. It usually spoils the movie & it's always confusing when others can't see it too. "Why can't they make it seamless or something?" i would ask myself, well i've got my wish it seems. The thing for me is videogames & that "blurring the lines between reality" thing that's been a sort of holy grail. From Full Motion Videos to photorealistic trailers, & now to this.
That episode of RT's BtS was weird, (the end of series review showed it again which made it more weird) & at the time i was baffled by it (it conjured the 80's classic movie "Videodrome" type images) but now i see possible reasons for it.

as far as i get it, she's not exactly computer-generated. she's a real person whose performance has been recorded in specific technology allowing for 3D playback, so to speak. this may be useful for playback in arbitrary resolution, for easily incorporating FX or for some kind of holographic 3D reproduction, but it's far from creating ultra-realistic performances from scratch (ie. without having them pre-recorded).

That was also my understanding. That she was pre-recorded in some some tech-specific way, this is what i referred to above about contemporary gaming. Around 5 years ago this kind of thing (publicly released that is) was kind of clunky or juddery. This will definitely fool many non-gamers & gamers alike. More troubling for me is that some faces can really fit this technology quite well (as hers does to a point) but others are a giveaway, at least to me.

While digital creations look more and more like human beings, some human beings look more and more like digital creations. The "barbie flue" is apparently developing in Ukraine. After Barbie (Valeriya Lukyanova), two new "living dolls" called Dominika and Anime have emerged on the media scene.

And again, gaming! This kind of look has been prevalent in Japan especially, for many years (with the improbable-oversized-chest-on-a-female fighter thing thrown in) with the Manga/Anime "Japanimation" scene. That girls/women in the Ukraine are doing this is startling.

 

[Laura]

One thing it could be used for is blackmail, big time! Just make a model of someone, create an embarrassing or disgusting scenario, show it to the victim and threaten them with exposure unless they cooperate. That way, even potentially decent politicians could be easily co-opted.