Digital Replicas May Change Games and Film

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Steve Perlman is touting technology that he says can create animated digital reproductions of the human body that are as accurate as photographs, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Game makers could use the system, called Contour, to create very realistic animated characters in videogames with fully controllable movements and facial expressions. Film makers could use the technology as a kind of digital makeup, changing an actor's looks or words or switch camera angles without costly retakes. The technology can even substitute one actor's face for another's and create exact replicas of long-dead historical figures.'"

Movie to game adaptions

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Realistic animations are already possible, has been for ages, it's called motion capture.
I only see the use of this technology for movie to game adaptions were they can quickly copy a real life actor to 3D. For the rest, why would you want to hire multiple actors to do the same thing what a couple of voice actors, motion capture actors and animators can do.
Besides, how would you use this technology in a non-realistic game.

UNLIMITED P0RN! and some serious comments

[davidwr]

This may revolutionize the porn industry. Imagine taking all the best porn actresses in their primes and putting them all in one movie. Check that, 1,000 different movies. Now it's possible. On a serious note, the less actual sex involved in making the porn, the less risk to the actors.

Leaving the p0rn industry for a moment, anyone who ever sold a picture of themselves and waived all future rights and royalties is going to be in for a surprise, especially if the picture is them in a birthday suit. You may see congressional action to protect people from having their images used in such ways if they signed "all rights" contracts before the technology became available.

Someday, we will have the ability to create totally new "people" for movies, without relying on any existing images. That way the whole concept of royalties and rights is avoided altogether.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[paul248]

We've had those for years. They're called cartoon characters.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Most cartoon characters aren't 100% virtual. There's still a voice actor behind them. And those can be just as demanding as ordinary actors. See the whole "we want a raise"-situation of the Simpsons voice actors recently.

Re:Virtual Stars?

[bm_luethke]

However, the virtual actor doesn't fare so well signing autographs, making appearances, and quite a few other things that real poeple do. Plus it seems that having a "realistic" fantasy (in the sense that it is physically possible) with a particular actor motivates a alot of stardom. For many shows this is most of the popularity, even the fans don't care much for the story.

Plus we would loose all the nice scandals - but I'm not too sure if this would be an overall plus or minus.

I do believe this type of stuff will really help small production films. I'm not so certain how it would work out for major shows - it may be that even with 50% of the current popularity it would still be such a profit maker that they wouldn't care (just like the mentioned reality shows - they are just so cheap to produce it doesn't take much audience to make a lot of money). Though in the long run that just leaves open a great void for another form of entertainment to rule, at the least such lowered production and distribution costs would really reduce the studios influence (much as what the RIAA is currently thinking of with home studios and digital distribution).

Re:$2000 per second...

[williamhb]

Did I read that right? So if we want to get rid of the real Tom Cruise and only use a virtual Tom for, say, 30 minutes of a film, that will run us... $2000 * 60 sec * 30 mins = $3.6 million

Given that the top stars regualarly charge $20million for a movie, that actually is a bargain.

The challenge, though, would be to get your virtual actor to that star status (so much harder without the chat shows and celebrity magazine stories about who he might marry).

Ah, but the danger lies not in accusatory power...

[TheNoxx]

Now I see some are afraid of forged "photos".... Actually, the larger problem with this technology is not that you could possibly manufacture photographic evidence to damage someone else's ambitions, goals, or whatnot; it's that in creating that possibility, hard photo/video evidence loses its credibility in court, and will only continue to do so with time.

I guarantee that when this becomes mainstream (just as most CG geeks knew would happen years ago), that implicating a person of influence/wealth will become nearly impossible, as any time any damaging photo/video evidence pops up (oh, say, like photos of torture at the hands of the US government at Guantanamo or a worse and nameless fascimile) the powerful will declare that it's been manufactured by the opposing side.

I'm skeptical

[spyrochaete]

Does anyone else here cringe when they see computer animation superimposed on film or passed off as a real action sequence? Graphics have definitely gotten a lot better over the years but I always laugh when someone describes the next gen of movie effects as lifelike or realistic.

Take Spiderman for example - I find those swinging sequences to look so horribly fake and robotic. The character model looks pasted-on because the light doesn't strike his body as it should and he isn't as softened by the camera as other objects, and the body motion appears jerky and forced.

So we'll see what the next gen has in store for us, but I have a feeling it will impress us only the first time we see it in a theatre. Jurassic park looked amazing that first time, but in subsequent viewings anyone can easily tell the difference between CGI and a model.

I love video games but I hate movies full of computer effects. Practical effects like those in Sam Raimi's movies are still the only way to go in my books!

Re:virtual pop icons

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up virtual kiddie porn and you'll have your answer.

Celebrity culture

[Anonymous Coward]

So this could mean the replacement of real actors with virtual ones? An eventual upside of this technology could be the death of the childish, self-indulgent celebrity culture which so many people inexplicably worship.

Virtual stars sure, virtual indie films, no.

[Kadin2048]

I'm not sure I agree with your thoughts on it helping "small production films."

Actors are cheap; CG is expensive. The percieved 'cost' of actors is distorted by how much it costs to hire a super-star, but most low-budget films can't afford that anyway, so they're using no-name actors to begin with. I think the actors' salaries are a pretty small part of most small-budget films who aren't trying to hire someone with name recognition.

A machine would definitely be cheaper than hiring Harrison Ford, but to paraphrase Monty Burns, it's probably not going to be cheaper than hiring his 'Mexican, non-union replacement.'

In any major city there is probably a surplus of actors willing to work in film for a basic living wage (and quite possibly less than that). Particularly if you can script your film to use youngish actors, there's a fairly big talent pool of people willing to work for publicity; in some cases they can be quite good.