Who Owns the Rights to Your Face?

Haasim Mahanaim

New member
Aug 14, 2009
1
0
0
Attack of the Uncanny Valley

The uncanny valley looms large over all the advances in CGI, but what happens when technology finally crosses that barrier? There are experts and evidence both suggesting that the floodgates of confusion caused by realistic CGI have already started to open, and the results are stranger than people may have even imagined.

Read Full Article
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Grief, how many films can be brought in here? Hundreds that show the blurring between fantasy and reality, and possibly explaining why people are always so scared of computer games that 'cross the boundary' (Like GTA's Hot Coffee etc.)

I think this said it all though
A spokesperson for the magazine replied, "I don't see what the big issue is here."
You really don't. Mr Spokesman won't see the big issue until he's been fooled by it. The big issue is that in any other form this would be considered libellous.

It's, again, a media spin of being afraid of the uncanny valley while those that are "respected" delve into it time and time again.
 

Dooly95

New member
Jun 13, 2009
355
0
0
I personally don't see a big problem. If I see a person in a photograph and judge him on that, doesn't that say more about me than him?

I for one, welcome the new virtual reality, where the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. We might have less real crimes if that came to be.
 

Neesa

New member
Jan 29, 2009
510
0
0
Oh media. How we take the tools that were meant to do good and use them for evil/laughs. I think the cover with Andy Roddick's picture is pretty hilarious. First common thought might've been "Hell, maybe he started working out more. He's ripped!" But a trained eye (like mine) or anyone with at least 10 brain cells could notice how the head and the body don't match up. But in the light of celebrities getting enhanced, that's nothing new. We're a visual species. Photos get enhanced to attract a certain crowd. Andy Roddick's could've attracted men that want to work out and build bigger arm muscles, some curious as to how he did it, women for eye candy.

So if you don't want your face/body enhanced, don't be on a cover then, silly. Or make sure that the person that's doing the Photoshop work knows what the hell they're doing.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
I think many "uncanny valley" effects come from bad animation, if the model is realistic enough but the animation isn't the result looks seriously fake and weird. We're more willing to accept unrealistic animation if the rest of the character doesn't look realistic either.
 

InProgress

New member
Feb 15, 2008
754
0
0
The problem is in the human mind: We're so used to seeing and interacting with other humans, that each little flaw in an animation or in the model itself really stands out. One of the most important things that show that a character is fake are the eyes. Dead, soulless, plastic eyes can (and usually do) make the character fall into the "uncanny valley".

Digital 3D has a fundamental flaw too: it looks and feels fake. No mater how hard a studio works to overcome it, in the end it will still look fake, or at least shows some traces of it not being real.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Dooly95 said:
I for one, welcome the new virtual reality, where the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. We might have less real crimes if that came to be.
And a lot more fantasy crimes commited in reality.

Red or blue pill, Mr. Anderson?
 

ghalkhsdkssakgh

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,520
0
0
Personally, I don't think technology will ever be able to simulate life to the minutest detail, to the level where it can fool anyone who sees it. Especially not in games. AI and bots are never able to completely emulate another player, which is one of the reasons many companies are now focusing on multiplayer-only games, like Team Fortress 2.
The thing that makes human opponents or allies so different is their ability to think and plan. A computer can only have a finite series of responses to a given situation, whereas humans will always be able to find paths or tactics that had never been planned for. What happens if we create a wall of fire using molotov cocktails? What happens if we have a medic standing on top of a heavy while healing him? The ability to ask 'What if...' and then act on this inspiration is what gives humans the edge: Their imagination. And while computers and avatars may become more and more lifelike, they'll never be able to emulate human thought.
At least, I sincerely hope not.
 

Misnomer

New member
Dec 12, 2008
17
0
0
Saying never here is a luxury of human mortality. Likely it won't happen in our lifetimes, but there are some obvious concerns. The things is that these advances will happen gradually and people will adjust their lives into it.

I often wonder what Ben Franklin, Jules Verne, or other forward thinkers would think of our lives if we brought them here. Certainly we are missing something of what made them "fundamentally" human, but here we are arguing to preserve our "fundamental humanness" from yet another technological creation.

Yet, we come to these forums everyday to discuss issues that a drastically smaller percentage of the human population could have during the enlightenment. Not sure if that makes us better, but it shows that the realm of technology is not simply a moral graveyard.

It seems that we are constantly concerned with obliterating ourselves. Whether it is nuclear apocalypse during the cold war or global warming now, there is always plenty of self-preserving paranoia to go around for the human race. Most of the time technology is far less sinister. Even in the instances where technology presents yet another opportunity for humans to eliminate their cherished ways of life, humans are simply creating means to demonstrate new ways in which we are not as special as we previously thought.

The great thing about the uncanny valley is that it shows us even more ways we didn't even realize we were human. You really don't miss it until it is gone. While we will keep defeating these little things with better imitation, reaching the other side of the valley will mean completely understanding humans. Perhaps it this is a thankfully unreachable goal, complete understanding of a dynamic organism and all its external manifestations is no simple task. But, at least it is a loftier and more moral objective than making replica humans to act out our basic instincts. As the Japanese men pointed out, you really don't need verisimilitude for that...
 

alzheimers

New member
Jan 29, 2008
13
0
0
It's all fun and games until you look in the mirror and realize that you're nothing but a CGI animated Artificial Intelligence.
 

Lopunny

New member
Apr 15, 2009
236
0
0
Oddly enough, I was reading about this recently, if you imagine for instance....a barbie doll, it comfortably outside the uncanny valley. It is clearly no-human looking, so we pick up on its human qualities, but when it comes to CGI, we see it as human, and so focus on is non human qualities more, making us uneasy. Some people think it has to do with mechanisms for detecting healthy mates. A CGI figure looks different, odd, so we reject it. Another good example of this is

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

Doesnt the robot make you feel slightly uneasy, but you dont really know why?

{edit} sorry, I dont really know how to post Youtube windows
 

Dhatz

New member
Aug 18, 2009
302
0
0
I've already seen some breakdance videoclip to some DNB compilation with CGI modified faces to be obama, mccain nad pallin. but it was lo-end funny clip, so it was pretty obvious,but the diferrence between realistic is only about money and time. But it you look into any random car magsine, you can't say which pictures are renders and which are photos already, so where did he get the thought that it will take 10-15yrs?
 

ReverseEngineered

Raving Lunatic
Apr 30, 2008
444
0
0
While this article starts off introducing the uncanny valley theory, it ends up deep into something much more important: ethics of image manipulation and CGI.

Fantasy is fine as long as we understand that it's fake. We can watch shoot 'em ups on TV, we can laugh at cartoons being squished and exploded, and we can appreciate the comically-manipulated images on magazine covers. But these fakes are all acceptable because we know they are fake -- they are intentionally so. Each exaggeration is a fact being highlighted, a point trying to be made. They become a sort of subtext and commentary.

But it starts becoming concerning when those fantasies are passed off as truths. Manipulating a photo of rockets being launched in Iran to make it look more omonous or impressive is deplorable when that photo is being passed off as reality. Making a famous bodybuilder's muscles bigger than they really are both undermines the accomplishments of that bodybuilder and sets unrealistic expectations for those wishing to follow in his footsteps.

As humans, it's difficult to tell truth from fiction (just ask Decartes how much he trusts his senses). We are forced to rely on our senses to establish what's real and what is not -- an extremely important distinction. Photos, videos, and eye witness observations are all judged as reliable evidence in court. Especially online, "pics or it didn't happen," is a common indication of our reliance on images to determine authenticity.

Whether it's telling a lie or secretly doctoring a photo, it's fraud and manipulation. If we reach a point at which it's difficult or impossible to tell whether an image or video has been falsified, our world will change drastically. People will be accussed and convicted of crimes they didn't commit, people will follow authoratative orders from those without authority, and we will be forced to doubt everything we see and hear. It will become very difficult to trust anything, for fear that you will believe in a lie.

There's a major difference between a fantasy so real that it's believable and a fantasy passed off as reality. Being tricked is fine as long as we want to be tricked, but we're seeing technology used more and more to change what we think is real. It's a very dangerous, deplorable act.
 

pneuma08

Gaming Connoisseur
Sep 10, 2008
401
0
0
From the article:

"If that Super Bowl ad had offered nothing more than the sight of Christopher Reeve walking; or if that Al Franken photo had been a perfect forgery, all we'd have to discern fantasy from reality is our feelings. And when we're at the sole mercy of our feelings, we're liable to believe in anything."

Perhaps we are liable to believe in anything, but I'd predict that people on the whole would just get more skeptical of images and movies. The pull to believe what you want to believe would be pretty strong, though...
 

Sanaj

New member
Mar 20, 2009
322
0
0
Haasim Mahanaim said:
"There is only a finite amount of time and resources that people can invest into their surroundings," says Brey. "As people invest more of their lives in virtual worlds, they have [fewer] investments to make into the real world. Virtual worlds are often more attractive, more exciting and more controllable than the real world. This may cause people to lose themselves in them, to such an extent that they start neglecting their 'real' life. They may even emotionally invest in affectionate relationships with CGI characters at the expense of such relationships with real people."
People that find it more involving to invest more time in virtual worlds than the real world are seeking an escape.
People that are invested more in CGI characters than real ones are most likely very socially awkward and anxious when confronted by groups.

Misnomer said:
*snip*
The great thing about the uncanny valley is that it shows us even more ways we didn't even realize we were human. You really don't miss it until it is gone. While we will keep defeating these little things with better imitation, reaching the other side of the valley will mean completely understanding humans.
It won't mean we completely understand humans just because we can create realistic still and moving images that are facsimiles of humans.

Why do people focus so much time and effort to make realistic looking images and animations?
Isn't one of the strengths of the video game medium that it can be completely unrealistic or be about anything we can imagine?
Since photo realism is still 15-20 years away, why aren't stylized art forms more widely used in video games?
 

Zand88

New member
Jan 21, 2009
431
0
0
Is it just me, or does the girl in the header looks unnervingly like that Boxxy youtube-whore?
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
I often wonder lately why there is a such a big push to create simulated reality to such a degree that it stands in for the real thing with very minor chance of it being seen as a forgery. This article answers that question, while raising another: Can we escape the eventual plunge into such a simulacrum of reality?
As Morpheus said in The Matrix, 'Most people in the Matrix are so deeply inbedded into it that they will fight to remain." Case in point: Cypher.
Yahtzee himself, in his blasting of the Wii, has argued for Virtual Reality (or controllers made of fruit.) I myself find the Wii as it is being marketed now as a weird bastard child of reality and VR. I find it comforting though, that it keeps us on this side of reality.
Iori35 said:
People that find it more involving to invest more time in virtual worlds than the real world are seeking an escape.
People that are invested more in CGI characters than real ones are most likely very socially awkward and anxious when confronted by groups.

It won't mean we completely understand humans just because we can create realistic still and moving images that are facsimiles of humans.

Why do people focus so much time and effort to make realistic looking images and animations?
Isn't one of the strengths of the video game medium that it can be completely unrealistic or be about anything we can imagine?
Since photo realism is still 15-20 years away, why aren't stylized art forms more widely used in video games?
People who invest themselves into artificial reality because they may be socially awkward, are only making themselves socially awkward even more. Second Life, fun as it may be, is not a primer for real life social contact. It becomes too easy to build a fiction around yourself, that nobody would recognize you if they met you in real life.
And I wouldn't put a forecast on when photo-realism occurs, it could be as easily as tomorrow. And that's a good question for #1 and #3. My thoughts on 1 is we are already so into the computer age that we have fallen into the God Trap, where we want to make our own realities, for us to control and create in. It's just a thought.
 

Jacques 2

New member
Oct 8, 2007
67
0
0
photo-realism can be achieved today, I'd post a link, but it's not safe for work, just look on CGTALK.com, it's just that the photo you're trying to realize has to be relatively low quality.

Animation on the other hand, is much more difficult, largely because our movements, simple as they may be, affect our entire body as a chain reaction sets off. While we sit here typing, we're breathing, our nostrils open slightly more, slightly less, slightly more, and our chest rises and falls. The muscles in our arms move, just tiny amounts as a result, as do our legs, but animating all these tiny details realistically is an animator's worst nightmare, every frame changing many many variables, increasing in speed and complexity as the action of the scene rises, virtually any 5 minute sequence with characters in combat would take months. High resolution models and textures are close, but always off, because when you see the skin of a person, you're looking at pores, hairs, veins, blood vessels, dermis, abrasions, wrinkles from motion and most of these things move or change in response to the environment. And when you look into someone's eyes, you're looking at a transparent membrane over another membrane with an iris made of muscle fibers in the center. Flat textures can't emulate these minute details well enough to create an HD illusion, we must make strides in modeling and rendering technology, which will take 5-10 years, maybe less if we can get a unified curved geometry format going.

In the matrix argument, I'm mixed, I believe control on such a level is wrong for anything short of an all knowing benevolent being such as God, but as far as the simulation goes, if it tastes like steak, if it feels like stake, and it smells like stake, and doesn't kill you, then it's for all intents and purposes steak.

Imagine if the world we lived in was a mix of virtual mental projections and real life objects, imagine skinny people walking out of McDonalds on a regular basis, having just consumed a nutritious vitamin gel compound shaped like a burger, made to look and taste like one by the virtual mind projections. It has a darker side, yes, which is why I believe the system should have an off switch, which you can always reach, both in reality and in your mind, and at least a month of the year should be spent without it at all.