PDA

View Full Version : Image Metrics - Technology Focus


PaulHellard
04-09-2008, 05:21 AM
The guys at Image Metrics show the workings behind their newest and fastest Facial performance capture system. Read the feature and view the vid by clicking on the image.

http://features.cgsociety.org//images/plugs/feature/fp2IM_08.jpg

DaddyMack
04-09-2008, 05:25 AM
That clip is absolutely nuts! looks like a fine system

CompanionCube
04-09-2008, 05:52 AM
That is amazing! how much does it cost?

jtvergarav
04-09-2008, 06:10 AM
amazing! yes, how much does it cost? looks very very nice!! it makes me think that the process to create it was tough, but to use it is easy.

I jumped when that girl in the website yells! just a pretty face? no... also!

ledo
04-09-2008, 07:22 AM
Hello
I'm a pipeline TD
for our upcoming 3d movie we are using a pipeline from face robot and other approaches. I don't know how for this image based tracking could break uncanny valley. In the recent years i've been specializing in breaking uncanny valley in CG. Reading the paul ekmans approach, FACS could be the better approach to convince efficient facial animation.
Does image metrics approach totally based on video based tracking? or much more than that.
Over all this new approach is really welcome.

Lman
04-09-2008, 08:35 AM
Fantastic
great solid results :)


( Ilana? I see her on the I.M. site)
It looks really nice and i like to see and learn bit more about it.
its Damn impressive :D
love to know more about this specific rig and mesh structure ect.
thanks
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2797/womanheaddm9.jpg

great work from the Image Metrics Team.
nice article too, thanks.

Regards Liam

Laa-Yosh
04-09-2008, 08:47 AM
So it's still heavily dependent on the quality of the underlying face rig, it "only" provides animation data to drive it...

ajcgi
04-09-2008, 09:02 AM
So it's still heavily dependent on the quality of the underlying face rig, it "only" provides animation data to drive it...

Sure thing but that's a lot better than no capture and could prove a method for breathing life into the eyes in particular.

BTW, it's ironic that subtleties is misspelt as subtitles! Of all the words to entrust a spellchecker with!
Great article though. Interesting stuff.

ParamountCell
04-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Fantastic
great solid results :)


( Ilana? I see her on the I.M. site)
It looks really nice and i like to see and learn bit more about it.
its Damn impressive :D
love to know more about this specific rig and mesh structure ect.
thanks
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2797/womanheaddm9.jpg

great work from the Image Metrics Team.
nice article too, thanks.

Regards Liam

Wow the video on their official site is cool. Freaked me out now I have to go change my undies :blush:

Rod Seffen
04-09-2008, 11:54 AM
IT all looks pretty unrealistic to me.
It all comes down to the quality set of phonemes that need to be individually modeled to suit each characters individual facial topology. That seems to be what's lacking in those models.
Thus, average stuff, apart from the main showcase character.

INFINITE
04-09-2008, 12:31 PM
Facial capture has come on leaps and bounds! looks very impressive. I would imagine you would need a pretty complex rig to get the best out of their system.



What will the future hold : )

JonasNoell
04-09-2008, 12:37 PM
The technique sounds innovative and interesting. But the results don't look very convincing to me. Comparing the facial shot of the real actor with the cg face, I think that the characteristics and the details in performance have been lost and dramatically reduced.

R10k
04-09-2008, 12:58 PM
I'm playing Half-Life 2 right now, and in many ways what Valve has done is more impressive than a lot of what's to be seen in that video. Obviously though, it's not done using mo-cap...

SergioSantos
04-09-2008, 01:31 PM
This technology is amazing
kudos for them :applause:

ankheilw
04-09-2008, 01:45 PM
This is really impressive stuff that can help an agressive pipeline / timeline, especially on the big projects that they show (Unreal III, Metal Gear Solid, etc.)

But, here's the rub. Take any facial performance from the Incredibles or Monsters Inc and put that up against Beowulf. I'd say that more people are going to watch and enjoy the animation that is touched by a living, breathing person. The essence of the performance is the key to breathing life into our characters, not the exact matching of phoenems and minute details.

We use facial capture and automation in our pipeline, but it only gets you part of the the way there. If you want success, as has been said in their thread before, you have to have someone behind the character to push them past the gulf of the uncanny valley.

Still, this is awesome stuff! Thanks for the link.

Skuttling
04-09-2008, 02:08 PM
Well, for the naysayers, remember also that Image Metrics system isn't just the "final say." They do apply the facial animations from the actor onto the models but then they can still be tweaked to the animators content. Think of it as a good base. And of course the models need a good rig, but they also need good poly flow etc. all stuff that a good modeler should do anyway. I mean, a pole in the middle of the face will cause an unsightly stretch in the texture, and no amount of good animation will cover that up.

But yeah, Valve's facials on Team Fortress 2 (go watch the vids on there site) are fantastic. Of course, they are also rendered realtime, which makes it even cooler.

elnady
04-09-2008, 02:42 PM
Great article thanks ..

fernando749845
04-09-2008, 03:23 PM
FaceStation from Eyematic could do this 5 years ago....! And then I used it on my own pc.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not impressed. Lots of animations in their trailer look very artificial. Like others have said above, it all comes down to good 3D modeling.

By the way, FaceStation costed about 1.000 dollars, but Image Metrics keep the software to themselves and I guess the "services" they describe are pretty expensive. (What happened to Eyematic.com? Anyone?)

So... nice to have a tech focus on Image Metrics, but it's no use to us people who are not a triple-AAA company with lots of bucks...

CHRiTTeR
04-09-2008, 03:46 PM
Sorry if this is a noobish question, i dont know much about facial animation and/or rigging, but how does this compare to face-robot? As far as i understood, face robot also automaticly created a rig (after clicking some points on the model)?

NolanSW
04-09-2008, 04:01 PM
Well, if I'm not mistaken, Image Metrics is a service they provide for sutdios where you provide the face capture and they build the face rig with the mapped preformance to it. You have a choice of joint driven or blendshape driven rigs. I think the price is dependent on the project and how much do you want them to do for you. I saw a lecture with these guys at GDC a few years back and was quite amazed but they do have little workers in the back slaving away to make this look good. It's not a fully automated process from what I've heard. Face Robot is crazy expensive (100k or so) that automates the setup but put a couple of talented artists on building some good blendshapes and another to setup the rig, you're going to yield just as good if not better results.

Navstar
04-09-2008, 04:12 PM
Really impressive stuff. The standout is the Samburu Warrior. All the game stuff still has that weird plaster face deadness. What makes Samburu Warrior so amazing? It seems all the game characters aren't really looking anywhere. Sure, they are moving their eyes, but I don't have any emotional connection to them. There doesn't seem to be any humanity in their eyes. I know instantly they are CG.

But Samburu Warrior really grabs me in way that's hard to describe.

Delucubus
04-09-2008, 04:37 PM
I don't think I can really agree with the first sentence saying "Image metrics has bridged the uncanny valley", really have they? The examples on their site are definitely impressive, but then again who knows how much time they put into the facial rigs, the clean up of things, etc...

The game stuff definitely looks better than other game facial animation but it's still game facial animation, and lacks life.

I do see the advantage of their system though, some studio may not have the time or the desire to animate every line of dialogue for their game / move / animation. If the money is right, hand it on over and have it done to a (what looks to be) pretty high standard. So there definitely is a market and an importance to what Image Metrics is doing so good luck to them.

SmallPoly
04-09-2008, 05:46 PM
Really impressive stuff. The standout is the Samburu Warrior. All the game stuff still has that weird plaster face deadness. What makes Samburu Warrior so amazing? It seems all the game characters aren't really looking anywhere. Sure, they are moving their eyes, but I don't have any emotional connection to them. There doesn't seem to be any humanity in their eyes. I know instantly they are CG.

But Samburu Warrior really grabs me in way that's hard to describe.

To me it seems to be a lack of complexity in the eye movements. I think some of the realism in the Samburu Warrior clip comes from the way the eyes both move smoothly and jump around. The eyes on other characters, such as in the clip from Gears of War, the eyes appear to be following a general target without deviation.

This brought a thought to my mind though -- we already know what the eyes are attracted to look at (both from art training and from various studies), so since it would be a pain to animate by hand we could probably run a simulation that gets weighted towards what the character is supposed to be looking at, and by whatever other factors are deemed important about the character. Of course, for all I know someone is already doing this.

noouch
04-09-2008, 10:07 PM
Anyone else notice a similarity?

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2008_04/imagemetrics/images/Picture-2.jpg
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4ODExMTg0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjE3Nzc4._V1._SY400_SX600_.jpg

frogspasm
04-09-2008, 11:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spiner?

nightwoodwolf
04-10-2008, 12:15 AM
ok hold on a sec let me say ... WOW .. now after breathing ... WOW ... ok and ... WOW ... the video on their site of the girl !! the facial animation !! .. if thats what the system can do today !! how it is going to be in couple of developed versions !!? awesome !!

Staszek
04-10-2008, 12:58 AM
amzing stuff:) some of are umbolivible..

nice range of targets have this tool

pauljohngriffin
04-10-2008, 07:35 AM
I'm a freelance animation director who recently had a chance to use
Image Metrics technology on a feature film.
Got to say, although the game stuff on the demo piece looks fine, and the
demo stuff looks even better, the work Image Metrics did for the film looks fantastic.
Can't wait for everybody to see it.

I believe the way they do things goes well beyond mocap or any other capture method
because at the heart of it, artists are part of the process and they really put
the soul back into the performance that other technologies seem to lose in translation.
Its part key-frame, part facial visioning software and can be edited easily after the fact
which is what gives directors much more flexibility than mocap.

The result is really only limited by how elaborate the rig is. While I was at Image Metrics
I saw a wide range, from low-poly game engine rigs to very high
detail and resolution facial setups. A lot of clients want rigs they provide used and
the IM system is flexible enough to handle the brilliant ones as well as, well lets just
say, rigs built with economy in mind.

Of course the rigs they do in house are strong because they really pay
attention to FACS and that their facial rigs can perform realistically. If you're considering
using the Image Metrics process, I'd strongly suggest getting their input before you
rig because they can help you get the best result for your particular application.

This is a great cost-effective way to generate a lot of quality facial animation
in a short amount of time and I think the film will really show what these
guys are capable of.

Paul Griffin
Animation Director

Feel free to check out my site including show reel link at:
http://www.griffins.150m.com/griff/ShowReel.html

JacquesD
04-10-2008, 08:47 AM
I'm definitely not impressed... this technology looks a bit more interesting as a base animation: Mova (http://www.mova.com/gallery.php?g=examples)

Jacques.

MasterZap
04-10-2008, 10:00 AM
NIce and all but WHEN are all these "face animation" people going to figure out that upper cheeks also move.

99.999999% of all CGI humans I've seen have had the "dead cheakbone" effect. Yet, if you try to do even the tiniest eye squint or minute smirk yourself, you'll notice the cheekbone muscless doin' a ton of stuff. . . . but since we as humans has concentrated on what the eyes and mouth do, we programmed our computers to do the same.

But eye movement or mouth movement without the proper upper-cheek movement == zombie zone. I wonder why this is so hard to fix!? :wip: :twisted:

/Z

CJ_Markham
04-10-2008, 03:46 PM
The top image and the first shot of the reel is a lie, Image Metrics not only had nothing to do with that shot, but nothing to do with the entire KillZone Liberation trailer project. How do I know this?...

I'm the animator that keyframed that performance!

Stealing animations from working professionals and claiming as ones own is something I'd expect from a student trying to break into the industry, but I never expected it to hit me from a company.

I have several people that can vouch for me, and I hope you see this post Image Metrics because you have a cease and desist coming your way.

jake_$teed
04-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Wow. A propriatary system . Pretty impressive.

AWAKE
04-10-2008, 04:55 PM
cool idea.

roto baggins
04-10-2008, 05:03 PM
I do agree.

robotinc
04-10-2008, 05:41 PM
That looks neat.

Lyr
04-10-2008, 05:45 PM
The top image and the first shot of the reel is a lie, Image Metrics not only had nothing to do with that shot, but nothing to do with the entire KillZone Liberation trailer project. How do I know this?...

I'm the animator that keyframed that performance!

Stealing animations from working professionals and claiming as ones own is something I'd expect from a student trying to break into the industry, but I never expected it to hit me from a company.

I have several people that can vouch for me, and I hope you see this post Image Metrics because you have a cease and desist coming your way.

This is 100% true. I worked on the Killzone:Liberation trailer as well and can verify that Imagemetrics was NOT used.

CJ_Markham
04-10-2008, 05:52 PM
Thanks Aaron,

I can't believe how uncool of Image Metrics this is!

Lawyering up as we speak!

noouch
04-10-2008, 07:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spiner?

Actually I was thinking of Rutger Hauer, more specifically him in Blade Runner...

jake_$teed
04-10-2008, 08:52 PM
Actually I was thinking of Rutger Hauer, more specifically him in Blade Runner...

I think that Blader Runner-esque font they use may be causing that, cos' I don't see Rutger at all.

CJ_Markham
04-10-2008, 11:01 PM
You can view this trailer in its entirety here http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_small.wmv (http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_small.wmv) a making of video here http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_Creation.wmv (http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_Creation.wmv) a personal interview with me about the Killzone: Liberation project http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_Interviews_CJ01.mov (http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_Interviews_CJ01.mov), portions on my demo reel http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/CJ_Reel_0606.wmv (http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/CJ_Reel_0606.wmv) and in my body of work reel http://www.cjmarkham.com/index/bow.html (http://www.cjmarkham.com/index/bow.html)

visualboo
04-11-2008, 12:28 AM
NIce and all but WHEN are all these "face animation" people going to figure out that upper cheeks also move.

99.999999% of all CGI humans I've seen have had the "dead cheakbone" effect. Yet, if you try to do even the tiniest eye squint or minute smirk yourself, you'll notice the cheekbone muscless doin' a ton of stuff. . . . but since we as humans has concentrated on what the eyes and mouth do, we programmed our computers to do the same.

But eye movement or mouth movement without the proper upper-cheek movement == zombie zone. I wonder why this is so hard to fix!? :wip: :twisted:

/Z
Try it and get back to me :)

I worked on a project for Image Metrics a while ago and am glad to see them finally making some ground on the exposure front. Way to go guys!

Mawberry
04-11-2008, 01:04 AM
Try it and get back to me :)

I worked on a project for Image Metrics a while ago and am glad to see them finally making some ground on the exposure front. Way to go guys!

I'm curious... What was your experience working with Image Metrics? Are you an animator? Did you do any facial animation on the project for them?

Just wondering... You hear so many things on the world wide internet web these days, it's hard to know what's real and what's not.

Kanga
04-11-2008, 01:34 AM
The short looked pretty cool. Claims to be traversing the uncanny valley are optimistic at best. The more real it gets the more creeped out I get. Just a bunch of dead things trying to look real, then why cant I stop trying to get across that abyss? :)

visionmaster2
04-11-2008, 01:46 AM
"...then why cant I stop trying to get across that abyss?"
Nice one Kanga !

Kanga
04-11-2008, 02:32 AM
Hi Marc!
Showed my girlfriend a test render of your skin shader this evening (with your model). It totally freaked her out.:bowdown:

Cheers

MayaTamer
04-11-2008, 06:58 AM
interesting

CJ_Markham
04-11-2008, 10:52 AM
As the Animation Supervisor on the Killzone Liberation Trialer, I should know who did what on that project. Sony's In-house cinematic team key framed that facial performance. I know because I was the animator that handled it.

Image Metrics is falsely cliaming the begining and ending segment, and therefor the image for this post, as their own work and I will see to it that they don't get away with this.

A Cease and Desist letter is in the mail, and they have till April 25th to remove it from thier demo reel, and request imagery to be removed from this site before I take this matter to the courts.

CJ Markham

R10k
04-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Hmmm, interesting... I look forward to seeing how quickly it's removed from the reel.

j3st3r
04-11-2008, 02:50 PM
That fiasco had raised few questions. For example, in Unreal there is FaceFX, a pretty cool tool. Is it possible, that they (IM) were not doing anything for Epic?

I'm a bit disappointed, I tried to contact them (IM I mean), but no answer yet, because we would like to make truly believable facial performance in our game.

RobertoOrtiz
04-11-2008, 02:56 PM
To all, thanks for posting your concerns about this article.

-R

JonasNoell
04-11-2008, 08:06 PM
Well it's always sad when people claim alien work to be their own. Especially in such a widely spread trailer. Thanks for sharing your information about ImageMetrics here. Maybe there is an explanation for all this? As a "professional" company they should at least give a statement here, I think!

Btw, what did MayaTamer post?

visionmaster2
04-11-2008, 09:47 PM
hi, i have a question (not about the polemic).
who made this girl ? : http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2797/womanheaddm9.jpg
is it Max Kor ? the render is cool and the animatotion to.





off topic : your real is very good CJ_Markham, but why putting your best work at the midle of it ? are the killzone trailer render in reel time ? great work man.

PaulHellard
04-11-2008, 10:15 PM
Thanks for posting your concerns about the Image Metrics inclusion of Killzone in their reel. I am still waiting to hear from IM.

Airflow
04-11-2008, 10:26 PM
Nope its the great RichSuchy (http://richsuchy.cgsociety.org/) . I recon this guy can make any character look real so I M cant claim all the kudos.

CJ_Markham
04-11-2008, 10:29 PM
Hey thanks man :D

My main reel is the one that opens with King Kong. The reason is because it has wider appeal for both film and games.

I keep my main professional reel between 2-3 minutes, but I like to keep a longer reel to display my body of work in a way that is more in-depth and behind the scenes, and other videos to provide even more information about projects. Like the clip of my Interview and motion capture scenes I participated in from the King Kong DVD. Any promotional materials where employers can see me in action is a plus. I can't wait to show my next project off, that will have to wait till the end of the month.

Cheers,
CJ

visionmaster2
04-11-2008, 10:57 PM
Thank you Airflow ! Richsuchy made a great work !

CJ_Markham, yes to have the 2 animations scenes in the same shot is a real plus !
cant wait to see more of your work. thank you for the answer.

hrafn64
04-12-2008, 09:28 AM
interesting

yes indeed interesting

cresshead
04-12-2008, 10:39 AM
seems VERY similar to the facestaion 2 plugin for 3dsmax and maya back in 2002-2003 except you can't buy it and use it yourself but have to instead outsource the animation to the studio
and let them proccess your data.

see link
http://www.pluginz.com/news/1703

CJ_Markham
04-12-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm waiting to hear back from SCEA's Legal team, but in the mean time, here is a promotional video that they made that goes into the process we used to make the Killzone Trailer.

www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_makingof_promo.wmv (http://www.cjmarkham.com/vids/KZ_makingof_promo.wmv)

This is a VERY entertaining video for anyone interested in CG.

MikeRhone
04-12-2008, 07:38 PM
Hell of a good video CJ...! Very interesting to watch. Nice work on the dog attack btw.

Buexe
04-12-2008, 08:00 PM
Yeah, thanks for the good video! Hopefully this legal/credit thing will be solved soon.

cresshead
04-12-2008, 09:50 PM
NIce and all but WHEN are all these "face animation" people going to figure out that upper cheeks also move.

99.999999% of all CGI humans I've seen have had the "dead cheakbone" effect. Yet, if you try to do even the tiniest eye squint or minute smirk yourself, you'll notice the cheekbone muscless doin' a ton of stuff. . . . but since we as humans has concentrated on what the eyes and mouth do, we programmed our computers to do the same.

But eye movement or mouth movement without the proper upper-cheek movement == zombie zone. I wonder why this is so hard to fix!? :wip: :twisted:

/Z

quoted as he's SO right...

move the cheeks and your uncanny valley will disapear!

Buexe
04-12-2008, 11:14 PM
I don`t think that it is that simple, what good are nice cheek bones animations when the mouth corner`s are not convincing and/or the eyes are not really spot-on. Many, many details have to come together and than also a small detail called producer to give you that time.

CJ_Markham
04-13-2008, 02:52 AM
@ MikeRhone and Buexe,

Don't thank me for the video, thank SCEA's In-house cinematic department for the hard work they did on that project. I'm really glad they recorded all that promotional "making of" footage for the projects we worked on for more reasons then one.

Grgeon
04-13-2008, 03:37 AM
Cool video CJ! I hadn't seen that one before. Hope all is going well in London.

-George

Buexe
04-13-2008, 09:55 AM
@ MikeRhone and Buexe,

Don't thank me for the video, thank SCEA's In-house cinematic department for the hard work they did on that project. I'm really glad they recorded all that promotional "making of" footage for the projects we worked on for more reasons then one.
What you didn`t make that all by yourself? ; ) Just kidding, great group effort (trailer+makingof of course), looks like a lot of sweat was invested by some very talented people.

gout
04-13-2008, 06:15 PM
Iíve been really stunned by the quality of the 3D performance of the girl, amazing (also a shame about the possible miss use of the killzone stuff).

Iíd love to know more about the technology they use, how much of the performance was software driven and how much of it had to be tweaked by an animator. Itís just a shame I guess they are not likely to release the software for general use.

Facestation 2 looks interesting, but it seems that it is no longer available. I found a link to buy it for $40 but I can only guess that was a dodgy site!

MasterZap
04-14-2008, 06:48 AM
I don`t think that it is that simple, what good are nice cheek bones animations when the mouth corner`s are not convincing and/or the eyes are not really spot-on.

IMHO, I rather have the mistakes at the corner of the mouth than forgetting to animate the cheekbones.

The problem here is psycho-optical; we've traditionally locked on to the contours of "corner of eye", "corner of mouth" etc. as the "points of emotion", but in fact, all these are secondary things to the overall facial musculature.

IMHO, The error done in facial animation has always been putting the cart before the horse, in that it has been about animating things like "corners of eyes" and "corner of mouth", not about "molding cheek musculature" and let the "corners" do what they do when you mold the musculature.

Many, many details have to come together and than also a small detail called producer to give you that time.

This is all true, but from my experience purely as an observer of what the industry has produced up until now, forgetting the cheek bone musculature movement is "instant zombie look". So if you forget that, it doesn't matter how well you do your "corner of mouth" thing.

I think our perception of faces is volumetric, with the "corners" simply used as handy markers for the volumetric interpretation the brain does. If the volumetric part isn't there, you can wiggle the corners all you like, it won't "gel" for the brain. If you wiggle the volume, the placement of the corners become secondary.

After all, a good actor can look angry, happy, or amused, without neither the corners of the mouth nor the eyebrows (all traditional markers for "mood") moving one iota. You can't "Narrow your eyes" without the accompanying cheek bone muscle movement. If you just animate the eyes themselves narrowing, the viewers brain will scream "fake fake fake".

/Z

Buexe
04-14-2008, 08:15 AM
Good to hear you are a close observer, Master Zap. I see little to be won in a discussion, whether cheek bone movement is the feature to rule them all. To be honest, I cry "zombie, zombie" when I see most stills of 3d characters. 95% professional 3D characters already have fundamental form errors . Very few people seem to understand the face musculature and how it shapes the face. And very few people get the eyes right ( and I can`t say I have done them the way I`d like them to be). But being someone who has done/studied (digital) characters for a number of years (16) now (and I donīt say I am a master at that btw). , my humble opinion is that many things have to come together, especially on animated digital characters to make them convincing. And it is really easy to point on someone`s work and say "Look that is wrong/missing" but creating them is a completely different story and there are many skills that have to come together to create the magic.
A Brilliant example of magic eyes/ animation that really made me believe the character is alive is a short called "Madame Tutli Putli"
http://www.artevod.com/programDetails.do?emissionId=2510
We saw it Annecy last year and everybody I know that saw it was captivated by it`s magic. Check it out, if you like to watch a very intense animated short, it is stop-motion btw.

Intars5d
04-14-2008, 08:28 AM
At first , thanks to author of post!
And my hat off to those who do all this stuff. As for me, I found face performance very convincing and I was impressed by video. Aaahhhhh, but then I still know that as to me I still have a looong way to go still with keyframing while I learn 3d on my own, enthusiasm :)
Still nice to see tech-progress in 3D

MasterZap
04-14-2008, 09:08 AM
Good to hear you are a close observer, Master Zap. I see little to be won in a discussion, whether cheek bone movement is the feature to rule them all.

Uhm, I'n not really saying that. I'm saying it is a severely neglected part. Strictly as an observer of what has been produced to date, it seems like everyone more or less forgot about it.

my humble opinion is that many things have to come together, especially on animated digital characters to make them convincing.

You'll find no disagreement from me there, at all. All I'm trying to do is to shed some light on what I perceive as a "neglected" part of the puzzle. That is all.


A Brilliant example of magic eyes/ animation that really made me believe the character is alive is a short called "Madame Tutli Putli"
http://www.artevod.com/programDetails.do?emissionId=2510
We saw it Annecy last year and everybody I know that saw it was captivated by it`s magic. Check it out, if you like to watch a very intense animated short, it is stop-motion btw.

...which are live-action eyes comped onto the stop motion, interestingly enough.

/Z

fernando749845
04-14-2008, 11:17 AM
I actually don't see any difference between the Facestation and Image Metrics stuff. I found the Facestation demo in my software archive somewhere along with some demo movies.

I tested the product back then intensively. Facestation is capable of tracking all facial movements, including the eyes and the head rotation. Surely it needs cleaning up, but the beauty of this plug was that it tracks in realtime with you sitting in front of your homevideo cam, while it drives your 3D model. Pretty cool.

When done capturing you can output it to a bone rig or morph based animation.

So I don't believe that Image Metrics is rotoscoping the whole thing (but if so you IM guys REALLY don't know what you're doing :)), In any case I wouldn't want to outsource the facial animation myself, since it is such a vital part of the entire animation.

Okay let's find out what happened with Eyematic and Facestation. I'm sure if they dig up their source and enhance it a la 2008 it beats the hell out of Image Metrics, especially on the financial part. Myself I will reinstall Facestation and try to make something better than this IM stuff.

Final thought: we're all talking about animation here, but in fact it's just simulation.

RichSuchy
04-14-2008, 05:12 PM
Steven Giesler and I made the model, textures and hair. If we were able to use our own topology it would have even been better, but budgets are what they are. :)

Rich

hi, i have a question (not about the polemic).
who made this girl ? : http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2797/womanheaddm9.jpg
is it Max Kor ? the render is cool and the animatotion to.





off topic : your real is very good CJ_Markham, but why putting your best work at the midle of it ? are the killzone trailer render in reel time ? great work man.

RichSuchy
04-14-2008, 05:15 PM
Nope its the great RichSuchy (http://richsuchy.cgsociety.org/) . I recon this guy can make any character look real so I M cant claim all the kudos.

Not just me but the Great Steven Giesler as well LOL. Thanks Airflow. You made my day.

Airflow
04-15-2008, 01:53 PM
Thanks for the clarification. What was the time frame for the modeling?

RichSuchy
04-15-2008, 02:57 PM
Modeling time was short as it wasnt from scratch. We modified a current mesh, transferring our optimised UV pattern to it and moving points from a model they had. They wanted to keep thier current topology so they could keep blend shapes intact. So our model was more of a delta shape adjustment.

UVs: less than a day
Model: hard to say because it was tweaked as we went.

Most of the time was in hair, texture, shader and render tests. These most current renders are a bit blown out without propper motion blur to make the hair propperly soft. But that it holds up anyway is fine with me.

Rich


Thanks for the clarification. What was the time frame for the modeling?

iskon
04-15-2008, 09:07 PM
What's going on with Steven Giesler?
We didn't see any new works(except this) from Final Fantasy and Animatrix times... His website have still his works from abovementioned movies.
I think that Mr. Giesler doesn't have to worry about uploading new stuff either, because such high level of realism in his works will be atractive in the next 5 years, also.
Max Kor, Francisco Cortina and Steven Eric Giesler are my top 3 guy whose works reminds me on Canon EOS 1D. :) :)

RichSuchy
04-15-2008, 09:33 PM
I know he doesn't want to bother putting out new stuff until it is sufficiently mind bending enough to warrent it. That said. The work he did on Beowulf would qualify (if rendered in MentalRay with his shaders) But that's an issue of data ownership.



What's going on with Steven Giesler?
We didn't see any new works(except this) from Final Fantasy and Animatrix times... His website have still his works from abovementioned movies.
I think that Mr. Giesler doesn't have to worry about uploading new stuff either, because such high level of realism in his works will be atractive in the next 5 years, also.
Max Kor, Francisco Cortina and Steven Eric Giesler are my top 3 guy whose works reminds me on Canon EOS 1D. :) :)

yenvalmar
04-16-2008, 01:52 AM
on real photos for texture, make real models and digitize them, mocap everything, shoot real explosions, etc. the realism is heavily dependant on sampling actual reality regardless of if facial mocap was used in a given shot.

the digital stuff is basically used as a sampling program is in audio, to combine elements.

it still probably saves some time vs doing a movie with live actors where the costumes must all be made and more props made to scale, complex shots can be captured in simple elements instead of choreographed with 593 actors, its easier to composite if all the elemnts are 3d, but ultimately id consider something like this or beowulf to be a hybrid not a 3d project in the sense that pixar does it, or that the video game itself is 3d.. we need a new term for these things.

im not getting into a "thats not real 3d" arguement but i think a project like this uses a different enough workflow that it warrants a special name.

RichSuchy
04-16-2008, 02:03 AM
Yenvalmar:

I think the hype and other projects has people confused. Beowulf and this Image-metrics character used motion capture but the texture maps had to be painted (Different than the process in the latest Superman), shaders written and ballanced, UVs had to be created, the models had to be built. Hair was done using Shave and a Haircut. In Beowulf the Mocap was retargeted to models whos size/ proportion was diferent as well.

on real photos for texture, make real models and digitize them, mocap everything, shoot real explosions, etc. the realism is heavily dependant on sampling actual reality regardless of if facial mocap was used in a given shot.

the digital stuff is basically used as a sampling program is in audio, to combine elements.

it still probably saves some time vs doing a movie with live actors where the costumes must all be made and more props made to scale, easier to composite if all the elemnts are 3d, but ultimately id consider something like this or beowulf to be a hybrid not a 3d project in the sense that pixar does it, or that the video game itself is 3d.. we need a new term for these things.

im not getting into a "thats not real 3d" arguement but i think a project like this uses a different enough workflow that it warrants a special name.

D1S4ST3R
04-17-2008, 05:49 AM
It seems to me that many studios boast awesome advances in facial motion capture but being a facial motion capturer myself at a major film studio and knowing how the process works, I think it's still mostly just boasting. In the end your probably going to have to use some old fashioned grunt.

RichSuchy
04-24-2008, 03:59 PM
In my years working in the industry I'd have to say that IMs system is the best I've seen. As always though, it will rely on a good model and in this case I believe blend Shapes is the best route though it can drive bones or FACS or whatever you want to hook it up to.

I would use it any pipeline I create if given a choice.

That being said I have to point out that my opinions are my own and I am not being paid, asked or otherwise coerced to air them.

It seems to me that many studios boast awesome advances in facial motion capture but being a facial motion capturer myself at a major film studio and knowing how the process works, I think it's still mostly just boasting. In the end your probably going to have to use some old fashioned grunt.

ienrdna
04-26-2008, 02:24 PM
I am intrigued to know what kind of topology was used?

RichSuchy
04-26-2008, 05:46 PM
I guess that question is aimed at me?

They had a model. The topology was pretty standard though not as optimized for underlying structure as I would have liked. We modified vertex positions to make it more like IM wanted it to look. Its a testament to thier system that it moves as well as it does.

Rich

I am intrigued to know what kind of topology did you used?

ienrdna
04-26-2008, 07:21 PM
I guess there is no way of seeing it? :sad: Thanks for the answer.

Buexe
04-29-2008, 08:02 AM
The pic of killzone disappeared.

daart
08-26-2008, 08:27 PM
New video

> klick < (http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-35067.html)

ice-boy
08-10-2009, 09:42 AM
anything new from siggraph?

CGTalk Moderation
08-10-2009, 09:42 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.