XM Magdalena 3D print, GGeorgy (3D)
LC #42 Pipers Alley

View Full Version : Image Metrics

10-14-2006, 01:19 PM
I'm sure they'll need modelers and animators for cleanup, but the technology for characters is getting more and more procedural:

watch the video clip. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/movies/15waxm.html?_r=1&ref=movies&oref=slogin)

(Nytimes. If you get a login prompt, please use www.bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com))

Pinoy McGee
10-14-2006, 01:41 PM
[Image Metrics' ComputerVision] Rather than attaching sensors to an actor, as motion captures does, this technology works merely by filming the actor's performance...

Crazy! Great for cg, bad for the movie makeup fx biz.

10-14-2006, 06:26 PM
It seems to capture the facial expression better than Face Robot and it's marker free. That's impressive.

Not sure about using it to resurrect dead actors on screen though as they have their own personalities that they brought onto the screen. I really can't see anyone playing Bruce Lee except for Bruce Lee himself.

10-14-2006, 07:02 PM
" Projects are already circulating around Hollywood that seek to revive dead actors, including one that envisions Bruce Lee (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=41139&inline=nyt-per) starring in a new Bruce Lee picture."

Wow! watching that sounds like it would be quite creepy.

10-14-2006, 08:21 PM
Apparently , Michael Bay and ILM will be using this tech for Transformers. Robots with emotions anyone?

10-14-2006, 09:42 PM
I have to say int he article there are some good examples of uses tha tI think are smart, like an acton playing a younger version of themself (simplifying some of the work on xmen 3 right) or in the unfortunate circumstance that an actor dies far into a film production like int he crow or matrix etc.

I think going back to old celebrities like the medicare commercial is a little questionable interms of ethics, I'd assume one would at least have to get permission from the estates to use those peoples images in productions.

One line did catch my eye though as being totally ridiculous:

So whereas a film like “Cars” (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=290414&inline=nyt_ttl) cost $120 million and took dozens of animators five years to make, Mr. Kasanoff says that “Foodfight!,” which has not yet begun production, will be finished by February.

Like that movie will compare even the slightest. I mean take out the lipsync and cars would still be an exhaustive production interms of bady acting (even on cars compared to creatures), story, rendering etc. the facial aniamtion alone wasn't what made cars take 5 years. And I'm sorry but an entire CG feature film in 5 months isn't even goign to come close to what Barnyard or hoodwinked looks like, though maybe its facialo animation would be nicer. The red head transferring to the Asian CG model looked about as weird as Polar Express and Monster house imo. I have to say it does have appeal interms of no markers, and the fact that it does eyes and tongue in a decent way, but I think it stil faces the same problems all facial capturing faces.

10-15-2006, 01:51 AM
Image Metrics stuff is about three years old, i dont know how much it cost but heard its a sh*tload.

Edit: Ooh they changed there site, was a ton more info on the old one.

10-15-2006, 02:06 AM
Image Metrics stuff is about three years old, im not gunna tell you how much it cost but its a sh*tload. More than Face Robot?

10-15-2006, 04:30 AM
Mocap in any form does not make a good 3d animated movie. Thats been proven too many times. It can be used in parts, but not throughout a whole piece or it just looks funky.

10-15-2006, 08:37 PM
Very great improvement... but does it mean the end of character animators?

10-15-2006, 09:02 PM
Did the backhoe bring the end of the shovel?

10-16-2006, 08:50 AM
Interesting to compare what this article says now:
Mr. Kasanoff says that “Foodfight!,” which has not yet begun production, will be finished by February.

If you're interested in the film Foodfight! be sure to read this article about the production from 2003:
Link: http://preview.millimeter.com/cg/video_next_generation_digital/index.html
Foodfight! ... is, indeed, a rare development in Hollywood: an independently financed, CG film that is already deep into production outside the studio system. Company executives say the film will include 138 main characters with speaking parts, 6,254 secondary characters that will be glimpsed in groups throughout the film, and 174 sets that include almost 5,000 buildings and 12,000 lights.

If true, all this would make Foodfight! one of the most complex digitally animated feature films ever produced, and yet, Kasanoff insists the movie will be made for as much as 40% less than recent, high-end, studio CG movies. He also claims the movie will soon reach the public via a studio distribution deal currently under negotiation.

... “We had to put a huge chunk of our own money into the project at the very start,” says Kasanoff. “This does break every rule in the producer's handbook, which says, ‘Never risk your own money.’ But we felt, three years ago, that we had to invest our own money to prove to the world we could make a digitally animated feature independently.”


10-16-2006, 08:59 PM
Very great improvement... but does it mean the end of character animators?

I seriously doubt it. This will help when going for realystic facial animation, of course, but surely there will need to be some tweaks, or maybe client will want something taken out or added, or maybe the character wasn't quite looking the right direction, in which case eyes will need to be tweaked and eyelids/brows will need to be adjusted.

And then there's stylised animation that just can't be mo-capped. :)

10-16-2006, 09:36 PM
Apparently , Michael Bay and ILM will be using this tech for Transformers. Robots with emotions anyone?


CGTalk Moderation
10-16-2006, 09:36 PM
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.