Leaping the Uncanny Valley 421
reachums submits this glance at "the newest level of computer animation," intended to get past the paradoxical "uncanny valley" — that is, the way animated humans actually can appear jarring as the animation gets hyper-realistic. "This short video gives us a glimpse of what we can hope to see in the future of computer games and movies. Emily is not a real actress, but she looks like a real person, something we haven't truly seen before in computer animation."
It's very close. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not quite 100%, though. It still has the same problem as almost all previous attempts - the eyeblinks don't look right.
I don't know quite what it is - too slow? The eyelids always meet in the same place? - but it's the one thing that screams "fake" to me.
Re:It's very close. (Score:2, Interesting)
Add to that, it's really hard to tell just how good the animation is on some crappy low-res youtube clip of 5 second sections of her. Give me a good 5 minute, high rez, large clip and it'll be much easier to tell just how good it is.
Re:It's very close. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.image-metrics.com/ has another demo (Score:5, Interesting)
And while it's extremely impressive, sadly it's definitely in the valley for me.
Looks uncanny to ME (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish I'd somehow had a chance to view this before knowing that it was a computer animation... say, a side-by-side comparison of a real and an animated person and a challenge to guess which was animated.
To me, "Emily" did not look real and did look uncanny. Actually, it reminded me of nothing so much as one of those videos where they replace a baby's mouth with animation so that it appears to be talking like an adult. It seemed to me that the animation's "mouth" was not stably positioned on its "face;" when the head turned, I perceived a change in the position of the mouth relative to the face. Something about the skin didn't look right, either.
Would I have accepted it as real if I were expecting "real?" Yes. But that's not the same thing.
Some years back I took part in an experiment to gauge something about necessary bit rates and algorithms to make synthesized speech sound real. What struck me forcibly was that, in this experiment, when you were listening to the best synthesized speech, if I'd had no standard of comparison I'd have said it was real. But when they switched to a real voice saying the same thing, there was the most amazing sensation, almost a tactile sensation of sound shaped by warmth and moisture. Only after you heard the real thing did the synthesized speech seem cold and mechanical.
Re:It's very close. (Score:4, Interesting)
I noticed the same thing, but I really don't think it would have "jumped out" at me if I hadn't been looking out for something fake - I'd just have assumed that "Emily" had strange expressions.
I think Small Furry Creature [slashdot.org] is on the right track - the uncannyness of the valley isn't "people" looking almost-but-not-quite-right, it's our physics assumptions failing - when fat on someone's face doesn't move the right way, hair doesn't fall the way we expect it to, and so on. They got around that in this video by using real background video everywhere except for the face, so there are fewer cues for us to notice physics going wrong - except, as you point out, the eyelids. That's how they got around the uncanny valley, imnsho.
Re:Not really animation (Score:5, Interesting)
From what i understood, this is simply an easier kind of motion capture that works straight from video without the need for sensors etc. That's not the same as creative animation, you still need a real person talking and moving.
I haven't seen motion capture look this good. But anyway, the point of this is that you could, for example, use a cheap (read: plain) actress for the recording of scenes, and then animate the perfect, beautiful princess character using her mannerisms. Let's face it -- actors get paid the big bucks for their looks, and not so much their talent. There is a hell of lot of acting talent out there that doesn't necessarily have the right "look".
Uncanny in the other direction (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but does it even exist? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, a better question is if the uncanny valley really exists. Or rather, if it's really as simple as that valley, or we're actually looking at a more complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon.
And I'll attempt to build a framework to falsify it. It's a bit roundabout and I'll start by explaining the what and why of that framework, before all else. Bear with me, please.
First of all, before someone jumps in with the ever popular, "OMG, you're not worthy to question the high priests!" (err... "scientists"), the uncanny valley is just a hypothesis. A very compelling and well argued one, no doubt, but hardly a proven fact.
Second, before I get into the meat of the argument, the points chosen to represent it are highly debatable. E.g., is a zombie scary because of being close enough to the real thing to fall in the "uncanny valley", or because of the whole cultural meaning of death, undeath, corpses, etc?
When you look at each point individually, you can handwave and argue it to be wherever you want it, to support your hypothesis. It's called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy [wikipedia.org], after the fable of the sharpshooter who shot first and then painted a bullseye around the hole. You can "prove" anything in (pseudo-)science if you can do just that to the data: take a fuzzy and ill defined points and argue where they belong on your curve.
The "uncanny valley" paper does just that. We don't know the exact X coordinate on that graph for a zombie or a robot. It could be way right or way left, or whatever. So what really follows is that Mori decided a priori where they belong on that curve, and then places them at a point based on that. It's a textbook application of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
So what I'm going to do is an ad absurdum reduction of his curve.
I don't know the exact coordinates of any of my examples either, but, here's the important part: I don't need to pretend to. I'll just peg them between two other values, which, assuming the curve is correct, both fall in the valley or outside it, or some other position. Based on the reaction they caused, and, again, assuming that the curve were correct.
And due to the shape of the curve, if two points are in the valley, then everything between them is in the valley too. If two points are, say, both to the left of the valley, then a point between them should be on the left of the valley too. That is the important part.
So, let's build a counter-example: the FF movie was called a clear example of the Uncanny Valley. It's in the valley. Sony's Everquest 2 (particularly with the unnatural ambient bloom enabled) caused a similar reaction, and many euphemisms were used to describe just that: that that world looked disturbingly unnatural, especially if you pushed the graphics settings high enough. Classic example of entering the uncanny valley from the left, eh? So it's point 2 in that valley.
A point between them should, obviously, also be in the valley. That curve only has one dip, right?
Well, point #3 could be Oblivion. The graphics are better and more detailed than Sony's graphics in EQ, but don't even come close to the insane polygon counts and animations of the FF movies. It's between the two points. It should also be in the valley. It isn't. Nobody was repulsed by Oblivion's graphics. Or pick Crysis, or whatever newer high-end game, and you get the same curious behaviour. It ought to be in the valley, but it isn't.
Let's build another counter-example: so we're told that zombies are only repulsive because they're so close to humans as to fall in the uncanny valley. So logically, if you start with a zombie and move farther and farther away from human-like with it, eventually it exits the valley. Right? In fact, past a point it becomes outright _cute_ and appealing. Or ought to. I mean, that's the shape of that curve.
You probably realize already how absurd that statement is, but let's actually imagine it. Let's say we start with that corpse an
Re:How true was this? (Score:2, Interesting)
To back up what you said...
I have a friend who is proficient in performing table magic. One time he was performing that to a more traditional-thinking Chinese Woman in 40's and she was VERY SCARED and linking that to superstition and seriously advise my friend not playing "that thing" because it's "ghost-involving" etc.
Photo of the real Emily (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this [imdb.com] her?
If so, good but a little way to go yet :)
Re:Uncanny in the other direction (Score:5, Interesting)
There actually have been theory's put forward that there will be a second 'uncanny valley' when it comes to transhumanism.
In other words, as 'normals' begin modifying their appearance outside of what is considered normal, they will start to slide down that valley and become socially unacceptable till they get to the point where they are back on the other side of the valley and just accepted as 'freaks'.
Re:How true was this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Important to note that the only part of the video that looks completely normal is the behavior of the head, the arms, the breathing of the torso-essentially everything done by the actual human. I'd be surprised if you felt absolutely no (at least confusion if not revulsion) watching the video. The face was interesting to me, but I was blown away by how realistic the hair looked, how realistic the arm movements--until I realized that that was all still a regular human being. Then, when I focused in on the face alone, it simply looked animated, and if not disgusting, at least completely out of place.
I think the general feeling, even if it isn't an all-out feeling of disgust, is one that things are...not...right. Ultimately, I think this is a pretty bad example, though, since Emily is touted as being "not real" but in fact the majority of the body language--the stuff we are tuned into almost subconsciously--is still human. I think if this video skips by any general feeling of revulsion, disgust, or out of place-ness, it is specifically because there are still physical human elements in it.
It's "performance transfer technology" (Score:4, Interesting)
Image Metrics calls this "performance transfer technology". It's not really animation; it's more of a scheme for pasting face A onto actor B. Quite a bit of this already goes on; often, when you see a stunt performer's face on screen, the face of the principal has been transferred to the image of the stunt performer. With this new technology, that can be done without matching camera angles or going through the whole "dots on the face" makeup ordeal.
Re:Her motion is too smooth (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be shocked if "within a generation" you couldn't do video games that are animated in real time to the live action level. You're forgetting that one generation ago (~1990), it was impossible to do even cartoon level animation (the first full length CG picture was Toy Story in 1996). Today, a dozen ametuers using free software can produce a short film with equal or better effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephants_Dream/ [wikipedia.org]).
Re:How true was this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How true was this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of the examples you've given don't cross over into "uncanny valley" territory - nobody would get stuffed animals confused with real animals...
I thought this too at first but after reading further I realized (at least I think I did) that the PP is talking about real animals that are stuffed after death. So not your cute, cuddly stuffed toy you give to your kid - no one is generally going to be fooled by that.
A dead but stuffed and preserved animal can be difficult to tell apart from its live counterpart, at least until you look long enough and realize it isn't moving.
And contrary to the PP, I do find these disturbing. Just a personal feeling and I do agree that the whole "uncanny valley" thing is a bit exaggerated. But I don't think you can say for sure one way or the other because I believe it's very subjective and there probably isn't a 'one opinion for everyone' take on it.
Re:How true was this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's the opposite. I've looked at a beautiful simple lawn sculpture of a rabbit, thinking I've never seen one that detailed before in my life... then it twitched. And then it was so perfectly still again I thought I might have imagined the twitch. It would let you get within 5 feet before it decided you were too close. It wouldn't even turn its head to keep you in sight.
Oh, and then there's those certain portraits that have depressions on the eyes so that seem to follow you everywhere. Like they're painted on the inside of spoons.
Re:It's very close. (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's her tongue?
Maybe it's the grainy movie, but as a lip-reader, it caught my eye... that, and many face "wrinkles" that usually appear when smiling, frowning, or even raising your eyebrows seems to be missing as well...
Speaking of buzzwords cognitive dissonance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The problem with CGI so far... (Score:3, Interesting)
And not just in their physical makeup, but their movements too.
The movements of Wall-E are, to Pixar's credit, more realistically "human" than almost every video game animation I've seen.
Re:How true was this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's very close. (Score:3, Interesting)
I just think the CG face is to flat. Her teeth, lips and eyelids have no volume.
For instance, her eyelids seem to be in the same plane as her eyes, which is not at all realistic.
On the other hand, her eyebrows and nose were perfect.
Wait until eye contact w/robots becomes reality (Score:5, Interesting)
An even bigger problem will be making robots that can convincingly pass for human while physically in their presence and trying to feign one-on-one communication. Have you ever noticed that somehow, something just kind of clicks, and you *know* you've made eye contact with someone... and you know that THEY know, too? They might be far away, in a moving vehicle, looking at something else (or just generally looking around), but every now and then "it" happens... you make random, fleeting eye contact with a stranger.
My theory is that it's due to the fact that your eyes are always moving (if your eye were perfectly still, you wouldn't be able to see, because rods and cones derive most of their information from CHANGES rather than instantaneous sampled state). I'm guessing that the pattern of movement appears random, but somehow the part of your brain responsible for background signal processing is able to recognize that movement pattern in the eyes others, and tries to synchronize itself to it. Neither person is intentionally trying to do it, or is even aware of it, but their brains -- through visible eye movement -- are actively negotiating the equivalent of a handshake... and when it happens, a metaphorical "datagram" gets sent to your conscious brain letting you know that you've "locked on" to another person. When you're intentionally talking to someone, it lets you know that you have their attention. When it unexpectedly happens at some random moment when you're just gazing out at the horizon, it can be awkward and uncomfortable.
It's why if you're trying to hide, the worst thing you can possibly do is try to watch what's going on nearby. You might be in the dark shadows, or behind a large object with little more than a hole big enough to see through... but somehow, if someone happens to gaze in the right direction, and their eye detects the movement pattern of an eye somewhere nearby, they're going to immediately feel like something is amiss, even if they don't immediately realize what just happened. If their gaze crosses the gaze of another person who's looking at something entirely different, it might just be a feeling of unease. It's why looking for a lost person or animal is easier than looking for a lost object, at least if you're close enough to potentially make eye contact, Looking for a misplaced object, your brain has to process everything it sees, and constantly do pattern-matching. With people and animals, it's kind of like they're emitting a short-range beacon that allows you to randomly gaze around, but get "that feeling" whenever eye contact occurs, signaling that some area merits further visual inspection.
Anyway, getting back to the Uncanny Valley, it'll be interesting to see what impact the ability to feign eye contact by robots will have. A robot with no eye contact seems creepy in a "dead" kind of way. Would a robot that "almost" managed to maintain eye contact be MORE comforting, or creepier still? Would the "comfort" factor depend upon whether the person interacting with the robot KNEW they were interacting with a robot? Or would making "almost correct" subconscious eye contact with a robot send chills down the person's spine, setting off subconscious alarms to let them know, "DANGER! Something here isn't quite right!", regardless of whether the person KNEW it was a robot?
Re:We've heard this before (Score:1, Interesting)
I find that looking at female US newreaders (and increasingly British ones too) sets off 'uncanny valley' for me. The nose is just to small, the hair doesn't move, and the facial expressions are just wrong
Anecdotal support here ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It wasn't the same fish each time, it wasn't the same place each time, it wasn't even the same time(of day) each time - I would be swimming & sightseeing, stop for no apparent reason, start observing closely, and there would be a large-eyed fish watching me.
Thanks for making me reconsider my initial position - what's that old expression? It's not the things we don't know that get us in trouble, it's the things we know that aren't so.