Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Technology

Disney Made a Movie Quality AI Tool That Automatically Makes Actors Look Younger or Older (gizmodo.com) 23

hondo77 writes: Two years ago, Disney Research Studios developed AI-powered tools that could generate face swap videos with enough quality and resolution to be used for professional filmmaking (instead of as questionably low-res GIFs shared around the internet). This year, the researchers are demonstrating a new tool that leverages AI tricks to make actors look older or younger, minus the weeks of work usually needed to perfect those kinds of shots.

Using neural networks and machine learning to age or de-age a person has already been tried, and while the results are convincing enough when applied to still images, they hadn't produce photorealistic results on moving video, with temporal artifacts that appear and disappear from frame to frame, and the person's appearance occasionally becoming unrecognizable as the altered video plays. To make an age-altering AI tool that was ready for the demands of Hollywood and flexible enough to work on moving footage or shots where an actor isn't always looking directly at the camera, Disney's researchers, as detailed in a recently published paper, first created a database of thousands of randomly generated synthetic faces. Existing machine learning aging tools were then used to age and de-age these thousands of non-existent test subjects, and those results were then used to train a new neural network called FRAN (face re-aging network).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Made a Movie Quality AI Tool That Automatically Makes Actors Look Younger or Older

Comments Filter:
  • We can have AI Luke, Leia, and Han running around and never have to deal with these sequel characters ever again.
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      and when the technology leaks out, they'll all be doing "it" with the Wookie.

    • Star Wars has a legacy problem, which is that the characters are intertwined with actual individuals who own the rights to their own likeness. (Well, mostly... in the cases of Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt or Jar Jar Binks, that's not the case, even though all 3 characters were created in very different ways).
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @12:40PM (#63091244)

    The send of season 2 Mandalorian, Luke Skywalker from Return of the Jedi era appeared - while he looked pretty good there were some complaints, which I agree with - still not quite out of that uncanny valley though it was getting close.

    But in the Book of Boba fest, they had extended young Luke Skywalker scenes that I thought were perfect. The face didn't just look good but it felt alive, including mannerisms that you were used to seeing. It really said to me that de-aging had arrived as a very viable technique, which is great as we can enjoy aging actors just that much longer in new work related to older stuff they had done...

    • They had to hire a Star Wars fan that did a fan remake of the first Luke scene that looked much better than Disney's version. And they went and used his stuff in the other parts with Luke.
      • I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, but offhand it sounds like you're accusing Disney of something that is actually great - hiring a fan who demonstrated they could do it better.
      • Corridor Crew did a better job than the Mandalorian but it still wasn't the same yet.
        Just a matter of time tho.

    • I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing as this technology though. This seems to be a generic aging/de-aging algorithm that keeps the actor identifiable and looking younger or older but it does not say anything about accuracy i.e. if you used it to de-age Mark Hamil you might not get a face that looked exactly like he did himself when younger just someone younger who looks similar perhaps like a brother or other close relative.

      For the young Skywalker scenes, they needed to make the face look exactly l
      • For the young Skywalker scenes, they needed to make the face look exactly like he did in the original films

        That is a good point that the process was not quite the same and was manipulating data to a bit different goal...

        It also said to me, they finally know what they need to do tomato a face really look like a real face, and I figured generally that level of understanding of all the fine details (especially in terms of video alteration) were a good sign this other de-ager would, if not now, eventually look

  • It's been well over a decade they could add huge muscles to a live video feed. I'm surprised facial de-aging tooj so long.

    You didn't think Vin Diesel's arms were as thick as The Rock's, did you? Or that guy who died, for that matter, standing there in the movie talking, looking like a Gorilla Grodd in a T shirt.

    • I think the key word here is quality. Yes, they can add effects to a video but, as shows like She-Hulk demonstrate that can end up looking rather amateurish or land heavily in the uncanny valley. The demos that have here look to be a much higher quality of result that, even when you look closely are hard to see as faked.
  • by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @01:19PM (#63091350)
    Here is the paper and a video showing the technology from Disney research. https://studios.disneyresearch... [disneyresearch.com]
  • CGI is too often a crutch for the uncreative. It shows in the box office receipts.
    https://deadline.com/2022/11/b... [deadline.com]

    Look at Andor for good writing [youtube.com].

  • Too young [liveaction.org] or too old [dinosaurdracula.com] probably isn't what you want.

    Well, unless it is.

  • Obviously movies involve tech, but I prefer movies with the least amount of tech possible, because no amount of hand-waving can disguise bad acting, stupid plotting, and terrible dialogue (yes Avatar, I am looking at you).

    In Olivier's words (and in a slightly different context): “My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”

    • Avatar is a very bad example because, much as I hate to point out, its huge box office success suggests that for most people lots of tech really can disguise bad acting, stupid plotting, and terrible dialogue.
      • by Potor ( 658520 )

        Avatar is a very bad example because, much as I hate to point out, its huge box office success suggests that for most people lots of tech really can disguise bad acting, stupid plotting, and terrible dialogue.

        No - it simply means that people don't care about bad acting, stupid plotting, and terrible dialogue.

  • I foresee lots of videos circulating on social media where politicians have been subtly altered to make them look older (to push a perception that they're too old for office) or younger (to counter that perception). Most viewers won't have any idea they're being manipulated.

  • CGI this CGI that. AI can't be the answer to everything. CGI should be there to enhance what's possible not replace it. Pay more money for makeup people those dudes and dudettes are real magic when you support them and the effects will last a heck of a lot longer than CGI. Plus you could actually shoot well lit scenes rather than having every act go dark just before the CGI fight.
  • and those results were then used to train a new neural network called FRAN

    (friendly android).

  • No one here mentioned it, but in Tron: Legacy, Disney made Jeff Bridges look younger so he could play Clu [mtv.com]. I'm going on the presumption that was the test case for whether it could be done in a decent fashion and this current act is building on what they learned.

  • In case anyone hasn't seen it, https://www.businessinsider.nl... [businessinsider.nl], using AI and deepfake to play with ages of actors isn't rocket surgery, and neither is besting what studios have come up with in the past.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...