What is Digg?99 Comments
- phronko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+199This is innacurate. They are not completely computer generated...these faces were created by manipulating real photos with a computer (e.g. averaging two or more faces). It's not like Pixar created them from scratch. I could apply a blur photo to a pic of my face and say it's a computer generated version of me, but that'd be a bit misleading.
Seek out the original study for details.
Edit: This link has some: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/durchschnittsgesichter/durchschnittsgesichter.htm - norle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57These are NOT computer generated. They are computer composited. BIG difference.
- redsocks, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56I was fooled!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32But I know I have seen those people in real life!
- tripm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28This would be interesting if the images weren't only at 150 pixels.
some of the stuff my kids finger paint would look realistic at this resolution. - RichGC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21When described as computer generated, I thought it was a model created from scratch, but as Phronko says, these were a morphing of two real life people into a third.
Some pictures of the process can be found here:
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/morphing/morphing.htm - SambekZX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I wish they gave us larger resolution pics to look at. But it was very surprising.
- therippa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Here's where they stole the pictures from, and this site is A LOT more interesting...
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm - davestar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15this would be much more impressive if the pics were larger than 150x188 pixels...
- phronko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Gah. That didn't work. Search Google for "Beautycheck" for the original study (with pics).
(and I meant "blur filter" in the post above) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It would be much easier to tell with picture that were even double the size of those postage stamp ones.
- phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Thanks. Yup, it looks like everyone's been double-fooled; you thought you were fooled, but you weren't. Fools.
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14if you ever want a mirror, just post a link to http://duggmirror.com like i did below. it'll automagically redirect you based on the referring story.
- HeaDiggrNCharge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
- justice7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@brownb2
they want that insult back too - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Inaccurate. These are exactly what they looked like to me.. "blended" faces. This is unnervingly irrating to look at. This website stole these pictures from another website and misrepresented them in an effort to get traffic. Congratulations diggers, you've helped them out! Next time, be skeptical, and mark things "inaccurate" as soon as possible. As someone who uses and appreciates real 3-D artwork and modelling, this is a poor showcase.
- ra3ndy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, if you had highlighted the text in the field at the bottom (like the directions said), you'd see that they are ALL in fact, CG. (Well, more like computer composited, not "generated" in the purest sense)
- mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I get the feeling some of you guys have never been to cgtalk.com where you'll find the most amazingly realistic 3d-imagery on the net....
even though you will already know, how many of you think you may have been fooled by this image of a girl? http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=399499 - stan205, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The questions is loaded. "See if you can pick out the real ones from the computer generated ones." The question alone is making an assumption that one of the faces is at least real, in which it isn't so most likely everyone with be stumped.
Cool for animation purposes, not cool for lame question. - brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@timbro
The 90s called, they want their banner back. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5and it would be nice if they had an actual real face to compare against the pictures. no digg
- WoodenKimono, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3pretty weak, definitely misleading
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hey rtard, those photos are all of real people... someone please vote this lame, omg n00bs
- SteveDeGroof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3None of them looked real to me. The eyes look dead.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not even 3d. They averaged many faces together. There's nothing 3d about it.
- jguerry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you've never seen a real face?
wow, people of your kind amaze me to this day. - krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12http://duggmirror.com
- Anogar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is stupid, they're not CG, they're just mashed together from a bunch of photos, beyond which they're friggin tiny. Buried for being innaccurate.
- darkever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The real trick is making it look real when animated. Take for instance, Final Fantasy movie. If you take a still image of a character, it looks incredibly realistic, but as we all know the animation makes it look fake.
Interesting article, but not ground breaking. - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mark this inaccurate. None of the faces are computer generated, they are composites of real faces.
- DigitalCorpus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ditto, there isn't enough to tell in those images.
- b3and1p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Guys if you read the study you will see these images are not 3d models but photographs blended together and morphed.
- admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Seriously do you people realize the referring does not work for everyone?
- sfatoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A & C
I'd hit it. - xenoploid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So sick of these misleading posts.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Every face on the site was created from photos of REAL people... this is marked inaccurate because it was not created from a 3d mesh.
- isilex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That was on digg at some point as well. I remember that CG.
- caffeinejunkiex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not gonna lie, glad we digg-dugg that site. As much as it was fun to see 6 images of people that could or could not have been airbrushed, there was certainly no useful information about it.
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they aren't "generated" in ANY sense.
- quantum5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2meh, i'm not impressed. when i first saw the images i thought if there are real ones, why would they airbrush them? they all look touched up. it would have been more interesting if there were real faces, something to actually compare the renders to. maybe with a real person in there it makes choosing the fakes extremely obvious.
- ziggystardust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Computer altered is more like it. Generated? Hardly.
- 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is stupid and plainly inaccurrate.
It actually does a disservice to people who are pioneering modeling of human forms. - DanielNielsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the picture had been larger it would have been alof more easy to see if it was CG or real
- burgerboy06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Univ of Regensburg, gotta love those Germans and there crazy ways...
- joer80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1these are not generated, these are edited.
- Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Clearly scientific studies can be conducted using 150x188 pixel images. That's, what, the same resolution as a cellphone wallpaper?
Check back next week when we test if people can tell the difference between a computer generated photo and a photo with a bunch of Photoshop effects to make it look fake. Same Digg channel, same Digg time. - slicerace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The easy way to tell that they are all computer generated is to look at the eyes - the eyes all have the same shape and look too similar.
- Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1indeed. scratch faces are the only 100% cg faces. this is just photoshopped photojournalism. randomized created faces would be truly scary. this puts that within arms reach though. this is borderline unacceptable at this point.
original comment:
"This is innacurate. They are not completely computer generated...these faces were created by manipulating real photos with a computer (e.g. averaging two or more faces). It's not like Pixar created them from scratch. I could apply a blur photo to a pic of my face and say it's a computer generated version of me, but that'd be a bit misleading.
Seek out the original study for details.
Edit: This link has some: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/durchschnittsge" - cdmarcus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg this down, someone said it at the top.
- theunderground5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it's only a matter of time till video games start looking as real as this
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is