The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Are These Faces Computer Generated Or Real?
your3dsource.com — One of the "holy grails" of 3d computer animation is creating a lifelike human face with realistic looking hair and features. These computer-constructed images would be so realistic, that it would be impossible or very difficult to discern the animated model from a digital photograph of a real person. See if you can find the CG ones..
charbarred- 1760 diggs
- digg it
- redsocks, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56I was fooled!
- Blabster, on 10/12/2007, -25/+9I thought only B and E were fake :|
Great follies batman! - jwyles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32But I know I have seen those people in real life!
- 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 - 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) - jeffreym, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2yes
- skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1The ones with long hair are real. These are all shorter haired pictures so it's no surprise really. Apparently long hair is harder to recreate effectively w/ CGI, so all CGI face renderings you see are practically bald or have their hair smeared down.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Phronko
Yeah, I have seen some great textures come out of ZBrush, but those would be rediculous to create in ANY 3D program. - popularme, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2reported as Inaccurate.
no real proof that A and D are computer generated. the rest look photoshoped to me. - 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.
- brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@timbro
The 90s called, they want their banner back. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@brownb2
they want that insult back too - mv10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I want to sleep with that chick before i realized she was computer animated.. i feel digusting and weird
- steveng, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1HUAR!
- Blabster, on 10/12/2007, -25/+9I thought only B and E were fake :|
- joerod, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2that is amazing!
- SambekZX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I wish they gave us larger resolution pics to look at. But it was very surprising.
- WhiteNoise, 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.
- leoedin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I was certainly tricked!
Now, someone will paste the contents of the spoiler here just to ruin it:- audioobsessed, on 10/12/2007, -45/+6They're all fake
- Pstonie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3It's pretty obvious when they're all basically the same with some differences.
- javierislame, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1That is crazy.
- TriZz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1That is amazing work! I was completely shocked by which ones are computer generated!
- 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. - RAT-Man, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Certainly tricked me. I only got "A" and "F".
- sionix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0a hole was dugg and this was burried.
- davestar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15this would be much more impressive if the pics were larger than 150x188 pixels...
- DigitalCorpus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ditto, there isn't enough to tell in those images.
- thespace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5and it would be nice if they had an actual real face to compare against the pictures. no digg
- jguerry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you've never seen a real face?
wow, people of your kind amaze me to this day.
- norle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57These are NOT computer generated. They are computer composited. BIG difference.
- jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah. The ones that impress me are those like in the computer generated Final Fantasy movie, who I think were the same that did the first clip in the Animatrix. And that was done several years ago now ...
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yes, they did do a very good job, if anything their animation suffered because it looked a little too clean and sharp, plus which I don't think they had any subsurface scattering in that, so it wasn't nearly as realistic as what is achievable now, here in the far flung future of, what, 3 years later?
- clearrecrd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1mirror?
- 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.
- artcoder, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7http://duggmirror.com/design/Are_These_Faces_Computer_Generated_Or_Real/
- admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Seriously do you people realize the referring does not work for everyone?
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12http://duggmirror.com
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that's amazing. wish the pictures were bigger though, i'd like to see the detail on those.
shame they can't replicate this kind of facial realism in robots - fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2http://duggmirror.com
- 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- 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.
- HeaDiggrNCharge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1http://www.duggmirror.com
- 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 - 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.- TSugar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Absolutely agreed ! There is no difference between making CG face from scratch or from real persons (even with 3D scanner there are lot of things to make it real-looking - sub-surface scattering, accurate physical reflection parameters etc, so 3D scan or photos and real skin textures are just a part of task). The problem is to make it real when animating. For now we have Final Fantasy with totally handmade facial animation, and we have Polar Express with facial motion capture from real person. And anyone could see it's faaar from perfect. Micro-movements, random eye-splashes etc. We have lot of muscles and lot of practice with its usage, so surface (skin) level deformation isn't enough to mimic real live face. We may force animators to build complete anatomical structure and manipulate it, but I believe animators have to find the way to teach characters to learn muscle manipulations and "emotional" behavior for clean results. CG industry already has software, emulating physical environment to teach characters to walk with no outlines, just with its anatomy. I think we need re-create live behavior and experience for artificial characters. Or we can still be happy with great animated characters. Why should we use CG actors ? It's easier to find the real one. Especially it costs the same :)
- TSugar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Absolutely agreed ! There is no difference between making CG face from scratch or from real persons (even with 3D scanner there are lot of things to make it real-looking - sub-surface scattering, accurate physical reflection parameters etc, so 3D scan or photos and real skin textures are just a part of task). The problem is to make it real when animating. For now we have Final Fantasy with totally handmade facial animation, and we have Polar Express with facial motion capture from real person. And anyone could see it's faaar from perfect. Micro-movements, random eye-splashes etc. We have lot of muscles and lot of practice with its usage, so surface (skin) level deformation isn't enough to mimic real live face. We may force animators to build complete anatomical structure and manipulate it, but I believe animators have to find the way to teach characters to learn muscle manipulations and "emotional" behavior for clean results. CG industry already has software, emulating physical environment to teach characters to walk with no outlines, just with its anatomy. I think we need re-create live behavior and experience for artificial characters. Or we can still be happy with great animated characters. Why should we use CG actors ? It's easier to find the real one. Especially it costs the same :)
- 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- isilex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That was on digg at some point as well. I remember that CG.
- alexkorova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Sure, it's good, but it's easy to tell that's not a real girl, even in static images (granted, I've worked alot with CGI and photographs, so I might be a bit above average at seeing it, but therer are alot of "tells") and it's much much harder to make it look realistic in motion.
- 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.- shertzerj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. I had a strong feeling that they'd all be computer generated, but then I figured that that'd be cheap, so I guessed 4 fake / 2 real. Whaddaya know, they were all fake. Cool and lame at the same time. ;)
- kplayr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Why isn't there a bury for "stolen content"?
- Maddpaky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2can't wait for these to be implemented in video games.
- 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.
- mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1B. C. and E. are fakes.
The hair is pretty good clue, but also the facial expressions look artificial.- 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)
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they aren't "generated" in ANY sense.
- choicetoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is inaccurate. Creating static cg faces from scratch that are indistinguishable from reality is commonplace. It's the animation of those faces that hasn't been achieved.
- ACMarathon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oops.....403
- CarbonEclectic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wonder how believable a 3-d model version would be?
- hinterteile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2http://duggmirror.com/design/Are_These_Faces_Computer_Generated_Or_Real/
For the fiftieth time. - Derter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Only D fool me...
- aceallways, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Proud to say I had decided none were real before revealing the answer!
- 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.
- merdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And to think this technology is probably only going to benefit 3 of my favorite things in the world...
Video Games, Movies, and Porn. - 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.
- billyboobs34, 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.
- 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.
- SteveDeGroof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3None of them looked real to me. The eyes look dead.
- 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. - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mark this inaccurate. None of the faces are computer generated, they are composites of real faces.
- ninjoah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hey rtard, those photos are all of real people... someone please vote this lame, omg n00bs
- jguerry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0too bad they didn't average the chick with a ninja chick!
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Loved the quiz, but dayum, what a spammy site!
- joer80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1these are not generated, these are edited.
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This would be much more interesting if the images were provided at a higher resolution.
- 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.
- 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
- opensourcepro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I think 2 of the 3 of each group are real.
http://one.revver.com/watch/77165/format/flv/affiliate/23672 - ziggystardust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Computer altered is more like it. Generated? Hardly.
- theunderground5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it's only a matter of time till video games start looking as real as this
- WoodenKimono, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3pretty weak, definitely misleading
- KiBLeSnBiTs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░░░░▓▓░░
░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░
░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░▓▓▓▓░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is