she's cute

Martin, Grafton, USA

They are getting better, but it's still not quite real. You could see a lack of realism even in this video - particularly with the character's upper lip, skin around the eyes, and the eye movements. If this were a higher quality video, the shortcomings would be more obvious.

randall, cleveland,

I think this is absolutely amazing - an incredible testament to human potential. I want to see even more emotions and full body movements. I want to see any shape and size of person respresented. I want a 3-d holographic image and finally i want to meet her robotic self.. Simply mind-blowing!

Tamara, London, UK

This is weird. This is TOTALLY weird. It really freaked me out for a minute.

Salem, morroco,

Hell you really won't be able to believe anything you see from a camera soon!

Matt, Rochester NY, USA

Now we wont be able to trust the "eyewitnesses" on the news anymore :(

David, leicester, United Kingdom

This still has quite a way to go, but I can't wait for the day when the budget of a film shrinks to 1/8 of today's budgets because the studios can use these instead of greedy actors.

You can easily tell it isn't real, but imagine showing this to people in the 1960s - they wouldn't have believed it!

Eric, California, USA

Not perfect but very good. The hand gestures at the beginning are a little overdone but it has very organic looking facial expressions. While most people would clue in to the fact that it was not real (especially given a long enough clip) I think she is good enough for small acting jobs.

Saul Wall, Saint John, Canada

"Wow! This is the first time I have experienced the impulse to perform an intimate act with a CGI animation. I can't wait for what the future holds."

[Originally posted by Moe Howard, Baltimore, USA]

You haven't watched too much anime then Moe :)

gery, London,

She finishes by saying... "not good... terrible"

I couldn't have summed it up better myself.

Karl Merryweather, Swindon,

Sorry I still feel it's a long way off, I't still looks like digital rotoscoping to me. It's following the gestures of motion not initiating it.

G Browne, hartsdale, usa

While there is no doubt that this is an important step forward, I am not 100% convinced that this is "animation". One major advantage to animation is the flexibility beyond what an actor can humanly provide. Rotoscoping, no matter how sophisticated, has it's limitations.

Shawn Kearney, Casper, WY, USA

Ty, the facial animation for princess Fiona was not "done" by the same actress. She was a rigged character with animation controls, and not motion capture driven or anything if the sort. Animators at Dreamworks had to hand animate her in every shot, just like every other character in the film.

Jorge, London,

I'm pretty sure this same facial animation actress who modeled for this character also did the facial animation for Princess Fiona in the Shrek movies. Check out the asymmetrical mouth.

Ty, Pampa, Texas,

Curious, what kind of 3D processing ability is required to reproduce the same effect? I mean, if it takes full throttle power of a high-end gaming machine, just to just show that beautiful face, then it is still a long way to go before actual practical usage.

Michael, Taipei, Taiwan

Is all of her rendered, or just the face? And, when can we do it in real-time?

Kri, Denmark,

I don't think this will make much difference in Cinema because CGI is as good as it needs to be already (eg Guillermo Del Toro), and in gaming, the Wii's success shows us that graphics will always be less important than gameplay.

The real benificiary will be pr0n - this is where 'real' CGI will go.

Tim, Edinburgh,

The face we all know is cgi, my question was is the rest of her cgi or just dubbed over a real actor?

Travis Murdock, Milwaukee,

Yay, now let's only wait for digital created porn, that looks like its real!

wabsta, Arnhem, Netherlands

Jonathan, also take a look at the mouth structure.

Seems mid-wide all the time. Emily speaks, but eventually
returns to this state.

Mind is like a thousand ferrari engines working at the same time, and hundreds of small movements come across.

Will take more to get 90%, but they did this time !!!

Eugenio Hertz, Campina Grande, Brazil

Ooooh, only 7 out of 10 I'm afraid (8/10 going downhill with the back doors open)

Gollum (Lord of the Rings trilogy) is a masterclass in CGI. Clearly things have moved on since then but 'Emily' isn't as good as they reckon. Very very very good, so long as you can get past the dead eyes.

Jonathan Peden, Birmingham, England

Besides the fact that the final result is really good, she is not all CG, only the face is, the rest is a real girl.
I didn't like the smile, all the rest is almost perfect.

Dan, Venice, Italy

Emily looks as phony as many people. So i guess that's pretty clever.

John Morgan, Chesterfield, Derbyshire

"I think it's only slightly better than Beowulf or the Orville Redenbocker commercials." - wait, did you SEE Beowolf? The animation was terrible. This is signifcantly better.

Jeremy, Los Angeles, United States

The character still looks fake, especially with the mouth and teeth. Perfect mannerisms though. It's getting there, but I think it's only slightly better than Beowulf or the Orville Redenbocker commercials.

Chris N, Dallas, TX, USA

"She is considered to be one of the first animations to have overleapt a long-standing barrier known as 'uncanny valley' "

...nope

will, chicago, USA

"As a result, computer game animators have purposely simplified their creations so that the players realise immediately that the figures are not real. "

This is complete bull.
The reason why they create, as you guys put it "simplified creations" is because the hardware can't render such density.

Jimmy, Eagle Rock, MO,

The eyes are focused on infinity, instead of six to ten feet away. They also need to move a little, like she's looking from eye to eye, or eyes to mouth and back.

Mike T., Roseville, CA,

I should add that I can partially lip-read her with the sound off. That's saying a lot right there.

Mike T., Roseville, CA,

:-o That has to be one of the most amazing videos I have seen yet... and I'm huge into video games! I have seen a lot of computer graphics, and this is by far, the most advanced. I can't wait until they have full real-time animation for video games!

Beanz, Brooklyn, United States

The "advantage of this sort of technology"? Saying that this is no better than film, is like saying that CG imagery is no better than using scale models. The media is infinitely flexible and no dependant on the moods and demands of a real person. Don't worry, actor replacement is many years away.

Ray, Bris, Australia

it seems the only good use for this would be some sort of live action film's hallucination sequence.. where a real actors face would suddenly be the cg one and melt off or warp into other peoples faces.. but yeah.. I wouldn't consider this "animation" myself. it's like.. 3D rotoscoping.

Tiger, Vancouver, Canada

Can we just clarify what is video and what is cg in this shot. To me it looks like the face is cg and tracked to the actors head. Therefore every thing else is REAL. this will help with the perception that she is real. When in fact it looks like somebody has applied very back makeup to her face..

Andrew, Nottingham, Uk

Sorry, but the clip posted is a very straightforward piece, filmed from one viewpoint, with no changes of camera angle, lighting, etc.

It's good for what it is, but the real test is whether the technology can cope with more demanding scenarios.

Geoff, London,

what if it was "a fake made by digitally manipulating only the face by using digital layering to trace the facial expressions"

isn't that what it is supposed to be?

sarah, london, uk

A lot here seem to be missing the point: yes, it's incredibly realistic animation (not perfect, but pretty damn good)

However it still requires an 'actor' for the motion capture and voice... all this technology allows is for the actor to appear as anyone or anything they want, and look realistic.

Luke, St. Albans,

"Why would you want to create a computer-generated photo-realistic animation of a person when you could just film the real thing against a green screen?"

Have you ever seen green screening in games? It looks awful. And it's impractical. If we never pushed mocap forward, we'd still be playing Pong.

Rob, Dallastown, USA

I love the question "what is the point" when people are talking about technology. The age old "necessity is the mother of invention" is the explanation here. The people developing this are making their jobs easier by having this tool to use. They're not doing it for free, nor for the sake of it.

Ziggy, Sydney, Australia

This is a digital mirror, an interactive conduit of something that exists in the real world. To question the ethics and purpose of such a digital replication would be futile. Though it's possible, we haven't entered an era of free-thinking AI. It's still a puppet of a human actor and source.

Rick, San Antonio,

Because Rob, you don't have to pay then $25 million a movie, wait two years for a slot in their schedule, provide a motor home for their Chihuahua and fly in lemon grass fresh every day from Thailand.

martyn, Calvia, spain

I don't really understand the advantage of this sort of technology. We already have realistic motion capture. It is called film! Why would you want to create a computer-generated photo-realistic animation of a person when you could just film the real thing against a green screen? Silly!

Rob, Blacksburg,

I'm just curious of its relevance. From what I can tell from this it's only able to recreate the original actor's face. I'm sure it would seem quite creepier if it's used over an entirely CG model. The face also seemed to float on the head a little bit And can't handle anything in front of the face.

Chris, NY,

WHAT IF...

...this was a hoax or a fake made by digitally manipulating only the face by using digital layering to trace the facial expressions, thus creating the illusion that the girl was completely rendered from scratch?

who might have the interest and the means to undermine video as evidence?

Galt, dubai, UAE

Fantastic work !!! Congrats.
My only remark, the upper lip, there is no movement on the middle of upper lip.
But genial !!!

Jose, Las Palmas GC , Spain

It's an unbelievable benchmark for animation but can also mean the end of a lot of TV people. Animation like this can be used as a substitute for people sometimes but never as a parmanent feature. There are still things that realistic animation can't do that is unique to people, like charm.

Artem, Hillsborough, USA

Good progress, but still not there: the animations at the mouth and eyes are insufficiently dynamic, and the overall range of movement appears unnaturally limited.

James E. Petts, Burnham, England

I remember a TV advert for Sony some 10 years ago that featured a CG woman so realistic that, even though she'd deliberately been given a "triangular" face, you were still left wondering "is that real?". It was at least as good as the CGI on your video.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

I see a near future, where actors make three figure salaries.
It's the end of newsanchors, and as long as we can generate
anyone saying anything, the end of news. Perhaps the end
of truth. Way to go, science!

Marc Saxton, Jackson, USA

I'm most impressed with the hair... it makes me think that this isn't all computer animated :-/

kyle, avon,

Well, if I saw a character like that in a video game, I'd think she was real. Definetly. But of course I would know she wasn't.

Bevin, Stockholm, Sweden

I would say this hardly crosses the uncanny valley. I would say this land right in the middle of it. In fact, it looks like a great simulation of the affects of botox.

Billy, Austin,

Wow! This is the first time I have experienced the impulse to perform an intimate act with a CGI animation. I can't wait for what the future holds.

Moe Howard, Baltimore, USA

Very Impressive, Now lets see that integrated into a gameplay engine and see what happens.

Keith, Modesto, USA

I think the eyes look amazing, truly spectacular and something I have not witnessed before, but with uncanny valley, any part that doesn't look truly perfect throws it all off. When she speaks, smiles, opens her mouth too wide, her teeth look horrible and so does her smile and it's creepy.

steve, bellevue,

Pah! that's not cgi. It's real. They just messed with her face to make it look like cgi.

albie, hull, england

Teeth.. the teeth and her lips when she speaks..
I find thats generally the problem with animated characters somehow they bare their teeth when they talk..

Micheal Cardinal, Mississauga, Canada

I think most of the commentators who say she's still unreal are definitely influenced by the knowledge that its an animation, just as 99% of people think cheese with green instead of red wax tastes different. This crossed the valley, as far as I'm concerned, having spent years animating 3D chars

Farren, Johannesburg, South Africa

That was perfect.... like 99% real. I wouldn't have known if they hadn't told me.

But I guess they focused on the eyes so much, they didn't pay attention to the lips movement with the words.

Tarek El-Ghazaly, Cairo,

Could this be the end for human actors? Why pay the likes of Ton Cruise $20m a picture when you can just render a new star who works for nowt?

JonathanL, Newcastle, UK

The Olympics should have used this technology to to fill in the empty stands with virtual characters.

Michael, Edinburgh,

Well actors will be leaping for joy, knowing they will all be made redundant within the next 10 years. I mean who wants to watch human beings any more? Stepford Wives here we come.

Bob, London, England

There may be bad times ahead for actors in the soaps. This girl can out-act them.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The eyes looked a bit flat if you ask me. The lacked life

but other than that - very very scary stuff.

At the next olympics opening ceremony after showing the grid of boxes making cool patterns, the tops will open and CG people will pop out...

Robert Zico, Pretoria, South Africa

This is not animation, it is just applying motion capture (which has been good for capturing body movement fluidly for two decades now) to the face.

It is NOT animation from scratch.

Mike R. , Bedford, USA

i don't see this as being in the middle of the uncanny valley.. it's climbing up the other side. So far everything I've seen has been on its way down into the valley - even though it was bad, making it more realistic would have made it worse. This will look far better with a little more realism.

Eric, Illinois,

I wonder how many of you who are claiming that it's "still way in uncanny valley" would have been fooled if you hadn't been forewarned?

Arthur Mee, Honiton, UK

A shame the voice is still just a recording of someone - why can't text-to-speech keep up with graphics?

Rob Davidson, Brisbane, Australia

Hmmm. let's see: we have the ability to create whatever we want so let's create.....a copy of ourselves!
What happened to imagination and originality?

Dan, The Hague, Holland

Looks good but it's impossible to judge the quality really with such a small, poor quality video

Steve Murphy, Bolton,

The hair is realistic because only the face is synthetic.

The face itself is still very much in the depths of Uncanny Valley. It is creepy, disturbing, and not at all realistic.

Brendan, Canberra,

The ironic thing is... I actually agree with what 'she' was saying in the last few sections of the video. The mouth didn't fit on her face properly...it was like a Cheshire Cat smile for god's sake. They do have a long way to go.

Daniel, Walton, UK

This scares me. Will we ever be able to trust and believe anything we see on the screen any more? This has worrying implications for propaganda merchants.

anna, kendal, uk

Why didn't they call her Simone?

Dave B, Hove, UK

The hair is startlingly realistic. The face is much better than we have seen before, but the dulled smoothness of its movement makes it appear synthetic - the hammy acting doesn't help either. I think we need more instant motions - like the movement of a brid's head - around the mouth and eyes.

Fred, Ringwood, UK

I can think of some fantastic applications for this. Olympic opening ceremonies could be absolutely perfect. ;)

Sam, Witney, England

She looks more 'realistic' than many soap actors!

No it's not quite human yet, but at first gance if you wern't told it was CG, you would just have assumed it was a real person - be honest.

Mike, Bolton, UK

Getting better, but not there yet.

- better resolution
- eye contact
- prettier faces (she wasn't bad, but there are better)
- don't make the splayed-eye effect so overdone. look up 'subtle.'
- better skin texture
- open source it, hello
- need more voices too
- Asians, that is all.

Mark, San Francisco, USA

I think it would be helpful if we could see a side by side comparison of the real video taken with this one of "emily." people say the eyes are too slow and I think the corners of the mouth look funny but it might just be our brains telling us it's weird since we know it's fake from the beginning.

Matt Mazzola, Ballwin,

Not that good. In my honest opinion.

Now, I play a lot of games, and look at this stuff quite often, but it's nowhere near uncanny valley for me.

I remember my sister not realizing it was CG in movies years ago though, so it all has to do with how often you see/use it.

Thomas, houston,

Think of the adult movie industry applications. John Holmes eat your heart out.

Garry, Newcastle, Australia

Ridiculously well done! :)

Raz, Calgary, Canada

Probably the best construct I've seen but still looks dead-eyed and robotic. If I wasn't told she was CG, I'd have assumed she was a live girl with weird mannerisms, possibly taking amphetamines.

Jahjah, SoCal, USA

Wow...that clip is just SO creepy and unsettling. The valley is deep, my friends. The story is also a bit misleading: game developers "purposely simplify" their facial animation because they don't want to invest the amount of money it would require to hire on feature-quality keyframe animators.

Cyrus, Los Angeles, USA

I think that this passes the uncanny valley quite considerably. The only problem that I see is the eye blink is too slow. I wonder how long it will be before we see this technology reviving dead actors... heath ledger's joker in the next batman perhaps?

Lukasz, Newcastle, Australia

That's pretty spiffy but it's still creepy.

Even with all these improvements her eyes are still dead. There's just a wrongness about her that's hard to overcome.

Rick B, Tokyo, Japan

well see thats the only problem us animators have yet to over come the eyse the eyes show so much emotion that its damn near impossible to recreate but im sure very soon we shall be able to over come such a herdle

Tyler, Spring, USA

@ariel - Right now actors are forced to use a green screen when doing anything with CGI. Imagine giving the actors the freedom to become a part of the CGI set. I think this is pretty exciting.

Michael Sitarzewski, Broomfield, CO, USA

as was said before, this is still in the valley...

That being said, its an incredible advancement.

I also want to point out that I highly doubt "everything" is rendered, it appears to only contain a cg face with the body, hair, etc from the original source video, although I could be wrong.

Dave, Brooklyn,

Ugh, still smack in the middle of the uncanny valley guys... Creepy. it's like a talking corpse.

Matt, New York,

What are you talking about? This is a freakish talking mannequin.

Tom, Wellington,

I don't get what the point is if you start off with an actor anyway?

Ariel, London,

Newsflash: you have not left the uncanny valley. This is smack dab in the middle of it. Her eyes creep the hell out of me.

John Michaels, Providence, USA

Amazing, this is soooo close! Perhaps the only thing and maybe I'm looking for something to nitpick is that the eys still seem just a little bit off. Maybe it's just because I'm really looking though.
Incredible advancement!

Eric, Columbus, OH, USA

Incredible.. but now how are we ever going to know that actor/actress/politician/witness in court *really* said those things? "We have their confession on video" is no longer proof. How will we adapt?

Russ, Calgary, Canada

Impressive, but we're still deep in the uncanny valley...

Grant, Sydney, Australia

Just so people know: the Radeon HD 4870 X2 is a graphics card. The actual chip inside is not what you buy.

The card is similar in specs to the Nvidia 280 out at the moment, it isnt the only card of it's caliber.

Lastly, much lesser cards keep up with most gaming still, but these are lovely!

Tom, DC,