Speech Animation in Paintings

For this week’s original posting, I would like to address the technological achievements in relation to art and media. Although this video is only a couple years old, the technology used to create this is unbelievable and to this day not used widely. In this video, the director uses numerous famous paintings such as the Mona Lisa which are digitally altered to mimic actions such as lip syncing to begin talking.

The technology used to do this is similar to that used by CG animators in recording movements for character animations. The major achievement here is the ability to alter a still 2D image and enable it to manipulate the area around the mouth without distorting the original image. The director later uses a still photograph of himself in order to demonstrate the programs ability to manipulate various forms of portraits. This program enables the manipulation of images from various angles eliminating the need to recreate a 3D version of an original painting to achieve the same or similar effect. If anybody watches SpongeBob Square Pants, the opening includes a cheesy version of this which uses an overlapping layer of a person’s mouth to simulate speech, but with this type of technology, we can animate all type of images in a similar fashion. Imagine being able to manipulate an entire scene based on pinpoint interactions and movement from a human source. You could quite possibly reenact an image such as events in the Revolutionary War with proper time and development. As technology progresses, it is not certain what we can accomplish with this type of digital ability.

The Art That Never Was

Upon looking for an interesting topic for this week’s original posting, I became inspired for a specific topic in relation to digital art, media, and technology from an unusual source. When we think of art, are minds typical render the elements of modern art, abstract art, similar to Pablo Picasso, and pop art, which was pioneered by Andy Warhol. These art styles and artist names have been embedded within our memory because of educational influences that pressure these artists, their work, and their lives within our perception of the idea of art. In my research for an original post, I came across what one may not consider art, but most definitely is. Let’s take a GUI in to perspective. Don’t know what that is, how about if we term it as Graphical User Interface? Still no idea as of what I’m speaking of? How about the numerous visual elements that makes up your everyday electronic devices? These lines of code that render out the visuals we see on Cell Phones, Computers, Video Games and much more are most definitely works of art. These GUI’s for short all started out as hand drawn references before they were actually entered into scripting for use in our devices. The GUI’s were not just tossed together without the thought or idea of any artistic styles being used in its composition. Let’s take The GUI of Windows XP for example. The taskbar on the bottom of our monitors surely looks simple, but its design was not meant to be that. In comparison to the interface used in Windows 98, many artistic elements have been used in the later iterations of Operating Systems. For example, numerous bits of colors have been added to icons, taskbars and buttons. Highlights and shadows are now present and our icons for programs have distinct images that represent the program and its function. These all get revamped even more so with the release of Windows Vista, although many numerous elements were taken from Apple’s Operating System. The GUI for the XBOX 360 is (or was) a graphical wonder with its razor like tabs, colorful menus, seamless transitions, easy use, and much more. I say was because this has been updated with an entirely new look called The New XBOX Experience, which utilizes many new artistic styles similar to that seen on the Nintendo Wii, but with mixed responses from critics. This can be explored in much more depth, but I’ll allow the readers’ comments to explore even further as to what we consider art and how we use it.

2D vs. 3D

2D vs. 3D

After observing a post of a fellow classmate, I have begun to realize the amount of popularity that 3D visuals have acquired over the years. 3D visuals such as those in film have pretty much completely dominated the animation film industry, one which was originally powered by 2D visuals. When we look at animated films today, we tend to think of Disney and Pixar films such as Cars and Wall-E as well as a collection of competition films by DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox with releases such as Shrek and Ice Age. One common trait of these films is their stunning Three Dimensional visuals, spectacular special effects and seamless animations. The major situation here is the slowdown of 2D film production. Films such as Aladdin and The Lion King have set unbelievable records in the industry with their unique art styles. These films did however utilize 3D in production, but mostly to give off a seamless 2D effect as opposed to the resource heavy and time consuming hand drawn approach. It wasn’t until after the release of Lilo & Stitch, one of the last memorable 2D animations, in 2002 which saw the switch in tradition. Even though CG animations broke out in demand after Toy Story set sales and visual records in 1995, the 21st century has stuffed us full of CG heavy films such as Monster’s Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. There is nothing wrong with the growing trend in this particular style of Rendering and Animation, but the only source of finding 2D animations are through cartoon short animation which have been converting to CG rendered visuals as well with shows like Jimmy Neutron. With numerous devices and programs powering and pushing CG visuals, it is no wonder to find these visuals being pushed I the film industry as this is what we are used to. If we all stopped playing Bungie’s Halo Trilogy to open up to a 2D version of the game, the reception to the concept may not generate good criticism and ratings, and this is the same structure used in the film industry. It’s all about generating profit, and right now companies such as Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox are generating revenue beyond belief and altering the structure now may be a bad financial move. In other words, why fix something that isn’t broken? Toy Story 3 anyone? This is in production for a 2010 release!