The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adverts

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adverts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Often we hear the mainstream media proudly make aphoristic comments to the effect that technological developments which have their origins within a military context always eventually feed back into the world of the consumer. Your life is made sweeter, the world is made better: or, at least that is the projected intent.

These retro-vindications of the payback-benefits from tax-payers' money being invested are perhaps somewhat vaguer than they were back in the heady days of eg NASA's product placement (teflon/velcro/watches/cameras). Perhaps there are good tactical reasons for that.

Consider the highly-defendable postulation identified within this forum regarding the existence of what are being termed ''Vicsims"- a label that has already gained a currency far beyond the borders of this forum. The logical inference is that the technology potentially used to create these virtual non-persons has been at a high-end military/government/blue-chip developmental level. With the passage of time since 2001, it is reasonable to predict that this putative technology has (in part or whole) leaked to other sectors, been deliberately commercialised, or independently developed through convergent research. By this, I mean the indexed creation of digital imagery that depicts the photographic likeness and apparent realism of individuals that have never existed, for the purposes of commercial advertising, entertainment and social education.

For the purposes of this discursive topic, I'm going to refer to such a concept as 'Adsims': advertising simulated model entities. These pixel non-people, if they can definitively be said to exist, might even be argued by an advertising executive or marketing manager as being entirely-legitimate: within their weltanschauung , the concept may be a shared unspoken truth.

Consider the advantages: no reliance upon awkward human models that are the wrong age/race/look, no post-campaign embarrassments of lifestyle derailment, no diva tantrums, no copyright clearances, no personal payment. It would be a logical step beyond the extensive Photoshop editing of imperfect biological specimens: cut them literally out of the picture from the outset. Adsims would be easy to own, simple to control, and by definition, perfect for their function..

Of course we all know that direct-from-computer visual images of virtual people exist. But they're always depicted as obviously being so. Either via non-subtle hints of skin-tone, or colour, or overt statement. They form the declared foundation of accepted unreality: and they're nearly always advised to us consumers as having originated from Japan / China / Korea. So we can all rest easy, here in the moralistic principled western hemisphere of consumerdome, we shall always know when we are being duped. All the images we see of sporting icons, pop stars, advertisement models: we can rest assured that since they all look so real, they must be real. Otherwise we'd know, wouldn't we....?

But: have the mannequins already jumped from shop windows into the Windows on your computer? And, since we are all required to be social media co-dependants, do some 'Adsims' possess that essential layer of 21st century patency: a digital footprint?

Here's one possible example that I feel is worth looking at (no, not Ellen Degeneres herself: well, not currently)-

Image
http://www.good-housekeeping.co/beauty/ ... t-exposed/

This is a Good Housekeeping 'Doctor Oz' sales page for a facial skin treatment cream (highly-appropriate: the back-dating of a persons' appearance via the application of technology). It contains what appears to be a Facebook-style page, that is actually the commercial version of a phishing site: it looks/feels like the original app/product, but it is functionally false

Image

All the comments on it are potentially real, but as to whether they originated from anyone outside the office of a copywriter is open to question. The time-elapsed-since-comment-made is artificial, and never changes. The page itself does not appear to update, and the majority of hyperlinks are just pictures.

But the key interesting aspect are the links to what are purported to be the Facebook page of the entities that appear to endorse the product. If you are a Facebook user, when/if you (cautiously) link to these potential 'Adsims', you'll find that they seem to be very similar to the flat, unfeatured dolls-house style that has been identified previously by others, on this forum and elsewhere, in the context of classic contemporary psyops. The photo galleries 'owned' by these entities always appear to be very much in the eerie sim-style that is recognisable only too often in this strange mediaworld we inhabit. The lack of layers/comments....realism, is striking.

And, of course, I may be entirely wrong on all of this.

Irrespective, the gut feeling that similar algorithmic processes to those detected within the 'Vicsim Report' may be at work, but this time on a much-broader stage, is inescapable.

No offence is intended towards any individual, organisation or product, this is purely an extended speculative observation.

I'd welcome all comments / feedback, including from anyone that thinks I'm totally-misguided in my suspicions.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by simonshack »

icarusinbound wrote: And, of course, I may be entirely wrong on all of this.
Dear Icarusinbound,

I cannot see how you could be entirely wrong about this! Thanks for your great article. :)
Oddfellow
Banned
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:58 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by Oddfellow »

icarusinbound wrote:

Of course we all know that direct-from-computer visual images of virtual people exist. But they're always depicted as obviously being so. Either via non-subtle hints of skin-tone, or colour, or overt statement. They form the declared foundation of accepted unreality: and they're nearly always advised to us consumers as having originated from Japan / China / Korea. So we can all rest easy, here in the moralistic principled western hemisphere of consumerdome, we shall always know when we are being duped. All the images we see of sporting icons, pop stars, advertisement models: we can rest assured that since they all look so real, they must be real. Otherwise we'd know, wouldn't we....?

I have two comments.

1. You are speaking of what is known as the "uncanny valley" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley. The wiki downplays the actual effects and causes, and misstates a few things,(possibly to obfuscate efforts to enlighten yourself such as these) but it does have the basic premise if you are not familiar. But where the valley actually falls is incorrect. The valley is crossed into when the biological animation LOOKS REAL. There are no tell tale flaws, no glitches, it looks perfect. But there is no LIFE, and somehow we are able to discern this, and it invokes a repulsion response. It is a well known effect and animators are instructed/coerced to build inaccuracies onto their work, mostly through subtle ways, such as incorrect information like the wiki entry on the subject, and dogma drilled into them during their educational phases. It would not surprise me to find handicaps built into the software and even hardware systems they use for animation work, preventing them from actually crossing into the uncanny valley. I believe they do this on a commercial level, to protect the secret on a military industrial level.
Which leads nicely to...

2. Perhaps this is why I find nearly all "celebrities" absolutely repulsive?
The revered celebrity of today really has no redeeming qualities, nor even the slightest genuine talent. Most are just packaged goods, and it's hard to even figure out what they are selling. What the fuck is a Miley Cyrus anyways?

It appears they only exist to be good tabloid fodder for causing a distraction and keeping people talking and thinking about them instead of the people running the show. The only example they set is a bad one, not taking responsibility for their actions, multiple marriages before I even wear out a pair of shoes, extreme greed, sloth, and vanity, the list goes on. And what does the general public do? Emulate them of course! Now even "normal" people are hacking themselves up and mutilating their faces trying look like these golem creations.

So consider this. What if Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian, Kanye West etc., are literal products of a great social engineering psyop, conceived and coded on some Black Project base using the militarized classified version of what we consider to be the latest and greatest computer? What if their animators do not have crippled source code, and bottleneck-ed systems? I increasingly think this is the case, and we have already accepted and welcomed our new instructor-overlords into our homes and minds.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Oddfellow, yes, I'm aware of the 'uncanny valley' concept. Interesting how it's been a bit of a comfort media mantra in the recent past, almost an addendum to Asimov's trite 'Laws'. And I note what you mean re the wiki definition.

As far as regards artificiality (beyond metaphor) within the ghastly world of celebrity- my instinct has to be that you are almost certainly correct...but only to a degree. It is that measurable extent which deserves investigation
('no stars shown in the videos'....an out-of-this world situation, no Syrius, no Cyrus?) But measurement can only follow detection...

I was sure this piece about 'EVM' had been posted on Clues already? I couldn't find it in a forum search (I can't embed the video demo, please follow the link).

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1496 ... l-in-video
Scientists at MIT have developed open-source software that can reveal details in videos that are otherwise invisible. This software— which works with videos on YouTube or DVD — can reveal the blood pumping beneath someone’s skin, with such detail
that you can accurately measure their heart rate. The software could also be released for mobile devices, such assmartphones or Google Glass, so that you can see the heartbeat of those around you in real time
— a boon for gamblers, FBI lie detection agents, and doctors alike. Beyond measuring blood flow, the software allows you to see the tiniest movements of eye muscles, the swaying of buildings in the wind, or fatigue in bolts and rivets that is invisible to the naked eye.
The underlying technology used by the software is called Eulerian Video Magnification (EVM), which essentially tracks the variation of individual pixels over time — and then exaggerates those differences. As your heart pumps blood around your body your arteries swell with bright red blood, which changes the color of your skin slightly. To the human eye, no matter how long and hard you stare at your wrist or someone else’s face, you would struggle to detect a change in color (unless they blush, of course). For a computer, however, the tiniest per-pixel fluctuations (between white and slightly-redder-white, say) are easy to detect. In the case of detecting someone’s heartbeat, EVM picks up these slightly redder pixels and exaggerates them, turning them violet. MIT originally developed the software to measure the vital signs of neonatal babies without physical contact, but as you can see in the video, there are other, far-ranging applications. Not only can EVM detect changes in color, but it can also exaggerate movements — such as a crane or building swaying in the wind, or the tiny movements made by your eyes as they scan an environment. The scientists at MIT say that their software might act as an early warning system, if the crane is swaying too much, or if a bolt is working its way loose from a machine.
Assuming that all this EVM stuff isn't disinfo (and it's not all too Vonnegut/Philip K. Dick to be true), I wonder if the purported online web analysis tool has been used much in the year since this EVD concept was announced?
Subjecting pale fish-eyed specimens such as Snowden to this analysis could be interesting.

(I will return to the initial Facebook Adsim point shortly- Simon, thanks for your supportive comment)

[edit: I managed to embed the EVM video

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rWycBEHn3s)
Last edited by icarusinbound on Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by lux »

Personally, I think this idea extends well beyond the advertising world and permeates the entire Hollywood universe and even the political arena -- anywhere where there are public figures.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by brianv »

The software
could also be released for
mobile devices, such as
smartphones or Google Glass, so
that you can see the heartbeat
of those around you in real time
— a boon for gamblers, FBI lie
detection agents, and doctors
alike.

We don't need no stinking software to monitor when politicians and news-readers are lying - their mouths are usually open.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

icarusinbound wrote: Subjecting pale fish-eyed specimens such as Snowden to this analysis could be interesting.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iuLLkWefxs
I hadn't actually watched this video, properly, until now.

Rather than trying to crop a 20sec segment, and attempting to upload it to the potentially-unmeaningful videomotion amplifier at http://videoscope.qrclab.com/, I've just watched the 95sec video itself, straight through, a few times (it appears to have an "Assocated Press" branding, which is interesting).

Please go ahead and do the same.

Who else makes the following observations:

- inverse tan-line...redder below the neck than above. How biologically-credible is that? White 'band' around neck?
- chin-stubble forms a hard leading-edge, with insufficient repeated neck under-droop of soft tissue during speech
- adam's-apple appears inconsistent and...odd
- around 52 blinks in 99secs. Languid, not performing. Approximately 5 sets of curious double-blinks.
- episodic head-swings, with an impression of a repeated action
- interesting collar shadow-angle

I cannot claim to be totally-objective in this analysis, I may be projecting all throughout the interpretation.

But: that doesn't negate the value of the observations.

And, since I'm being so unmitigatingly-subjective, perhaps I might add....'the eyes are the window to the soul'
elmoastro
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by elmoastro »

For me, it's the editing cuts. Same with NASA footage of the Challenger disaster. The video is supposed to have the feel of a self-taped message but the cuts reveal edits, changes in perspective and there are curious near-subliminal edit/cut frames that cause the viewer to blink. It seems like triggers to bring the mind's attention subconsciously back to the message.

In challenger footage, we're supposedly seeing the disaster in raw video form. But CNN cuts to a few different camera views, rather than sticking with the camera that is doing just fine capturing the live moment. The editing, to me, is an indicator of a planned "show". How many cameras did CNN need to cover the launch? It's much like the helicopter zooms on SepClues.

I reason Snowden to be a complete manufactured character, whether he's an actor or cgi sim, I can't say.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by brianv »

icarusinbound wrote:
icarusinbound wrote: Subjecting pale fish-eyed specimens such as Snowden to this analysis could be interesting.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iuLLkWefxs
I hadn't actually watched this video, properly, until now.

Rather than trying to crop a 20sec segment, and attempting to upload it to the potentially-unmeaningful videomotion amplifier at http://videoscope.qrclab.com/, I've just watched the 95sec video itself, straight through, a few times (it appears to have an "Assocated Press" branding, which is interesting).

Please go ahead and do the same.

Who else makes the following observations:

- inverse tan-line...redder below the neck than above. How biologically-credible is that? White 'band' around neck?
- chin-stubble forms a hard leading-edge, with insufficient repeated neck under-droop of soft tissue during speech
- adam's-apple appears inconsistent and...odd
- around 52 blinks in 99secs. Languid, not performing. Approximately 5 sets of curious double-blinks.
- episodic head-swings, with an impression of a repeated action
- interesting collar shadow-angle

I cannot claim to be totally-objective in this analysis, I may be projecting all throughout the interpretation.

But: that doesn't negate the value of the observations.

And, since I'm being so unmitigatingly-subjective, perhaps I might add....'the eyes are the window to the soul'
Max fucking Headroom!
Evil Edna
Banned
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by Evil Edna »

icarusinbound wrote: Who else makes the following observations:

- inverse tan-line...redder below the neck than above. How biologically-credible is that? White 'band' around neck?
- chin-stubble forms a hard leading-edge, with insufficient repeated neck under-droop of soft tissue during speech
- adam's-apple appears inconsistent and...odd
- around 52 blinks in 99secs. Languid, not performing. Approximately 5 sets of curious double-blinks.
- episodic head-swings, with an impression of a repeated action
- interesting collar shadow-angle
The weird tan-line across the neck feels like an arrogant nod to those in-the-know - a tacit grin that "Snowden" is indeed a CGI fake! While 99% of viewers won't even notice it, the poor colour match is blatant to anyone primed for media fakery. And it can't be due to the animators' incompetence. Matching the skin tones of the (almost static) lower neck to better blend with the (more animated) upper neck and face must be one of the easier tasks for "Snowden's" creators.

It's difficult to pinpoint what's wrong with the blinking; it's not just the excessive frequency, it's perhaps the duration of the blink itself. Is it too prolonged, with the eyelid motion perhaps too time-linear? It just seems very mechanical, like the eyelids of an old-fashioned doll when rocked back and forth.

There's also something wrong with the video smoothness, or lack of. It's got a slighty jerky "cinefilm" feel to it. Yet it was supposedly recorded by a professional videographer ("Laura Poitras") using professional, modern kit. So maybe the jerkiness (if it's not another tacit nod) is due to limitations in animation? Perhaps fewer frames per second were animated and then interpolation frames were added afterwards? Explaining why the blinks look too long? If a blink normally takes 300-400msecs it should be spread across 8 or 9 frames at 25fps. Interpolating to boost the frame rate from, say, 15fps to 25fps, could artificially extend a blink by an extra 2 or even 3 frames (30% too long). Maybe that subtle flaw is what we're perceiving?

There was a similar jerkiness and flawed blinking in that cronky US.MIL footage of "Saddam Hussein" from 2003 - a long time ago in terms of cinematographic special effects. According to the narrative, he/she/it had just been extracted from his evil underground lair. He then got a gratis (if very public) dental examination courtesy of the US Army! Remember that nonsense?!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7S42H7betU#t=0m16s There's a strong CGI feel there, too.

Although with Hussein, it's not clear why CGI was needed, when so many doubles/actors were reputedly used. Perhaps just to showcase the new technology and gauge our gullibility? Wind forward almost exactly a decade and is the Alternative Xmas Message delivered by "Edward Snowden" the bleeding edge of CGI'ed fakery today?

After the latest Snowden footage screened Christmas Day, I scoured Youtube and elsewhere for an HD version to analyse. It was officially shown in 1080 HD by Channel 4 - the British state-funded broadcaster. Yet there's no original HD copy anywhere, save for upscaled corruptions, including this totally weird one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVBUmsocnE
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by lux »

Image

Notice the size difference of his ears. Odd, no? :blink:
Last edited by lux on Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by simonshack »

*

For some reason, the 'dancing backdrops' seem to be a 'trademark' of these Image Metric jobs:

Image
(This animated gif loops the above-posted Snowden video between 1mn14 and 1min17 - as we hear "him" saying
"Together, we can make a better balance".)


image Metrics for you:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhf3JmODHE

The French do it better:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKyu32NPUw
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

lux wrote:Notice the size difference of his ears. Odd, no? :blink:
Yes, and apparently in conflict with his shoulders: that one to the viewer's left and downwards seems huge, yet the one on the viewed right is very small. But so saying, his head appears to be leading from his left (our right).
simonshack wrote:*

For some reason, the 'dancing backdrops' seem to be a 'trademark' of these Image Metric jobs:
I may be insufficiently Java-d to be able to see this: in your gif animation, my Linux browser just shows the S-no-wden gulp, then a black flash up to 3/4 screen, then loops. I'll look at it on a Windows machine that has all the devil's plug-ins, to see the backdrop drift.
simonshack wrote: image Metrics for you:
Yes, I've heard of them- impressive.

simonshack wrote: The French do it better:
Mais oui! That is seriously good!
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by lux »

icarusinbound wrote:
lux wrote:Notice the size difference of his ears. Odd, no? :blink:
Yes, and apparently in conflict with his shoulders: that one to the viewer's left and downwards seems huge, yet the one on the viewed right is very small. But so saying, his head appears to be leading from his left (our right).
Yes, good catch

Looking at the ears and shoulders, this guy is actually quite deformed! We should call him Igor. :lol:
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by lux »

This is dated 2 days ago:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6jYA-ggorU

This is the only motion picture footage I could find that shows Snowden in the frame with others at the same time but it's only briefly at the start and end of this "interview" and it's from a distance so close scrutiny of his figure is not possible.
Post Reply