In terms of design and industry, these two talks, in the same vein, introduce a new way of computer animating. The revolutionary form of digitizing a photo-real face has been seen in films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and in this TED talk, Paul Debevec and Ed Ulbrich demonstrate how it was done.
Paul Debevec explains the process of capturing these images. The process begins in a setting called Light Stage 5, a netted, dome-like structure where the subject stands under 156 white LED bulbs. This setting photographs surfaces at all angles and allows different lighting patterns to be seen, getting every angle and texture of the face from every angle and line possible. The light stage photographs at about five frames per second and can get the coarse and fine textures of the skin through polarizing cameras. The different types of images gathered, based completely on the shine of one's skin, are unique to this camera. They allow for incredibly minute detail (including pores, wrinkles and hair,) as opposed to the pristine skin of characters in Pixar's Toy Story or even more recently, Up!
These photographs enable designers to create the most realistic, computer generated face seen on cameras in approximately 3 seconds at a time.
Ed Ulbrich takes things further and explains exactly how Light Stage 5 and other technologies were used in making The Curious Case of Benjamin Button a reality. Their task was significant, holding up an entire hour of a movie with a completely computer generated, photo-real character.
What does this mean for marketing and design?
Ed Ulbrich states it best when talking about Paul Ekman in the early 70's and his Facial Action Coding System. It creates infinite possibilities in terms of making a digital actor. The time required to photograph is minimal and once digital catalogs are formed, the possibilities of creation for this new, digital character are infinite.
When it comes to marketing and design, this solution could, in coming years, prove to be highly economic, controllable, and again, once digital catalogs are formed, efficient. Ulbrich states that after the digital capture of Brad Pitt's face, he had thousands of facial expressions, everything that Pitt's face was capable of doing that possibly even Pitt didn't know about, at his disposal. In a design context, this capability is groundbreaking.
Potentially gone are the days of fifty takes to get a talking head in a commercial to get a facial expression or tic of a character correct. Production costs could go down, studio rental time could be cut in half. For short advertisements that are placed in such venues like the Superbowl, if one were to have a catalog of digital faces and their expressions, like the pictures on iStockphoto, Corbis or other websites of that kind- pay for actors would be minimal to none. Costs overall would go down, from production to placing. Of course, given the innovative nature of the technology, it incurs a significant amount of at startup.
If this practice were to become convention and commonplace? Commercial actors could be entirely replaced, saving parent companies and production studios large amounts of money and time.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
+ 005 - 02.28.10 - ACADEMIC
Monday, February 22, 2010
+ 004 - 02.22.2010 - ACADEMIC
IN RESPONSE TO: 'COMMUNICATOR PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS & PERSUASION'
This is one of the most fascinating pieces of academic writing I've ever read. I'm partially basing my thesis on this, so I figured I could do a decent blog entry about it. Shelly Chaiken, a social psychologist, claimed that attractive communicators (identified by specific criteria including assertiveness, friendliness, physical attractiveness [measured on a five point scale,] expertise, sincerity [smiling was judged] and confidence [pauses in speech were measured]) were more effective persuaders than unattractive communicators.
After extensive studies, Chaiken concluded that:
"... Attractive and unattractive individuals do differ on dimensions other than physical appearance. Attractive communicators were more fluent speakers and faster speakers than their unattractive counterparts. Further, attractive communicators tended to report higher scores on two indices of educational accomplishment (grade point average, SAT scores) and described themselves somewhat more favorably along several dimensions (persuasiveness, attractiveness, interestingness, optimism about getting an excellent job) that may tap aspects of self-concept.
"... And although little is known concerning the psychology of the persuasive communicator (in contrast to the psychology of the message recipient,) it seems reasonable that factors such as self-concept and educational achievement, a frequently used indicant of intelligence, should contribute to one's effectiveness as a social influence agent."
In the simplest of terms? If you think you rocked that job interview and are convinced that you are the person for the job? Odds are you did.
I think it's fascinating that confidence has been scientifically discovered and analyzed as a factor of effective communication. It's a large part of what I'm dedicating the later portion of my academic career to and I think confidence is a large part of the lives of anyone my age. Talking about confidence is always going to seem a little cliche and monotone to me; yes, confidence is important, yes, we should have it in everything we do, blah blah blah.
It's never been proven to me with cold, hard facts before. With a scientific, lab study. The details are in the article and it might be locked to the database, but if you have an SCSU library code, you can access it. The statistics from Chaiken's study indicate that people found confident persuaders to be attractive, and the attractive persuaders to be more effective. I personally think this an awesome thing to have documented, rather than just having it be a general belief, and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Like I said before, it's nice to know that if you think you nailed it? Odds are that you probably did, and that, especially in this economy/job market? Is supremely comforting.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1387-1397.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
+ 003 - 2.16.2010 - NEWS
IN RESPONSE TO: A FINE LINE WHEN ADS & CHILDREN MIX
This article was definitely a tough read. I'm a media awareness advocate. I play both sides of the field when it comes to the ethics of advertising for several reasons and not only because it's a tendency of mine to play the Devil's Advocate for debate's sake. When children are involved, however, my personal preference is to advocate for them and not the media being directed at them, if the two, in this case, can be considered as the two sides to this equation.
The article addresses the fact that advertising is becoming more subtle than ever in magazines like Discovery Kids, Boys' Life and National Geographic Kids, saying that "Publishers and advertisers are becoming more creative about such ads [aimed at children,] and are running games, contests and events where the advertiser has only a subtle presence — exactly the opposite of what some of the advocacy groups were aiming for." I agree with that fact. It's like the old advertisements on television, where Fred Flintstone would walk out of Bedrock and into a Winston cigarette commercial, except these days, it's technically under different terms. There are blips of black screen to separate commercials from the television show, but where is the line in a magazine? This article brings to light this issue and I find it fascinating.
There is no blip of black space in a magazine. There is no differentiation between what is part of the show and what isn't, at least that's the argument the Times is making. The regulations on advertising to children are tighter than ever. Hersheys', Coca Cola and other companies have specifically stated that they will not advertise to children, period, because of the points brought up by advocacy organizations regarding child obesity and health.
Another argument that the article presents is that children are not educated or equipped enough to properly process or analyze advertisements. This is another point I agree with, to an extent. The blanket answer for my personal stance, is that it depends. Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is vehement about her claim, saying that the goals of advertisers are "insidious" and are meant to force a child to incorporate a brand into their identity. I feel that this is a bit extreme. It all depends on the child and what their comprehension is. A child that can differentiate a commercial from a show is vastly different from one that cannot, but both are impacted. Each child is different, as are their comprehension skills. While I think it's good that Ms. Linn is standing up for these children, I do believe that her stance is a bit too broad for my taste.
Do I think that advertisers should be more wary when advertising to children? Of course. As an advertising student, I wouldn't market macaroni and cheese to a child the same way that I would market it to an adult. It's comparing apples and oranges, for lack of a better analogy. I agree that discretion should be taken. I think that advertising to children should be done with tact and taste and I think that it should be noted the significance of the impact advertising has on children, whether it is as extreme as saying that it forces children into incorporating brands into their identity of changing the channel, it tells a child to do something, and that is what the bottom line is. The variable is what that child ultimately chooses to do on his or her own.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
+ 002 - 2.6.2010 - INDUSTRY
IN RESPONSE TO- JACEK UTKO ASKS: CAN DESIGN SAVE THE NEWSPAPER?
Jacek Utko is a designer. He designs not only for creative expression, but to sell and revive the newspaper culture. He designs with a mission; to prolong the life of the physical newspaper. "Can anything sell newspapers?" He asks, and it's a loaded question. In a world of instant gratification, of iPads, (touchscreen tablets that do, quite literally, do everything,) of mobile Internet and hands-free communication, why would anyone possibly want to carry around something physical? Why would a person want to lug around an issue of the sunday New York Times? Utko answers that question.
Utko never set out to design newspapers. He wanted to create art, to design posters and things that jumped off the page. He was hired as an art director for a newspaper in Eastern Europe and it was the most boring job he'd ever had, with boring words and boring colors. When he started working with Pulz Biznesu, a Polish economic newspaper, things changed. His covers have been recipients of numerous awards, including, but not limited to World's Best Designed by the Society for News Design.
"The secret is that we were treating the whole newspaper as one piece, as one composition," Utko states. Instead of divying up the newspaper into traditional sections, he created a newspaper as a cohesive piece of art. "Like music. [Music] has ups and downs and design is responsible for this experience. Flipping through pages is [...] an experience, and I'm responsible for this experience." The all-encompassing manner with which Utko speaks about a newspaper is refreshing. The zeal with which he speaks about designing is inspiring, but does it answer the original question? Can newspapers be saved?
At the pace with which technology is evolving, I would be loathe to say either yes or no. Newspapers provide an experience, and Utko is correct in his assertion. But the definition of 'experience' differs from person to person. As does the definition of 'newspaper' in today's world. Children being brought up in the touchpad, instant-gratification world may not define a newspaper as a tangible, readable.. thing with pages and ink and a distinct smell.
Do I think that design can help in the fight to save the newspaper culture? I definitely believe that, 100%. What was popular in the early 1900's may not be popular today. Design concepts evolve with time and we as students, media consumers and designers, are finding ourselves in another crux. This crux is the transition into a purely digital age. Design is one of the few things that is sure to survive the transition.
Jacek says that "you can live in a small poor country, like me. You can work for a small company, in a boring branch. You can have no budgets, no people -- but still can put your work to the highest possible level. And everybody can do it." No matter what, design and ideas transcend budgets or means. I believe that with the endless resource that is creativity and imagination, newspapers' livelihood can be improved. It won't solve the decline in newspapers, but it can certainly slow it down.
