Digital, Dynamic Make-Up Now Possible with Real-Time Face Tracking and Projections

Make-up can be a pain on photo shoots, can’t it? Well, imagine if you didn’t need make-up on a shoot to alter the look of a model’s skin. Now stop imagining, because it’s a reality, thanks to this interesting real-time face tracking and projection mapping technology.

Screen Shot 2014-08-18 at 1.28.23 PM

Created by Nobumichi Asai in collaboration with Omote, this creation combines real-time face tracking and projection mapping to apply a computer-generated set of makeup, which can be as static or dynamic as you want. Limited only by the same creativity that will inevitably result in the final image, the options are limitless for the most part.

There isn’t a great deal of technical information as to how all of this truly works, but as time goes on and this technology develops, the options will vastly expand. In the meantime, give the above video demonstration a watch and be prepared for a wonderful step forward in creative possibilities.

(via DIY Photography)

  • Adam Cross

    watched this a few days ago on Vimeo, I think I’ve seen it about 20 times now, still awesome. We’ve seen similar stuff before but it’s only really been on static objects, to track the face this accurately is amazing

  • Theo Lubbe

    Problem: as a projector, it lights the face first and from a limited range of angles as well as a limited scope of accuracy. The equipment, requirements in precision of that equipment as well as the expertise required to set up and operate that equipment (keep in mind someone would still need to ‘paint’ the makeup prior to it being applied, though these ‘masks’ could become templates and reusable) will all outweigh the cost and complication of a dedicated and skilled makeup artist who can make adjustments as necessary on the fly without having to fidget with any software.

    All of that taken into consideration, I see a projector system causing immense headaches in setting up lighting for any given shoot, even taking into account composites of a shot with and without the projector image (absence of studio lights and inclusion of projector’s light, then absence of projector’s light and inclusion of studio lights).

    All of this especially taking into account the single biggest problem: these projections are ‘flat’. Accurately recreating three-dimensional features reliant on external lighting would require incredible amounts of hardware, precision and expertise to work with.

    Right now it serves as a novelty at best, and I don’t think it’ll become a realistic alternative to a makeup artist for many years to come.

  • Adam Cross

    I can’t see it being a headache for people who love to experiment. Plus, I don’t see a need for composites that you suggest, shadows can be created digitally and placed wherever you want them on the face

  • Federico Montemurro

    I love new techniques but this is not going to replace the beauty of analog make-up.

  • Theo Lubbe

    “loving experimenting” doesn’t inherently overcome impossibilities or impracticalities presented by a given concept.

    Creating “digital shadows” may not necessarily yield the kinds of results desired at the level of quality intended, and presents another skillset someone may have to learn to replace something they can already do, all for the sake of doing it in a different way; a potentially needless way.

  • Dario Toledo

    Awesome. Probably fitting best on movie productions.

  • Paul

    i think it doesn’t want to do that.

  • Federico Montemurro

    My comment was based on the following paragraph:”Make-up can be a pain on photo shoots, can’t it? Well, imagine if you didn’t need make-up on a shoot to alter the look of a model’s skin.”

  • Paul

    Oh, i’m sorry. I don’t read the articles, when their written by Gannon Burgett.

  • Adam Cross

    some times things a difficult and challenging, do you only ever do things that are easy?

    And really, you’re live-mapping someone face and you would worry about something as subjective as “level of quality”? come on, lighten up. Do you ever do something just for fun? just to see what would happen?

  • Theo Lubbe

    “some times things a difficult and challenging, do you only ever do things that are easy?”
    No, the majority of what I’ll do are things which fall outside of the scope of what I know I can do. That doesn’t change the fact that this projection system introduces issues. It’s great to be an idealist who thinks that just trying will automatically achieve a great result, but that simply isn’t how the real world works.

    “And really, you’re live-mapping someone face and you would worry about something as subjective as “level of quality”?”
    Yes, because if the objective of the mapping and projection is specifically to do something like replace makeup, then one would damn-well hope all the work, required expertise and equipment invested in doing so can outdo makeup artists working with real makeup. Otherwise, what’s the point?

    “come on, lighten up.”
    I’m perfectly “lightened up”, I just disagree with you. I could be the brightest ray of sunshine to hit the planet and I’d still disagree with you, because what you’re saying isn’t something I can agree with.

    “Do you ever do something just for fun?”
    Yes, of course. I don’t consider spending copious amounts of money, time and effort on something which yields sub-standard results which I could foresee would, in its current implementation, yield substandard results for the money to be a ‘fun’ expenditure, however. I could rather use those funds, time and effort to go do something I would enjoy more, such as traveling to a country I’ve never seen before to take photos there.

    “just to see what would happen?”
    I already do that. I don’t need to do that with something which I can predict will not yield results I will be satisfied with, which I would have to work with further using tools I would already have used just to ‘fix’ the issues presented by the output I got.

    Using this could be likened to paying through the nose to go shoot in direct daylight with no light modifiers and having to ‘fix’ everything in photoshop afterwards, when you really could have paid much less to go shoot somewhere where the base lighting is already agreeable and where you could use very basic, inexpensive light modifiers and a little bit of makeup/wardrobe to achieve a practically ‘finished’ result straight out of the camera.

    I don’t care for “trying something just to see what would happen” when I know there are established ways I could do something to get a result I can expect.