Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Toys Entertainment Games

EyeToy PS2 Camera To Use Digimask For 3D Faces 45

Thanks to Gamesindustry.biz for its article indicating that Sony has teamed up with Digimask to allow full 3D models of gamers' faces to be used in PS2 titles, providing the player has an EyeToy USB camera. The Digimask technology "allows gamers to take a couple of snaps of their own head with EyeToy and have them magically remodelled into a fully animated 3D head", and a number of unannounced games are in development using this technology, which might allow "...players to put their own face onto a player in a football game, or to [theoretically] fight against digital reproductions of their friends in online games of SOCOM." GI.Biz does, however, note: "Of course, there is the eternal concern that mischievous gamers will take pictures of, well, other body parts, giving the 'Personal Head Creation' technology a bad name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EyeToy PS2 Camera To Use Digimask For 3D Faces

Comments Filter:
  • Figures... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @11:29AM (#8066518)
    "Of course, there is the eternal concern that mischievous gamers will take pictures of, well, other body parts, giving the 'Personal Head Creation' technology a bad name."

    I can just see the discussion in game "Hey Jon, how come your smile is sideways....OH DEAR LORD"
  • by rogabean ( 741411 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @11:30AM (#8066523)
    "Of course, there is the eternal concern that mischievous gamers will take pictures of, well, other body parts, giving the 'Personal Head Creation' technology a bad name."
    Gamers doing this? I don't believe it!
    Give the "Personal Head Creation" a bad name? Obviously they didn't think too hard about the name they gave it did they?
  • by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @11:30AM (#8066528)
    Methinks this isn't going to be regarded too highly in the press. "Now you can scan your head and your friend's head into the game and kill each other!" "They're encouraging murder because they're killing virtual representations of their best friends!" Etc. etc.

    As for the "mischevious gamers," I don't even *want* to think of what kinda "heads" they would appropriate in a game of SOCOM!

  • Perfect Dark (Score:5, Informative)

    by StocDred ( 691816 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @11:32AM (#8066542) Homepage Journal
    Perfeck Dark for N64 was supposed to include this sort of thing using the Game Boy Camera... but it was removed at the last minute. The official reason was that it affected performance of the game, but it was so close to Columbine that many figured that was why Nintendo had the feature stripped.

    Obviously enough time has passed that companies aren't afraid to include "shoot your friends' digitized faces!" as a packaging bullet point.

  • Concern?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Itsik ( 191227 ) <demiguru-at-me@com> on Friday January 23, 2004 @11:36AM (#8066585) Homepage
    Why is it that corporations always try and "shield" our lives from what they deem inappropriate.
    When you teach someone to use a hammer. That person can use it for what it was intended or he or she can bang someone's head open. That doesn't mean that we should not make hammers.
    • Re:Concern?? (Score:2, Insightful)

      But if that "hammer" is only designed and used to break open people's heads, then yes, we should be concerned.
      There are certain "hammers" that do not have other uses except for killing.
    • Re:Concern?? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bigman2003 ( 671309 )
      Do you really think they give a flying fuck about shielding us?

      They don't want bad press- protests, or worst- Wal*Mart not carrying their game because it is inappropriate.

      The *really* don't care about the social impact. If you are concerned about the social impact, you probably are not running a *successful* business.

      (Yes, of course there are examples of morally correct successful businesses, and many of them are successful because being morally correct is their schtick...money from granolas is just as
      • Notice that I put shield in quotes. Trust me I'm not that naive. I know what makes them tick. The reason I used the term shield is because some companies and even societies "moral" claims. That's all.
        I do agree with you, that in reality they don't care about the social impact.
    • Corporations don't give a rat's ass when it comes to "shielding" our lives. Its the public opinion that they care about.

      If id Software sold Quake with the subtitle called "Kill All Freaks" and it made trillions of dollars, do you really think they'd care that you, Joe Average, complained about the terminlogy? Hell no, they tell you to fuck off. If you're the CEO of, say, EA Games; would you publish a WWII FPS sim called 'The Battle of Stalinrad' or 'The Slaughter of Russians at Stalinrad'?

      As for the hamme

    • They're not trying to shield anyone if anything its their bottom line, money. All it takes is a parent group to decide to boycott and its all over news the bad press isn't worth it.
  • by jmlyle ( 512574 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @12:08PM (#8066915) Homepage

    You know, putting the head of an underaged person on a Lara Croft-type character body could probably get you throw in jail.
  • Distraction (Score:5, Funny)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Friday January 23, 2004 @12:14PM (#8066982) Homepage Journal
    "Who was that ugly-ass man?"

    "I don't know. His nick was 'goatse', though"

  • They could use the same image recognition stuff that PhotoShop uses to recognize currency, and modify it to recognize other... Er, heads.
    • photoshop's currency detection relies on characteristics of the bill to recognize it as a bill. I believe its the small diamonds in the background that give it away. Either way, there is some constant in each bill that it recognizes.

      Finding a universal constant in, umm, heads would be a disgustingly daunting task.
  • by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Friday January 23, 2004 @12:48PM (#8067345) Homepage Journal
    First thing this made me think of is when the guy in Gibson's "Virtual Light" pisses off the hacker kids and they put his face on a guy in a nasty S&M kind of porno thing. That was a kind of out there idea in the '80s but it is getting more and more possible.

    I would think the real kick in this would have less to do with getting your own face in a game and more to do with getting someone you don't like in a game. The machinama possibilities could be very, very interesting

  • by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @01:03PM (#8067504) Homepage Journal
    Hey - does this mean I can model Bill Gates' head onto the shoulders of all the monsters that I kill in Doom and Duke Nukem and all those First Person Shooter games?

    I'm sure there's lots of people that would love to customize Doom and the other shooter games to add a picture of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh (the alleged "big fat idiot deaf crackfiend" as I've heard various political 'extremists' call him), and other politicos.

    Likewise, this applies to Leisure Suit Larry and Grand Theft Auto - putting specific faces on the people in the games. This could get legally complicated, couldn't it...?

    I mean, since Cindy Crawford techically owns almost all of the images of her. Or, her photographers do. So, hypothetically, if I take a set of random headshots (prove which photographer took them!) grab data from it, encode it to become the prostitute character for Grand Theft Auto, then sell the product of this work as a derivative work, is it covered under copyright law as a derivative work, or have I stolen the likeness from the photographers?
  • by BigJimSlade ( 139096 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @02:43PM (#8068670) Homepage
    While I don't have a specific reference nearby, an arcade game in the 80's did something similar with a camera for a high-score board. I'm pretty sure a number of players with the initials 'ASS' caused the demise of this product.

    You know the old saying: Those who don't learn from history will do nothing butt repeat it.

    <rimshot />
  • Finally, I can have two different big headed characters!
  • Non-human "faces" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by J_DarkElf ( 602111 ) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:21PM (#8069830) Journal
    Who's to say people will stop with humans? One could easily take a pic of their cat or dog and use that as an avatar...

    And we'll see the furries on the PS2 as well.

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Working...