Microsoft develops a 3D modeling technique that is flawless

Over the years, we have seen technology progress vastly in a small amount of time. If we compare todays devices to those we used a century ago, we might surprise ourselves as to how much we have progressed in the last century compared to the amount of time humans have been wandering around the earth.

In the past few decades CGI has become extremely popular in movies, video games and simulators among others. The majority of us have seen a movie or played a video game that has human characters and as times have progressed the realism of those characters has increased.

Microsoft's Beijing research lab have now been able to take 3D modeling one step further and have managed to produce a near-perfect 3D render of a face. The technique uses 3D scanning, a motion capture system and their newly developed technique which figures out how many face scans are needed in order to create a perfect render. With this new technology it will help create renders faster and more accurately.

The team plan to present their findings at SIGGRAPH computer graphics conference in Vancouver, B.C.

Although this achievement may not seem like much on the face of it, it’s very likely that this technology will later be implemented into Kinect (if they have the technology, why not implement it?) which will ultimately make Kinect more powerful than it already is. More power and technology in the product should create more features and overall a nicer user experience. A nicer experience for its users means more sales of Kinect, which eventually means more money to be put into more research.

The news comes as yesterday Neowin reported that Microsoft was the eighty-sixth most innovative company in the world according to Forbes, losing to companies such as Starbucks, Nintendo and Adobe.

Image credit: Microsoft Research - Click gallery photos for full view.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Battlefield 3 is DICE's deepest shooter, offering incentives to play for years

Next Story

This week's highlights in new game releases: August 8-14

27 Comments

View more comments

Mike Chipshop said,
Wait... Starbucks more innovative thank Microsoft? On what planet...

On the planet where people think that innovation leads to massive profit, and thus massive profit == innovation

Sraf said,

On the planet where people think that innovation leads to massive profit, and thus massive profit == innovation


This.

Mike Chipshop said,
Wait... Starbucks more innovative thank Microsoft? On what planet...

The whole list was bogus... I mean, what has Google innovated in the last 20 some years? Nothing... And, though Apple releases some very well designed products, they're more a refiner than an innovator themselves...

M_Lyons10 said,

The whole list was bogus... I mean, what has Google innovated in the last 20 some years? Nothing... And, though Apple releases some very well designed products, they're more a refiner than an innovator themselves...
Relevant search. If i recall correctly, search results were horribly irrelevant until Google showed up.

In the same planet that consider a movie is good depending in the box office. So, it is not strange that every hollywood producers spend more in marketing rather in the movie, because people will be lured in the amount of sales rather in the quality of the movie.

MS Lose32 said,
Relevant search. If i recall correctly, search results were horribly irrelevant until Google showed up.

Actually, NO they weren't. Google essentially replaced Alta Vista, which used the some of the same 'conceptual' techniques that Google uses.

(The dirty secret is that when they were developling Google Search, they created their model based on sampling Alta Vista and Lycos. Alta Vista was an all inclusive search that was brilliant in keeping a ton of very specific details in their index (for example querying a part number) that at the time did not work on things like Lycos or a 'listing based' search like Yahoo started about being.)

Google search is better than Alta Vista, especially now, but at the time the difference was non-existent.

Google's appeal was making money off this, as they set out to get the attention of companies to sell them advertising and also sell to web sites. Google was more popular becuase of the advertising than the actual technology or the search technology.

The con was that they sold themselves as a search engine -which they still do-, when they have never been anything more than an information aggegate that they leverage and sell.

PS Before others respond, Google DID NOT innovate or invent:
1) Android, in fact they derailed the OSS project as they now extert complete control with the only thing left open is the ability to view the code and make Mods, and this has been ending too.
2) GDocs
3) GMail
4) GVoice
5) IP Voice Search (like Android uses)
6) Google Earth
7) Google Sky
8) Goggles
9) Google Maps
10) or anything else you can did up.

The bough the majority of these or hired engineers that had created these technologies for other companies. Like Google Earth, comes from work Microsoft created in the 90s to demonstrate the power of MSSQL Server. (TerraServer, etc)

Sadly, Google has the worest track record of innovating, creating, inventing, or even re-innovating a technology to work better than what it was modeled from.

Microsoft seems to have a disconnect going on where they are brilliant at inventing new concepts, but then poor at actually bringing to market new inventions. Kinect being an obvious exception. Many of their other new technologies probably also incorporate a lot of subtle innovations, but don't break new ground from a user's perspective. In terms of business innovation, they are still stuck trying to reinvent Windows and Office - they don't know how to break out of those molds entirely.

This still doesn't make Starbucks more innovative.

[quote= they are still stuck trying to reinvent Windows and Office - they don't know how to break out of those molds entirely.

This still doesn't make Starbucks more innovative.[/quote]

At what point do people actually see what is going on NOW, instead of what was going on 10 years ago. My god. Open your mind.

Alastair Cooper said,
Microsoft seems to have a disconnect going on where they are brilliant at inventing new concepts, but then poor at actually bringing to market new inventions. Kinect being an obvious exception. Many of their other new technologies probably also incorporate a lot of subtle innovations, but don't break new ground from a user's perspective. In terms of business innovation, they are still stuck trying to reinvent Windows and Office - they don't know how to break out of those molds entirely.

This still doesn't make Starbucks more innovative.

You are hitting on part of what is happening. Microsoft's R&D and non-public project inject a lot into the technology base we all take for granted. Yet people only see 'released products' as innovation.

As for reinventing Windows, not so much. The UI and Win32 are always going to be changing, and even the upper layer OS models, but the core technologies of Windows NT are highly extensible, and were designed to take on new technologies for a long long time. NT will be around long after people finally give up trying to duct tape unix model OSes onto new technologies.(why? HAL, Object Based, horizontal and vertical layering, isolated OS subsystems, etc.)

ccoltmanm said,
Psh, starbucks has a new sandwich, until MS beats that, they are not innovative.
Can't wait to get my hands on Windows Sandwich. And when that Mango version comes out... yumm!

Microsoft is definitely dealing with a massive bad reputation issue. Everybody loves to diss Microsoft. even though in actuallity, Windows 7 has a very high customer satisfaction rate, Office sell like hot cakes, Xbox is a success, Kinect kicked all other consoles out of the water, SYNC is so good some people deiced to buy Fords just because of it, and Windows Phone is constantly reviewed as one of the best phones out there. I see it every day, people loving using Windows 7 and Office dissing Microsoft just because is in fashion to do so. MS has made their mistakes, granted, and because of their model they might be slower to bring innovation to fruiction, but once they get everything straighten up, they are solid, and everything converges into integration, compatibility and a consistent ecosystem. When you have a report that claims that Starbucks, Adobe, Pepsi, Nintendo are more innovative than Microsoft, with its Research labs and their over 10 thousand patents, then you know that the report is flawed. In this case, it is because as it says below it : "The Innovation Premium is a measure of how much investors have bid up the stock price of a company above the value of its existing business based on expectations of future innovative results (new products, services and markets)". So if a company produces so much buzz with their 'innovations' as to create high expectations, then it will be more 'innovative'?

Brilliant comment. Couldn't say it any better than that.

Everyone loves to hate MS, and articles like "IE users are dumber" and more recently the "innovation" article are what is rotting MS's reputation. When it comes to IE it's understandable, it won't be "forgiven" until at least version 11 or so when the IE team prove they've changed and are serious, but claiming an entire company including all of it's products aren't innovative is just another "love to hate MS".

Microsoft's Business Model and Marketing Strategies are NOT Innovative,
Technology wise it's one of the most Innovative Company, no one can match Microsoft Research. But they waste a lot of time implementing it, and when final product comes out everyone has copied and implemented it in not so polished way.

On the other hand Google copies stuff buys start-ups and implements the technology in raw form (they always have ‘free product' excuse) and overtime they polish it.

Apple has different sets of users,
1) Naïve users who don't know much about technology. So when Steve Jobs introduces a 5-year old feature as revolutionary, they believe him.
2) Morons who think it's cool to have Apple Stuff. They buy products just to brag about it.

Timing is very important while launching a new type of product, and generally Microsoft sucks at it (Except of course Kinect and Xbox Live) . Microsoft Introduced Tablets in 2001, when generally public was not into technology, and Laptops was not a common device. But now Smartphones developed a way for Tablets, it was natural time to introduce Tablets. Though Microsoft was the first, but they are 2-3 years behind everyone. Also Microsoft Introduces Mesh and Syncing services way back, when people didn't have multiples devices like Desktop, Laptops, Tablets, Gaming Consoles and Smartphones to sync content.

Gaurav Agrawal said,
Apple has different sets of users,
1) Naïve users who don't know much about technology. So when Steve Jobs introduces a 5-year old feature as revolutionary, they believe him.
2) Morons who think it's cool to have Apple Stuff. They buy products just to brag about it.

Maybe MSFT should strive to have naive users and morons who like cool shiny toys.

Gaurav Agrawal said,
Microsoft's Business Model and Marketing Strategies are NOT Innovative,
Technology wise it's one of the most Innovative Company, no one can match Microsoft Research. But they waste a lot of time implementing it, and when final product comes out everyone has copied and implemented it in not so polished way.

On the other hand Google copies stuff buys start-ups and implements the technology in raw form (they always have ‘free product' excuse) and overtime they polish it.

Apple has different sets of users,
1) Naïve users who don't know much about technology. So when Steve Jobs introduces a 5-year old feature as revolutionary, they believe him.
2) Morons who think it's cool to have Apple Stuff. They buy products just to brag about it.

Timing is very important while launching a new type of product, and generally Microsoft sucks at it (Except of course Kinect and Xbox Live) . Microsoft Introduced Tablets in 2001, when generally public was not into technology, and Laptops was not a common device. But now Smartphones developed a way for Tablets, it was natural time to introduce Tablets. Though Microsoft was the first, but they are 2-3 years behind everyone. Also Microsoft Introduces Mesh and Syncing services way back, when people didn't have multiples devices like Desktop, Laptops, Tablets, Gaming Consoles and Smartphones to sync content.

Microsoft may have figured out a way to make a keyboard-less laptop ("slate") but they sure as hell didn't make a touch-friendly OS to go along with it. And if you think Windows XP was just as touch-friendly as iOS or Android 3.x, you've been smoking some strong sh*t!

MS Lose32 said,
Microsoft may have figured out a way to make a keyboard-less laptop ("slate") but they sure as hell didn't make a touch-friendly OS to go along with it. And if you think Windows XP was just as touch-friendly as iOS or Android 3.x, you've been smoking some strong sh*t!

In 2001, Resistive Touch Screens were used, which didn't supported gestures and multi-touch. They were meant to be used by Stylus...not Fingers.

“An important distinction is normally made between invention and innovation. Invention is the first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process while innovation is the first attempt to carry it out into practice.” - Jan Fagerberg, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo

Based on this definition many on the list are arguably innovative. Others remain debatable. Is theirs the first attempt at executing against an invention, or simply the most successful?

Forbes are same analyst that failed to predict the mortgage crisis, the Enron crisis and the current economic crisis.

Memnochxx said,
If I can tell the difference between a picture of a face and their model of a face, it isn't flawless.

Pray tell what is wrong with the samples above? Are you an imaging expert?

I like the last touch by Tom Dwyer.

The news comes as yesterday Neowin reported that Microsoft was the eighty-sixth most innovative company in the world according to Forbes, losing to companies such as Starbucks, Nintendo and Adobe.

Commenting is disabled on this article.