Facial Prototyping & transforming
For apparently, that’s what those average faces are called: Facial Prototyping
It looks faffy. Basically, to get clear outlines you need to morph all of the pictures to the same shape. Interesting though.
So SilentBob has posted over on EverythingEverything about this picture I showed him:
which is made up from a fairly large equal number of women and men. To me, it’s a teenage boy, but to Rob, it’s a fairly attractive girl. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not dissing Rob on this one - I think it’s very androgynous whatever it is, it’s a tough call.
So when I came across this tool that applies transformations to faces, I had to have a play. Part of the way it applies transformations is by comparing the images to the average images for a rough ethnic/sexual type that you define at the start: in our case either a caucasian male or female (hispanic would have been closer, I think, but not available). So here are two very obviously different routes to take - both older adults, one male one female. Which do you think looks more realistic? (images are clickable)
February 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I’ve finally registered on here, so I can leave comments.
You need to post entries more often
February 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Probably
I’ve been trying to resist just posting pointless rants
February 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Are you saying I post lots of pointles rants?
Well maybe a few, but mostly it’s wacky or geeky stuff.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
How do you edit comments on here? :S
February 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
You press the ‘e’
I wasn’t saying *you* post lots of pointless rants (you do, although most of your pointless posts aren’t the rants
) I was saying I *would*
February 5th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
There’s an “e”? I don’t see one.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
It’s after the ‘pm’ for me
February 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
There’s a PM? I have a feeling you don’t let us do much on here. Log out and take a look, that’s basically what I can see.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I meant the pm of the time stamp
logging out won’t help me see if you have editing rights as a commentator… I’ll have another look around for an option to change that.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I meant what people see when they’re logged out appears to be the same as what I see when I’m logged in and leave a comment.
i.e.
SilentBob Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
There’s a PM? I have a feeling you don’t let us do much on here. Log out and take a look, that’s basically what I can see.
July 26th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I’d be interested, what makes us destinguish between male and female faces. Surely painters could answer that question. I’d say, women have more oval heads and their faces are higher and wider (biger) in relation to the head.
When people had a good relationship to the part of their parents, who represent the same gender than they are looking for as partner, they are attracted by similiar looking faces than that parent. Read that somwhere. In consequence these partners look simliar.
My opinion: people look for partners who seem androgynous or more representing the own gender, first at first trials in puberty and later when they have a narcissistic / insecure approach. The gap between the genders is not so wide and the focus is then on the reproductive part.
Sexual attraction is the wish for re-incorporation of those character parts, which we have dissociated during acquiring our gender role / identity. Thats why different gender roles are nevertheless important also nowadays. Love is comparable with magic. It’s projection. People who not only project gender role attributes, but also wider character attributes (domesticity, youth, emotional strength…) have a narcissistic approach, whose partnerships are based on just an image of the other person. Those bindings will fail, when the partner develops out of that image.
Sorry for my English…