The term "morphing" is big on the Internet as of late. A music artist and suspected minor-lover has commandeered the term in response to allegations against him. In a news report, the artist's lawyers contended that -among other things- the person appearing in the video might not be the artist himself. Here is the quote from the Launch/Yahoo article:

"...the man seen in the video is perhaps not the superstar at all--but a "computer morphing" of him, making it appear that he's knocking boots with a youngster, when really no such act ever took place."

In case you're not aware, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > (a) of the US Code states:

"(a)
Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed."

According to the definitions listed in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110> (a):

" (8)
''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B)
such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D)
such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"

I wondered if one could really morph a performer's face into a video, without it looking like a fake. I thought that I would ask an expert about such possibilities.

I contacted my friend Redshoe. Redshoe (http://www.redshoe.net/samples) is a pretty darned good video editor. He's been editing video for College Fuckfest for the last year or so. Not only is he great with the vids but before he was an adult webmaster he worked in Hollywood, doing special effects for major motion pictures. Redshoe will say he's no morphing genius but I'm betting dollars to donuts, he could spot a fake.

I asked him. Can someone manipulate a video where it looks realistic? Here's what Redshoe had to say:

"(It) depends on a lot of things I suppose.

The first time it was done effectively was in Jurassic Park when they superimposed the little girl's head onto a stuntwoman's body to show that it really was the little girl hanging on. Also it's done with horrible results in Titanic when that chick is running down the hall at the end and the water is rushing in from behind. The head seems to be all misshapen, and moves weird.

The absolute worst example of this was in Sopranos. After his mom really dies in real life Tony has a conversation with her. It was a very one-sided conversation where he was basically asking her yes and no questions. The lighting kept changing on her face because they kept using different takes of the old woman from previous episodes. It was pretty bad.

I bet a well-trained eye and a few video experts could determine if it were faked or not.

As to how hard it is, well, I guess the person faking it would have to have a lot of video footage. And from the right angles, and have to have an understanding of lighting, and video editing, and morph programs. Most likely, some 3D CGI experience as well.

In my opinion, you'd have to be extremely good for it to fool everyone. It's pretty hard to do right (as my above examples should show).

I'm no expert and I can spot a fake a mile off. So should anyone else.

In this case, it's not really a morph. I mean it sounds like that but it's not. A morph would be to transform an apple into an orange by means of keyframing. In this case they are talking about something that I think would involve a 3d program and being able to manipulate a wireframe of the subject being altered... I think it would take either one determined motherfucker to pull something like that off.

I guess I'd have to see the tapes.

It would be hard to do well. Anyone can hack at it, and I'm sure with time and if you sat and fucked with every frame you could probably fool most people. But it would take a highly skilled individual to fool everyone. But I guess he doesn't need to fool everyone, he only needs to fool 12 people."

Oddly, the lawmakers say this very thing about how hard it is to fake video/imagery. The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2003 introduced in the Senate states:

"Leading experts agree that, to the extent that the technology exists to computer generate realistic images of child pornography, the cost in terms of time, money, and expertise is--and for the foreseeable future will remain--prohibitively expensive."

I guess that it's possible to make faked imagery look real. I guess such a talent can be used for evil. I guess that the suggestions of "morphing" will be up to the courts.