Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Ever heard of "Poser porn"?

Yes, complete with fake-looking hair, plastic boobs, "Poser elbows," body parts
that pass through floors and tables, hair and clothing that pass through body
parts, and a widespread aversion to cast shadows.  Shows promise, but needs
work.

Or does the quality improve when you become a paid member?

Post a reply to this message

news:web.4919fcd544dd31cd85de7b680@news.povray.org...
> "B. Gimeno" <bgi### [at] lycoses> wrote:

> Now, what kind of sick mind would be offended by an image of a pretty 
> girl?
>
the stop bird porn watch movement? ( http://www.stopbirdporn.com )
ups, or  the stop poligon mesh watching movement?

B. Gimeno

Post a reply to this message

> And refreshingly, the model is shaped like a real woman and not like a 
> Barbie
> doll.

YES!  My biggest complaint about the DAZ models...  No matter how good your 
skin tones, you can't make them look real, because their bodies are (at 
best) representative of about 0.01% of the population.  Pamela Anderson's* 
body is not realistic.

*my example is likely out of touch with the times...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:32:41 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   Remember what the internet is for...
> 
> Now *that* made me laugh. Thank you.

And a big thank you to Avenue Q as well. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Or does the quality improve when you become a paid member?

LMAO!

PWN3RSH1P!!

Post a reply to this message

49196715@news.povray.org...
>
> I saw Richard Burton ressurrected this way.
>
> Of course, I have no idea what he's *supposed* to look like. But the way 
> his lips didn't quite sync to the voice properly, and the way he kepted 
> doing the exact same facial expressions in a simple repeating loop left 
> him looking like a robot.
>
Oh so Steven Seagal and David Caruso  are  re-creations as well? ;-)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

My point has to do with the Uncanny Valley curve.  The UV hypothesis states that
as something becomes more lifelike, it first becomes more and more enjoyable/
empathetic and then falls off a cliff.  Something that's 3/4 realistic is just
plain creepy-- as the Richard Burton examples attest to. Then as one continues
to improve the realism, it climbs out of the valley and becomes more enjoyable.

Pixar has an "uncanny" knack for making things at the top of the first peak. I'd
much rather watch a Pixar movie than an *attempt* at a
exhaustively-photorealistic image which has fallen down one slope or the other.

I say in CG, the highest accomplishment in entertainment, in human richness,
comes in trying to find the first peak. It's an even greater "Everest" because
it requires something more than raw power.  I've seen youtube thumbnails of
people trying to make titillating images, probaly with DAZ products.  I say
it's at the very bottom of the Uncanny Valley--blecch.

Once an IRTC winner commented that he hadn't sold a single copy of his work at
zazzle.  My thought at the time is that it was that the image a great technical
achievement, but kinda "uncanny valley" in its enjoyability.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

The article cited _The Polar Express_ as an example from CGI. I got no sense of
revulsion from the characters; I found them surprisingly empathetic.

What I found profoundly disturbing about the movie wasn't its quasi-realism, but
its message:  that it is healthy and virtuous to believe things that are
incompatible with reality.  It's one thing to make a movie about Santa Claus;
but this movie actually showed the child examining the evidence and reasoning
things through to a logical conclusion; and then being shown that the facts are
irrelevant.  What is the message?  That we are to eschew reality?  That what
contradicts reality is more real than the possible?  That it is foolish to draw
conclusions based on the facts?

This movie is not mere fiction or fantasy.  It is intellectual dishonesty.  You
*know* that the makers of the movie didn't believe any of it, yet their message
to children is that they should.

It's a shame about the message.  This movie was an exemplar of technical
excellence, with likeable, lifelike characters and superlative special effects.
The scene at the north pole with the reindeer taking off was especially
enjoyable.

> My point has to do with the Uncanny Valley curve.  The UV hypothesis states that
> as something becomes more lifelike, it first becomes more and more enjoyable/
> empathetic and then falls off a cliff.

_Portrait of a Girl_ must be on the other side of the valley, because there's
nothing revulsive about her.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> This movie is not mere fiction or fantasy.  It is intellectual dishonesty.  You
> *know* that the makers of the movie didn't believe any of it, yet their message
> to children is that they should.

Christmas miracle?  Poetic license?  Come on!  What about "Sixth Sense"?  It's
good sometimes to be wrong all along and have your expectations gone wrong.
This is fiction anyway.  And even still, they don't make it clear it really
happened at all:  the boy only hears the bells because he wants to.

> The scene at the north pole with the reindeer taking off was especially
> enjoyable.

I liked best when Santa showing to the sound of "Santa Claus is coming to Cloud"
sung by Sinatra. :)

> > My point has to do with the Uncanny Valley curve.  The UV hypothesis states that
> > as something becomes more lifelike, it first becomes more and more enjoyable/
> > empathetic and then falls off a cliff.
>
> _Portrait of a Girl_ must be on the other side of the valley, because there's
> nothing revulsive about her.

Yes.  Well, some people found it revulsive that she looks like she's a teen, to
which the author responded she's 2 weeks old, the time it took him to create
her.  What's the problem with a nude girl?  It's not pornographic imagery and
doesn't even show a frontal, it's simply some girl as she is behind the
clothes... oh, the shock of nature!

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cousin Ricky [mailto:ric### [at] yahoocom]
> Posted At: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:47 PM
> Posted To: povray.off-topic
> Conversation: Photorrealism (Portrait of a Girl)
> Subject: Re: Photorrealism (Portrait of a Girl)
> 
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
> 
> The article cited _The Polar Express_ as an example from CGI. I got no
> sense of
> revulsion from the characters; I found them surprisingly empathetic.

You're in the minority, then.  Most people found them creepy (even the
people who liked the movie).

> What I found profoundly disturbing about the movie wasn't its quasi-
> realism, but
> its message:  that it is healthy and virtuous to believe things that
> are
> incompatible with reality.

<sarcasm>Yes, it's so unhealthy to believe that there are things you
might not understand or be able to explain, and it's OK to believe in
them anyway.  That's so disruptive for our youth.</sarcasm>

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message