 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Okay, I'll be a malignant troll and comment on the image. What's the point? As
> one post said in the thread, why not just bring along a camera? I think that
> with too much attempts at realism in CG, you're either in the Uncanny Valley,
> or you're so realistic it raises the question of why don't you use photograph a
> model.
I read that post. The point is the same in all creative endeavour:
it's much more fun creating things with your own hands rather than
taking them for granted, as in photographing them.
Besides, I can see some practical uses, perhaps not for beautiful
ladies, but for realistic creatures you can't simply bring the camera.
Gollum? Davy Jones? Sandman? How about bringing John Wayne or Marilyn
Monroe back from the grave? Ok, so that perhaps should be work for a
double... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Besides, I can see some practical uses, perhaps not for beautiful
> ladies, but for realistic creatures you can't simply bring the camera.
> Gollum? Davy Jones? Sandman? How about bringing John Wayne or Marilyn
> Monroe back from the grave? Ok, so that perhaps should be work for a
> double... :P
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.
So much for "high-end" visualisation. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> Besides, I can see some practical uses, perhaps not for beautiful
>> ladies, but for realistic creatures you can't simply bring the camera.
>> Gollum? Davy Jones? Sandman? How about bringing John Wayne or
>> Marilyn Monroe back from the grave? Ok, so that perhaps should be
>> work for a double... :P
>
> 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.
>
> So much for "high-end" visualisation. :-P
Was it on TV or movies? Sounds more like an unfinished tech demo...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>>
>> So much for "high-end" visualisation. :-P
>
> Was it on TV or movies? Sounds more like an unfinished tech demo...
Live concert performance.
Then again, considering the quality of the entire performance.......
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So much for "high-end" visualisation. :-P
>>
>> Was it on TV or movies? Sounds more like an unfinished tech demo...
>
> Live concert performance.
>
> Then again, considering the quality of the entire performance.......
But, man! If it's live, it simply can't be of the same quality of
prerendered CG. That's also why lip sync was lagging...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Was it on TV or movies? Sounds more like an unfinished tech demo...
>>
>> Live concert performance.
>>
>> Then again, considering the quality of the entire performance.......
>
> But, man! If it's live, it simply can't be of the same quality of
> prerendered CG. That's also why lip sync was lagging...
No, it *was* prerendered. (And the voice was prerecorded. Clearly. The
guy has been dead for how many decades?)
It just amused me how the booklet screamed about the "cutting edge
computer graphics" representing "thousands of hours of computer time"
when the end result looked so laughable. Pixar were doing animation
better than this 20 years ago. Cutting edge my butter knife! :-P
(E.g., you see an alien head with a mass of writhing tenticles. Several
of the tenticles clearly and obviously pass through each other, and
polygon edges are clearly evident. In fairness, the texturing is
actually quite good. However, when you take a 3-second animation loop,
and just play it forwards-then-backwards for 10 minutes... um... this is
"cutting edge"?)
Still, it was a night out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Cutting edge my butter knife! :-P
LOL! I'll have to remember that one!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Okay, I'll be a malignant troll and comment on the image. What's the point? As
> one post said in the thread, why not just bring along a camera? I think that
> with too much attempts at realism in CG, you're either in the Uncanny Valley,
> or you're so realistic it raises the question of why don't you use photograph a
> model.
Why bother climbing Everest? I mean, it surves no useful purpose of any
kind.
Even better: Why climb Everest *today*? It's already been done. It was
pointless the first time, and there's no particular point in somebody
else doing it again today.
Similarly: Why have I just spent over 2 *months* learning to play
Widor's Toccata? I could easily pick up a copy of a true master playing
it on a grand organ, and it'll sound better than anything I will ever
produce. So why bother?
It's a challange, man! To see if it can actually be done. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> Okay, I'll be a malignant troll and comment on the image. What's the point? As
> one post said in the thread, why not just bring along a camera? I think that
> with too much attempts at realism in CG, you're either in the Uncanny Valley,
> or you're so realistic it raises the question of why don't you use photograph a
> model.
You can get naked CG models to do things that naked actors refuse to do in real
life. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> You can get naked CG models to do things that naked actors refuse to do in real
> life. ;-)
I'd make some belittling remark here - but then I basically started
learning to draw so I could draw naked girls. I guess that makes me just
as pathetic. :-S
(Of course, what I forgot is that you have to know what something looks
like before you can draw it. DOH!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
