 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While surfing on the excellent forum for professionals CGSociety.org I came
across this excellent image. (Note to sensitive and morally offended, this link
contains an artistic nude).
http://oddity.cgsociety.org/gallery/655126/
No, not a photograph or other users of the forum would be all about CGTalk.com
inept. To overcome your doubts go through the Portfolio of Mr Rod Seff and to
determine if this is a demiurge infographics or an impostor.
No, not a photograph or the users from the CGTalk.com forum would be all inept.
To overcome your doubts go through the Portfolio of Mr Rod Seff and determine
if this is a infographic demiurge or an scoundrel.
Please, I'm not a malignant troll trying to turn fire between this or any other
forum, so think before responding to this post or CGTalk.com.
Keep in mind that most of this message was translated by the automatic
translator of Google, so I present my apologies for grammatical errors that
might be committed. If something seems ironic that it might not be my
intention.
Persistente B. Gimeno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Artistically delightful, technically stunning. Truly a masterpiece.
Lightwave, another old timer...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Artistically delightful, technically stunning. Truly a masterpiece.
>
> Lightwave, another old timer...
And to think I wasted an hour just trying to draw a believable water and
sky combination... o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"B. Gimeno" <bgi### [at] lycos es> wrote:>
>
> Please, I'm not a malignant troll trying to turn fire between this or any other
> forum, so think before responding to this post or CGTalk.com.
>
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.
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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
