 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 20:50, schrieb nemesis:
> gregjohn escreveu:
>> I really like this one. It has no fingerprint of being raytraced.
>
> aside from the "too perfect to be true" factor. I mean, no dirt anywhere
> and perfect reflections. :p
Well, thats what I mean by "hyper"-real. I could have added a bit of
dust, some scratches and such but I decided not to do it.
Vivian Westwood is not all about punk and reality is not the theme of
this image. Persistence of fashion is a contradiction in terms.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 20:52, schrieb nemesis:
> would you applaud this one?
>
> http://www.studio-aiko.com/temp/classroom/classroom_daylight.html
Very impressive and obviously a lot of work...
...but for some reason I do not feel a faint temptation to frame one of
them. A good photographer would have chosen just one out of maybe many
shots for his portfolio - the one that best captures the mood. Anything
else is just redundant.
Well, what I'm trying to say here: CGI as an art form is still too young
and just naive. And BTW I just realized these days that Laurie Anderson
and Lou Reed are married since a few years, ahem, well, different story,
just got the association...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
>> I really like this one. It has no fingerprint of being
>> raytraced.
nemesis wrote:
> aside from the "too perfect to be true" factor. I mean,
> no dirt anywhere and perfect reflections. :p
> ...
> would you applaud this one?
> http://www.studio-aiko.com/temp/classroom/classroom_daylight.html
Ive wrote:
> Actually I do not believe in the existence of this valley
> outside of robotics. It seems to me more like some trendy
> formula you just have to know about within the CGI business.
> But no matter what I do believe (and maybe I'm wrong)
> the way I have observed the usage of this uncanny valley
> is quite often like a deadly hammer and marks just the end
> of any constructive discussion.
> ...
> I could have added a bit of dust, some scratches and such
> but I decided not to do it.
Apologies to Ive for taking over this thread with discussion of CG art in
general.
But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more evidence for
the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in order to provide *some*
benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to the "emotional response" in the
Y-axis of the UV.
Nemesis, as per Classroom 2010: It's very cool. I love the first view of the
electronics desk. But I don't like the view of the backs of the chairs. There's
too many defects in the chairs and windows. I don't like a wooden, formulaic use
of the elements or realism, to the point of distraction. That I believe was the
problem with "Rango" which didn't break even in 9 week's box office, whereas
"Rio" broke even in three weeks.
If Ive went and put a whole bunch of scratches and dirt and lens flares, I
predict he'd get less "box office" at zazzle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more
> evidence for the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in
> order to provide *some* benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to
> the "emotional response" in the Y-axis of the UV.
I don't believe that the UV can be applied to anything else than
human-like things. The hypothesis only applies to human-like things, and
every explanation about it only covers human characteristics.
Your aversion for hyper-realism it's something else... it can be
something similar to my dislike for surrealism or abstraction: I just
underrate failed attempts because of my own inability to create good
images on these styles.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Ive:
Exquisite modeling detail and amazing colors/finishes... really great!
> Credits to Jim Charter for his tutorial on how to model shoes with
> Wings3d. But the tutorial and his complete side seems gone. Sad.
I hope it's just a change on interests, or an increase of duties...
and not something sad.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres escreveu:
>> But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more
>> evidence for the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in
>> order to provide *some* benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to
>> the "emotional response" in the Y-axis of the UV.
>
> I don't believe that the UV can be applied to anything else than
> human-like things. The hypothesis only applies to human-like things, and
> every explanation about it only covers human characteristics.
>
> Your aversion for hyper-realism it's something else... it can be
> something similar to my dislike for surrealism or abstraction: I just
> underrate failed attempts because of my own inability to create good
> images on these styles.
haha, I knew you two guys would clash on this one.
Indeed I would take many of Jaime's povving's for photographs, even old
ones (despite these not even having DOF and other camera artifacts).
and yes, I agree UV only applies to human characters. Each day, even
less so it seems.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
> Nemesis, as per Classroom 2010: It's very cool. I love the first view of the
> electronics desk. But I don't like the view of the backs of the chairs. There's
> too many defects in the chairs and windows. I don't like a wooden, formulaic use
> of the elements or realism, to the point of distraction. That I believe was the
> problem with "Rango" which didn't break even in 9 week's box office, whereas
> "Rio" broke even in three weeks.
BTW, I watched both and Rango is a clear winner. Much, much better
storytelling and clever dialoguing. Rio, as breaks my heart to say, is
pure visual display and most no substance. But as a brazilian, I have
to say Carlos Saldanha certainly knows Brazil inside out too well -- the
monkeys resembling street kids are spot on.
But behind all the flash, dancing, music and visuals there's too little.
Even Ice Age style gags are far and few. Rango provides drama and
comedy in the right doses, with incredibly realistic imagery. OTOH, it
appeals more to an older audience (who would know the Durango western
reference) than kids. My daughter enjoyed Rio better of course.
Also, Rio has been highly publicized. I never heard of Rango until
seeing a poster at the movie theather.
> If Ive went and put a whole bunch of scratches and dirt and lens flares, I
> predict he'd get less "box office" at zazzle.
That's possible. After all, it's just a photograph -- in the broadest
sense as record of light impression -- of an old and dusty classroom.
Only art elements there are the composition and the warm old film
postprocessing. Certainly Ive's shoes score much higher in the
Still, the craft itself and the staggering amount of work obviously at
display there make it standout by itself.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 04.05.2011 01:03, schrieb gregjohn:
>
>> I really like this one.
>
> That does somehow surprise me as I had the impression you dislike
> photo-realistic attempts in general. No uncanny valley of shoes here? ;)
>
>
> -Ive
In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
good enough, you feel uneasy.
When you render made or manufactured things, our brain is MUCH more
forgiving: It's something /artificial/ after all...
If the rendering of an object is to good to pass as an abstraction,
stylisation or exageration, our brain don't have the same expectation
about that. Without the expectation, there is no longer that unease feeling.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more
>> evidence for the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in
>> order to provide *some* benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to
>> the "emotional response" in the Y-axis of the UV.
>
> I don't believe that the UV can be applied to anything else than
> human-like things. The hypothesis only applies to human-like things, and
> every explanation about it only covers human characteristics.
>
> Your aversion for hyper-realism it's something else... it can be
> something similar to my dislike for surrealism or abstraction: I just
> underrate failed attempts because of my own inability to create good
> images on these styles.
>
UV also apply to animals, mainly those that we encounter daily or
frequently.
For example:
That pouncing cat front paws are just not located correctly enough, they
seems articulated to low and not forward enough. It body should be
stretched some more.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
> Certainly Ive's shoes score much higher in the
... pure aesthetic department! :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
