"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today....  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:40:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot  
<tDOTdegroot@interdotnlanotherdotnet> wrote:

>
> "Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
>> 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.
>
> This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today....  :-)
>
> Thomas
>
>
The uncanny valley in art:
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=opera&hs=oij&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=Ron%20Mueck&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3354l4103l0l4l4l0l0l0l0l0l0l&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1269&bih=878

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
> > 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.
>
> This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today....  :-)
>
> Thomas

I don't think, that the UV-Problem applies only to human or animal figures. It
applies to all the things in our perception, but not in the same amount. It
applies to grasses, to glasses, to ceramic pots. Look through the old
IRTC-entries for pleasing and annoying examples. If we recognize a thing (every
thing) as real or as an obvious model, we accept it, as real or as a model. If
we recognize it as a bad model, we reject it. That's the "Uncanny Valley". It
applies to humans, to apples, to screws or whatever we know in our everyday
life. It's a psychological issue, not a mathematical one. As a mathematician, I
have my problems to understand it really, but you cannot constrain it to human
or animal figures only.

Regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

> > 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


I'm a fan of the y-axis in Uncanny Valley: there is good hyper-realism, and good
stylized work, with a lot of garbage inbetween.  I could take Ive's work and
start adding all of the "defects" that realism experts talk of: dust, dirt, lens
flare, focal blur, imperfections, spots, diseased areas, impossibly bent necks,
etc.  We know that if I did this, the emotional response Y-axis to the improved
shoe scene would be lower.  I'm an anti-fan of the celebration of decay and
disease that is the case in the leading male character of "Mars Needs Moms".
The movie "Rio" more than made 3X its investment in 1/3 the time of "Rango."  In
the closing credits of "Rango", there were a group of folks listed as "Emotion
Capture," and in the publicity for "Rio", there's a bunch of footage of
animators having a great time acting out scenes in front of mirrors. IMO, Rio is
much more fun to watch.

FWIW, acting alone, I can produce something neither of the quality of "Beowulf"
nor of "The Incredibles" but I can speak of a difference between them. Same as
NASCAR drivers, football teams, etc.

I prepared this table for my own fun, hope it's fun for others too see too.
There's a celebration of defects in the realism more often at the top.

Gross Cost ROI Title  UV?
36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms   Yes
196 150 31% Beowulf            Yes
245 147 67% Hulk (2003)  Yes
238 135 76% Rango          Yes
306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
383 176 118% Ice Age   No
381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
243 100 143% Meatballs No
371 90 312% Rio        No
632 92 587% Incredibles No
1800 200 800% Titanic ----
867 94 822% Nemo         No
2782 300 827% Avatar         Debated
1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn escreveu:
> Gross Cost ROI Title  UV?
> 36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms   Yes
> 196 150 31% Beowulf            Yes
> 245 147 67% Hulk (2003)  Yes
> 238 135 76% Rango          Yes
> 306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
> 336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
> 383 176 118% Ice Age   No
> 381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
> 243 100 143% Meatballs No
> 371 90 312% Rio        No
> 632 92 587% Incredibles No
> 1800 200 800% Titanic ----
> 867 94 822% Nemo         No
> 2782 300 827% Avatar         Debated
> 1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No

so now, even cartoon animals like Rango are UV instead of bad movies 
with game-like graphics?  I suspect you just despise correct simulation 
of light, rather than fake scanline or simple raytracing with plastic 
phong materials.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> gregjohn escreveu:
> > Gross Cost ROI Title  UV?
> > 36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms   Yes
> > 196 150 31% Beowulf            Yes
> > 245 147 67% Hulk (2003)  Yes
> > 238 135 76% Rango          Yes
> > 306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
> > 336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
> > 383 176 118% Ice Age   No
> > 381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
> > 243 100 143% Meatballs No
> > 371 90 312% Rio        No
> > 632 92 587% Incredibles No
> > 1800 200 800% Titanic ----
> > 867 94 822% Nemo         No
> > 2782 300 827% Avatar         Debated
> > 1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No
>
> so now, even cartoon animals like Rango are UV instead of bad movies
> with game-like graphics?  I suspect you just despise correct simulation
> of light, rather than fake scanline or simple raytracing with plastic
> phong materials.
>
> --
> a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

BTW,

I think, this is not the place to discuss Polar Express vs. Nemo. I think,
we should admire Ive's work of shoes, which is over the edge of the UV in x and
in y in my opinion, a real good work and I congratulate him for this wonderful
picture.

Regards Michael

Post a reply to this message