Slime <pov### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:
> I don't think they needed the Uncanny Valley to kill that movie. It 
> looks so painful to watch. The jokes make me cringe, the characters are 
> people I would never want to meet in real life, and the plot isn't 
> compelling. I see little bits of potential in it, but if no one tells me 
> it's a great movie, there's not enough there to drive me to see it.

  I usually don't watch trailers, but I did with this one, the one embedded
in the article. The trailer actually killed any possible interest I would
have had towards this movie. It *started* like something interesting but
then spiraled down to something that looked completely unlikeable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663530/did-the-uncanny-valley-kill-disneys-cgi-company

  What I don't understand about these few movies which try to approach
100% realism with 100% CGI is why. What's the point? Why not use real
actors for humans and CGI for others? It's not like it hasn't been done
before (and quite successfully at that).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> > Pixar and Disney will remain down the cartoon look, that is, cartoonish
> > models with cartoony proportions filled with realistic materials and
> > lights and *hand animated* for better performance than any one actor.
>
> 1. Pixar *is* Disney.

It's not.

> 2. I see motion capture as the future.


drawing exhaggerated pictures frame by frame and then flipping the pages when
you can just photograph people and flip the photos automatically.  Well, turns
out animators enjoyed the idea of automated page flipping...

> It gives you far more expression
> with far less work.

It gives you far *less* expression with less work.  Really, not even Jim Carrey
would be able to match the performance of Linguini in Ratatoille.  Even facial
expressions carry out much more punch when hand-animated rather than performed
by an actor.  Cartoons exaggerate everything.

> > Avatar came up with grown-up smurfed thundercats
>
> Great visuals, a little light on story, and the pacing was really wonky.
> Still, I guess it's not like *I* could have done any better...


Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves.  I was saying how they opted for fantasy
characters to get out of the UV.
>
> > http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?t=113952
>
> Doesn't look especially great to me, but maybe I'm analysing it too much.

Aside from the hair -- can't blame a sculptor for not getting that quite right
-- I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a real person.  Back on topic:
it's way better than all the UV models cited here.  Artists and technique are
ready, it seems Hollywood and the audiences are not.  I think games will get
there before movies: there's no actor on scene and having great looking
characters is a must.  But even in Hollywood it'll eventually be the norm:  why
bother reshooting the same scene countless times because either the performance
wasn't great, the lighting conditions didn't quite match the director's vision
or some extra went astray when you can simply digitize everything and hand
tweak?  Yep, animators will be giving a hand to actors in getting their
Oscars... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > FF had great unmatched models and CGI for the time.  But had quite poor
> > plot.  I'm also assuming you haven't played any FF game ever.  They

> > movie.  I don't think most people got it.
>
>   If you want a better FF movie, try Advent Children. Especially if you
> have played Final Fantasy VII (it helps a lot understanding all the
> references and recognizing all the characters who otherwise get no
> exposition whatsoever in the movie).

Oh I did.  I loved the game back when it was released for PSX.  Not quite as
great as FFVI but impressive enough.

The movie is just lip job for fans.  It doesn't advance the plot in anyway, I
suppose is terribly confusing and boring to anyone who never played it and would
be better probably as a short videoclip.  But that Cloud and Sephiroth final
battle is definitely worth it. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 06/04/2011 02:49 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
>>> Pixar and Disney will remain down the cartoon look, that is, cartoonish
>>> models with cartoony proportions filled with realistic materials and
>>> lights and *hand animated* for better performance than any one actor.
>>
>> 1. Pixar *is* Disney.
>
> It's not.

Disney bought Pixar a while back.

>> 2. I see motion capture as the future.
>


I don't think that cartoons are going away anytime soon. But I think the 
future of trying to look real is in motion capture.

>> It gives you far more expression with far less work.
>
> It gives you far *less* expression with less work.

If you animate by hand, then absolutely everything that happens must be 
animated by hand. The result is either extremely expensive or not very 
expressive. The human face, on the other hand, has evolved over billions 
of years and constantly transmits emotion, intentionally or not. And 
actors have spent centuries perfecting the art of emoting. These people 
know what they're doing.

Of course, if you want over the top cartoon whackyness, hand-drawn is 
the way to go, and I imagine there will always be a place for that. But 
if you want authentic, capture the real thing.


> Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves.  I was saying how they opted for fantasy
> characters to get out of the UV.

Probably. I mean, if you want truly real-looking characters, just film 
some. Much cheaper.

>>> http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?t=113952
>>
>> Doesn't look especially great to me, but maybe I'm analysing it too much.
>
> Aside from the hair -- can't blame a sculptor for not getting that quite right
> -- I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a real person.

Yeah, I think the hair gives it away.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/04/2011 10:45 AM, Warp wrote:
>    What I don't understand about these few movies which try to approach
> 100% realism with 100% CGI is why. What's the point?

It's like Everest. You do it because it's there.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663530/did-the-uncanny-valley-kill-disneys-cgi-company
>
>   What I don't understand about these few movies which try to approach
> 100% realism with 100% CGI is why. What's the point? Why not use real
> actors for humans and CGI for others? It's not like it hasn't been done
> before (and quite successfully at that).

Having 100% control of everything visible on screen, from stuff that shouldn't
be there, to exact performances, to other camera angles for these exact
performances is a pipe dream for most novie directors I guess.  You can only
achieve that with 100% digitized stuff ready for easy digital tweaking when
needed.  Why wait for a great sunny day to shoot when your digital sun and blue
sky look better with no sign of smog?

It's an irreversible future, I think.  Simply recording the images was just the
primitive beginning...

Post a reply to this message

> Why wait for a great sunny day to shoot when your digital sun and blue
> sky look better with no sign of smog?

I think the difficulty of waiting for a sunny day is utterly eclipsed by 
the sheer intractability of rendering realistic smoke, flames, dirt, surf...

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/04/2011 16:10, nemesis a écrit :
> It's an irreversible future, I think.  Simply recording the images was just the
> primitive beginning...
> 
Are we going to see any realtime rendering/animations by some
DJ-equivalent anytime soon, as performance at nearby entertainment place ?

Live spectacle of artificial images & sounds.

-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.

Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:26:23 +0200, Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wro
te:


>> It's an irreversible future, I think.  Simply recording the images wa
s  

>> just the
>> primitive beginning...
>>
> Are we going to see any realtime rendering/animations by some
> DJ-equivalent anytime soon, as performance at nearby entertainment pla
ce  

> ?
>
> Live spectacle of artificial images & sounds.
>

It will probably use CryEngine...

-- 

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message