Invisible escreveu:
> On 06/04/2011 02:49 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> 1. Pixar *is* Disney.
>>
>> It's not.
> 
> Disney bought Pixar a while back.

Nominaly, yes.  Practically, more like the inverse. :)

It's still not Disney, though.

>>> 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.

certainly.

>>> 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.

http://files.sharenator.com/steven_segal_emotion_chart_Steven_Seagal_Emotion_Chart-s513x708-65813-580.jpg

compare to:

http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/pbanimation19-big.jpg

:)

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

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
>> 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...

I'm seeing realistic enough smoke, flames and dirt in games these days, 
let alone in movies...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 6-4-2011 9:54, Invisible wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 11:41 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 5-4-2011 14:09, Invisible wrote:
>>> You know, people said Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was "creepy"
>>> because the characters were "too real". Apparently I am the only human
>>> on Earth who didn't think so... For that matter, I've yet to see a big
>>> budget production that suffered from CGI that was "too real". Maybe I'm
>>> just weird.
>>
>> Do you have trouble judging from a face what emotion another person has?
>
> Not really, no.

I asked because it is not uncommon among nerds and other autistic 
persons. Normally there is much more to go by (like context and 
behaviour), so it is not an easily noticeable handicap. Just wondering 
if there was a relation to the position and depth of the uncanny valley 
for different persons.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Do you have trouble judging from a face what emotion another person has?
>>
>> Not really, no.
>
> I asked because it is not uncommon among nerds and other autistic
> persons.

Yeah. And if you're not very keyed in to subtle vibes, the fact that 
they're missing is something that you likely wouldn't notice.

But, as I say, it's not a problem I suffer with particularly. (As far as 
I know, anyway...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6-4-2011 22:49, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Do you have trouble judging from a face what emotion another person
>>>> has?
>>>
>>> Not really, no.
>>
>> I asked because it is not uncommon among nerds and other autistic
>> persons.
>
> Yeah. And if you're not very keyed in to subtle vibes, the fact that
> they're missing is something that you likely wouldn't notice.
>
> But, as I say, it's not a problem I suffer with particularly. (As far as
> I know, anyway...)
>
There are some tests for that on the internet. A friend of mine has this 
'problem'. We did such a test and he was horrible and I was not very 
good, but also not as bad as I expected. That said, I won't do the test 
posted by Kevin, for most of the images I haven't got a clue. I don't 
think I will do better than chance.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/6/2011 2:05 PM, andrel wrote:
>
> There are some tests for that on the internet. A friend of mine has this
> 'problem'. We did such a test and he was horrible and I was not very
> good, but also not as bad as I expected. That said, I won't do the test
> posted by Kevin, for most of the images I haven't got a clue. I don't
> think I will do better than chance.
>

That's actually pretty interesting in itself, because I found the test I 
posted to be pretty easy (only missed 3).  You might find that you'll do 
better than you expect when you take it though, I know I didn't expect 
to do that well.

Post a reply to this message

On 6-4-2011 23:07, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 2:05 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> There are some tests for that on the internet. A friend of mine has this
>> 'problem'. We did such a test and he was horrible and I was not very
>> good, but also not as bad as I expected. That said, I won't do the test
>> posted by Kevin, for most of the images I haven't got a clue. I don't
>> think I will do better than chance.
>>
>
> That's actually pretty interesting in itself, because I found the test I
> posted to be pretty easy (only missed 3). You might find that you'll do
> better than you expect when you take it though, I know I didn't expect
> to do that well.

Ok, you talked me into it. I did indeed better than chance. I scored 15 
that is 6 more than pure chance.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/04/2011 10:07 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 2:05 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> There are some tests for that on the internet. A friend of mine has this
>> 'problem'. We did such a test and he was horrible and I was not very
>> good, but also not as bad as I expected. That said, I won't do the test
>> posted by Kevin, for most of the images I haven't got a clue. I don't
>> think I will do better than chance.
>>
>
> That's actually pretty interesting in itself, because I found the test I
> posted to be pretty easy (only missed 3). You might find that you'll do
> better than you expect when you take it though, I know I didn't expect
> to do that well.

I had a quick look at it and only 1 in 3 matched the descriptions I got 
1 wrong out of 12.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/6/2011 14:07, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> posted to be pretty easy (only missed 3).

I got 22, which was the low end of normal.

I have to wonder how they got people to act suspicious or surprised or 
something for the photo.  I'm not sure you can take an actor's portrayal of 
an emotion and then judge someone else on how well they can recognize the 
subconscious bits of it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/6/2011 3:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 14:07, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> posted to be pretty easy (only missed 3).
>
> I got 22, which was the low end of normal.
>
> I have to wonder how they got people to act suspicious or surprised or
> something for the photo. I'm not sure you can take an actor's portrayal
> of an emotion and then judge someone else on how well they can recognize
> the subconscious bits of it.
>

The situation under which using actors wouldn't be valid would be if 
there were people who had significantly more trouble reading eyes of 
actors but had no more trouble than normal for "true" facial expressions 
(or vice versa).  This seems possible, but I'd be quite surprised if it 
had a statistical effect at the same level as overall face reading 
ability, so I don't think that the test is invalidated by this concern 
so long as you rate people on a relative to each other, rather than on 
an absolute scale.

Also, here's how I think they got the photos.  They had actors come into 
the studio and perform a set of pre-chosen facial expressions.  Each 
expression was photographed and the eyes extracted.  These photos were 
then given to a panel for four judges, who decided upon a word 
describing the internal mental state of the actor.  Only those photos 
for which the panel reached unanimous agreement were used.  At least 
that's the best I've been able to figure from reading the research paper 
on which the initial form of the test was based.

Post a reply to this message