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