CGI just got real

a reply to: WeRpeons

we may never know if were watching the real president or a CGI.

I know for a fact, the President isn't real.

a reply to: Visitor2012

Please keep in mind the poor guy said he spent 800 hours on that one piece.
800/40 hrs = 20 weeks
say a good team of artist 1 modeler, 1 texture artist, 1 rigging guy, 1 animator, 1 Lighter, 1 Comp artist.
6 people at minimum.
3.33 Weeks, lets say 4 weeks with rendering time @ at $50 an hour for each artist.
6 people X 40 hrs for 4 weeks = 960 hours X @50 = $48,000

That's a very rough ball park figure.
And that's without a team of Studio execs and producers coming in a screwing everything up.

The other catch is in reality you don't have 800 hours.
I know from first hand experience and migraines you usually get only a week or so to do shots for major television shows.

As far as the Government using CGI. Yes they do and not it's not for propaganda.
Mostly it's just boring info graphics.
They really don't pay all that well unless they contract a private firm.
A artist can make more money freelancing.
Though a real job with benefits would be nice.

CGI will never replace real actress.
Seriously you think producers are going throw out their casting Couches?

Yeah...actors and eventually voice actors beware. One of my all time favorite images is almost a decade old and realistic as hell...very powerful

The Opal Child

Once it gets too real your overloads inside their moon ship will reset the chips inside your heads again......

You are now leaving the Uncanny Valley. Thanks for visiting.

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of human aesthetics which holds that when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among some human observers.

The "valley" refers to the dip in a graph of the comfort level of humans as subjects move toward a healthy, natural human likeness described in a function of a subject's aesthetic acceptability. Examples can be found in the fields of robotics and 3D computer animation, among others.

source

a reply to: mash3d

CGI will never replace real actress.
Seriously you think producers are going throw out their casting Couches?

I'm not so sure I agree, but time will tell.

Producers are employees and they are only in charge of making the movie for the guys/gals in charge (financing entity). The financing entity is about the green. In addition, Actors are known for being divas. They show up when they want to, they throw tantrums if their latte isn’t the right temperature and they cost lots of money. So their is incentive for producers to use virtual actors.

The way I see it happening is by a small time independent group, once it becomes cheaper and more feasible to create these virtual actors. This small independent group will create a complete movie in cgi, actors included. Then when one of these complete virtual movies become a financial hit the big dristibutors will follow. Kind of like the blair witch project and reality television, the content may suck but they are cheap to produce and they make lots of money.

Its all about the money and the guy financing the movies are in charge. Therefore, once this becomes cheaper than hiring real actors it will become a reality.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

As nice as this is, I still prefer Yoda with a hand jammed up his ass.

a reply to: interupt42

I think the genre of sci-fi, sci fantasy will be the first to sign on to full cgi because lets face it the imagination can and does think up scenes that simply can't be recreated outside of CGI.

One wonders where all this will lead. It's hard for us to predict. Arthur C. Clarke did a good series of predictions in 1964 on a TV show. Watch it below, it's still very interesting to me.

I don't think the future will be rainbows and butterflies. I think Arthur understands this. When he says we might be replaced by machines or something else, he's alluding to this. Becoming extinct isn't painless. 99% of all species on our planet are extinct. We, like them, might one day be only a memory, replaced later by something more appropriately evolved to the future environment.

And who's to say we'll be replaced by better biology or machines? Maybe it'll be something even more far out than that. Dark energy or by whatever name it'll be known in the future? It's something residing now outside the limits of our knowledge.

Arthur did mention the future is not merely an extension of hte past, but fundamentally different. So it's not just better lamps or better cars or better cities. As Arthur comments, physical cities may one day cease to be the principal meeting areas for people in favor of virtual meeting places, and so a 'fundamental' (*) change will result. Another example I can think of is how humans supposedly stem from sea creatures. Long ago our distant ancestors only knew the sea. If one were to only predict the future by extension then one might only imagine better and better sea creatures, as opposed to the sea creatures evolving to becoming land creatures.

(*) - Is fundamental the right term? Well lets say we're trying to predict the future of the human body. If we judge by extension then we can only try to imagine a better human body which is very similar to the one we started with. Dramatic changes are not allowed. A "fundamental" change might be such things as: no reproductive organs or remnants thereof, our dna is combined with birds and reptiles and aquatic creatures, the entire body is inorganic.

Graphics engines have been able to properly render "reality" for some time now.

It isnt really about the strengths or features of the engine anymore. We already got the capabilities for that. Its about the speed and resolution (both rendered and the physical output). For it to be a good simulation of "reality", it need to be completely fluid and devoid of pixel shimmering, viewed on a high res monitor.

And for those saying that we're going to see more CGI UFOs because of how "real" it can get... yeah... about that... its already 99% hoaxed CGI UFOs (or a 1x1 pixel that is somehow enlarged to a Omicron Persei 8 battleship complete with 2 escort vessels and viewports with visible aliens doing their daily laundry).

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

This is largely a result of something called "PBR", or "Physically based rendering" in conjunction with certain algorithms that have been recorded via eye tracking.

PBR is a game changer, and as computers catch up, you will begin to see more realistic materials being rendered in things like movies and games. It's also becoming easier for artists to incorporate these elements into their workflow to bring such realism to the next level.

Different shaders and lighting systems that are capable of producing these results are already available. What sells this production is the eye tracking and the mocap of the hand. Eventually, this stuff will be included in games and movies as technology progresses and we have computers that can render extended scenes like this, or do so in real time, with games.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

soon we won't be able to distinguish reality from graphics.

relax human, everything is aweso
ERROR
[NULL STRING]
reloading conversation...
welcome to the brave new world

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Now everybody can see terrorists everywhere on MSM.

That is amazing work! I will be looking into and keeping tabs on Mr. Jones. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Euclideon:
www.youtube.com...



a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Pretty soon we will have figures that the mindless public worship and admire, that do not even exist. There will be a day when the next pop-star will be completely fake, an animated character shaking his or her CGI ass on a fake stage.

Actors, Actresses, Musicians, all will be replaced.

a reply to: 0utbr3aK

oddly enough I don't think so. People live vicariously through pop stars and actors etc.
They watch them and subconsciously identify with that person or character in a film.
They have a subconsciousness day dream if they could only live that life, have that adventure or have the fame and fortune that actor has. It's kinda of hard to do that with a CGI person.
That's why movies have major known actors if they want to get the film seen by a wider audience.
For example their are a plenty of voice actors for animated movies but the studios started attaching well known
actors to the roles to increase ticket sales.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

I live around Milwaukee so I'm fortunate enough to have seen the real, live Soleil opening/closing with sunrise and sunset! The Calatrava designs are so amazing!

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
i think this is rather impressive. soon we won't be able to distinguish reality from graphics.

And so begins the next level of Identity Theft.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: interupt42

I think the genre of sci-fi, sci fantasy will be the first to sign on to full cgi because lets face it the imagination can and does think up scenes that simply can't be recreated outside of CGI.

Scifi genre will and should be the second, but I think the first will probably be the P0rn industry. They are typically early adapters. I'm sure the P-industry will also " think up scenes that simply can't be recreated outside of CGI."

www.davidyerle.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: RoScoLaz4



This level of tech coupled with Oculus rift!

Korg.