CGI Still Looks Pretty Bad

[DA_Champion]

I don't usually notice bad CGI, not as much as most people here apparently.

The worst I've seen recently were in Green Lantern and Thor 2.

 

[jmc]

Nonsense. The vast majority of effects work in modern films goes completely unnoticed because the effects are doing their job (Like in that great special effects driven blockbuster...Brokeback Mountain.) Even with more obvious things, there are examples where its hard to point out away the shots could be improved (Even in 2007, Davey Jones looked perfect. His crew, far less so).

Great, essentially perfect effects are possible, be it practical or digital. The real problem is consistency. Effects companies need time to complete their work, which takes careful planning and consideration and a fair amount of money.

Background elements will never go noticed unless really bad. It's the foreground element that will tend to get noticed, especially if they are in the spotlight for a large period of the film. CGI is never going to get to the stage where we will have believable characters for instance, the human eye is far too trained in facial recognition for GCI to ever fool us.

 

[DA_Champion]

CGI is never going to get to the stage where we will have believable characters for instance, the human eye is far too trained in facial recognition for GCI to ever fool us.

I don't know why people keep saying this in spite of the spectacular progress in the past thirty years.

There is nothing that humans can currently do that computers cannot eventually do.

 

[jmc]

I don't know why people keep saying this in spite of the spectacular progress in the past thirty years.

There is nothing that humans can currently do that computers cannot eventually do.

Because it's true. The human eye knows when something isn't correct. Computers can do a lot of things but they can't take into account the subtleties of the human face, muscle movement, eye flinches, skin folds, facial hair movement, even blood flow. Because we are surrounded by these subtleties daily are brains don't even pick up on them consciously. When a computer tries to replicate them they can't take into account these factors to the degree our brains are use to. When our brains don't see those subtleties it tells us something is wrong. The thing is computers will never be able to replicate a true human beings face, it will always look 'off' because we know it too well.

 

[dark_b]

depends if we know what we are looking is CGI

i dont like how Benjamin Button has been promoted for 3 years that it will have a CGI Brad Pitt face.

 

[jmc]

I'm a Fincher fan but god that Button movie was terrible.

 

[DA_Champion]

Because it's true. The human eye knows when something isn't correct. Computers can do a lot of things but they can't take into account the subtleties of the human face, muscle movement, eye flinches, skin folds, facial hair movement, even blood flow. Because we are surrounded by these subtleties daily are brains don't even pick up on them consciously. When a computer tries to replicate them they can't take into account these factors to the degree our brains are use to. When our brains don't see those subtleties it tells us something is wrong. The thing is computers will never be able to replicate a true human beings face, it will always look 'off' because we know it too well.

That's nice. They used to say the same thing about playing chess, winning at jeopardy, or giving out directions.

BTW computers don't "do" anything, other than precisely follow the instructions of their human programmers. Everything you talk about will eventually be modelled. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Marvin]

thats the only gif i could find...

..looks even more fake full size in a theater.

In my experience things tend to look more believable on the big screen. For various reasons.

I also think for all the poor examples of cgi, there are a dozen strong ones. Such as the reveal as to just how Gravity was made for so many people. Just how much of Ironman's suit isn't practical, a good amount of the TF3 stills..
And of course the environments these days.

 

[terry78]

Transformers will always have photorealistic visuals. Even though you know they don't exist Bay gave them enough weight and detail in their appearance that you could actually envision them being real.

 

[Marvin]

Transformers will always have photorealistic visuals. Even though you know they don't exist Bay gave them enough weight and detail in their appearance that you could actually envision them being real.

There have been times where the execution has faltered but for the most part, it's falls back on the principles of high contrast lighting, metal, and the fact that the illusion hinges on an 'unfolded' car. Much to purists dismay.

Spoiler

'real' or not, they look like they(would) exist.

 

[redhawk23]

Because it's true. The human eye knows when something isn't correct. Computers can do a lot of things but they can't take into account the subtleties of the human face, muscle movement, eye flinches, skin folds, facial hair movement, even blood flow. Because we are surrounded by these subtleties daily are brains don't even pick up on them consciously. When a computer tries to replicate them they can't take into account these factors to the degree our brains are use to. When our brains don't see those subtleties it tells us something is wrong. The thing is computers will never be able to replicate a true human beings face, it will always look 'off' because we know it too well.

YET.

Why do you assume that the current state of technology and understanding will remain the standard in the future?

 

[redhawk23]

I'm a Fincher fan but god that Button movie was terrible.

I'm not much for the movie but there was some damn good work that went into that movie.

 

[The Endless]

You look at the leaps in CGI in the last 20, hell 10 years. Who knows what they'll be able to do in another 20? I think they'll be able to create photo-realistic humans. Why not?

 

[Dr.]

I also think for all the poor examples of cgi, there are a dozen strong ones. Such as the reveal as to just how Gravity was made for so many people. Just how much of Ironman's suit isn't practical, a good amount of the TF3 stills...

In (informal) logic, there’s something called the “toupée fallacy.” Apropos to this discussion, it’s the claimed ability to spot all things fake (e.g., a bad hairpiece). And it’s a fallacy because it’s a form of confirmation bias (count the stuff that supports the hypothesis, ignore the stuff that doesn’t). So the number of successful fakes (e.g., really convincing hairpieces or CGI effects) is never taken into account.

 

[jmc]

That's nice. They used to say the same thing about playing chess, winning at jeopardy, or giving out directions.

BTW computers don't "do" anything, other than precisely follow the instructions of their human programmers. Everything you talk about will eventually be modelled. It's only a matter of time.

Replicating a human being is not the same thing as calculating a chess move. The truth is the human eye knows when something isn't right. That is fact.

 

[Octoberist]

Replicating a human being is not the same thing as calculating a chess move. The truth is the human eye knows when something isn't right. That is fact.

Yup. And that truth will create uncanny valleys and plastic physics.

 

[jmc]

YET.

Why do you assume that the current state of technology and understanding will remain the standard in the future?

I'm not assuming that. I'm saying it's never going to get to the stage where it will ever make believable human characters. Computers can do a lot but they can't take into account that our eyes are trained to look at faces from when we're a baby and that we know the difference between what's real and what isn't. It's a physiological thing, our eyes are amazing perceptive and very hard to fool in this regard. We buy into a character like Caesar in Planet of the Apes because most of us know what a chimp looks like, but not what it really looks like, we don't know the subtleties of chimp facial movements to see it's fake, hence we give it a pass.

 

[Dr.]

Computers can do a lot but they can't take into account that our eyes are trained to look at faces from when we're a baby and that we know the difference between what's real and what isn't. It's a physiological thing, our eyes are amazing perceptive and very hard to fool in this regard.

When it comes to monster/creature faces, I’d say there’s a “rule/agreement” in place between filmmaker and audience. Everyone understands that the face in question is artifice - whether it’s make-up, puppetry or CGI. So we tend to judge the effect according to its technical execution rather than its ability to fool us or seamlessly pass for reality. (Obviously, monsters/creatures don’t exist in reality.)

But a human face rendered in CGI is supposed to be indistinguishable from the actual actor we saw in other scenes. So even if it’s an exceptionally good CGI face, the fact that we recognize it as CGI at all means that it has “failed.” So we feel entitled to call foul.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm not assuming that. I'm saying it's never going to get to the stage where it will ever make believable human characters. Computers can do a lot but they can't take into account that our eyes are trained to look at faces from when we're a baby and that we know the difference between what's real and what isn't. It's a physiological thing, our eyes are amazing perceptive and very hard to fool in this regard. We buy into a character like Caesar in Planet of the Apes because most of us know what a chimp looks like, but not what it really looks like, we don't know the subtleties of chimp facial movements to see it's fake, hence we give it a pass.

While we are very adept at recognizing human features and expressions, it remains a finite number of variables.

You asserting that accounting for all of these variables will always remain impossible despite many people devoting their entire careers and millions of dollars not just to creating better technologies but increasing understanding how how features work and the mental processes that allow us to recognize them so well. I find that assertion to be rather baseless.


And actually Caesar bugs me because they purposefully made him less realistic than the other apes, anthropomorphizing him just a bit to much. Just seems like squandered work.

 

[Deserana]

I don't usually notice bad CGI, not as much as most people here apparently.

The worst I've seen recently were in Green Lantern and Thor 2.

Wow what was so bad in Thor 2?

 

[EssayM]

I'm going to paraphrase that video I linked to the previous page:

If you're making a fully animated film, CGI can give the animation a "realism" that you can't always get with 2D films (ex. How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, etc.). But in a live-action film, where you want us to believe something is actually there, it's best to combine it with practical effects and live stand-ins (ex. For The Two Towers, Andy Serkis was actually onset in a makeshift Gollum costume, giving the actors someone to react to and the animators a basis for the characters movement and light reflection.

To directly quote that video: "If the idea is to be like a magic trick, where you know it's an illusion but you appreciate the showmanship anyway, CGI is gonna be great. But if the idea is [for] the illusion to completely fool you, then it's probably wiser to mix it up with models, puppets, and other practical effects...CGI shouldn't go away or be criticized for all that it's done, but it should be acknowledged as only one method of creating an effect."

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

One thing that always made me wonder...

Iron Man looks real to me. I can't quite understand how CGI will get any better. But whenever I talk to my dad or anyone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, they talk about the effects in Terminator and Tron like they were real. In 20 years is Iron Man going to look fake?

 

[DA_Champion]

Replicating a human being is not the same thing as calculating a chess move. The truth is the human eye knows when something isn't right. That is fact.

The human eye and human cerebral cortex are very advanced, that's true. But ultimately the brain is just a finite computer with advanced software. As long as we keep moving forward as a society (maybe we won't ...) everything in the brain will eventually be matched and exceeded by computers.

 

[jmc]

While we are very adept at recognizing human features and expressions, it remains a finite number of variables.

You asserting that accounting for all of these variables will always remain impossible despite many people devoting their entire careers and millions of dollars not just to creating better technologies but increasing understanding how how features work and the mental processes that allow us to recognize them so well. I find that assertion to be rather baseless.


And actually Caesar bugs me because they purposefully made him less realistic than the other apes, anthropomorphizing him just a bit to much. Just seems like squandered work.

It's not baseless at all, computers cannot interpret the subtitles because we as humans don't even pick them up consciously ourselves. If we can't pick them up we can never programme them into the computer in order to do it. Even the greatest of artists in all of history have never been able to capture with 100% accuracy the human face, it's all interpretation, what is interpretation and what is reality are two different things.

 

[jmc]

The human eye and human cerebral cortex are very advanced, that's true. But ultimately the brain is just a finite computer with advanced software. As long as we keep moving forward as a society (maybe we won't ...) everything in the brain will eventually be matched and exceeded by computers.

I'm sorry mate, but you're flat out wrong, the brain is far more powerful than any computer in this context. If you go to art school the thing you learn is that the human brain will always be able to tell what looks right and wrong. We can tell that a photograph or film looks right because it captures a tangibility and weight that our brains accept as being real, it's the only medium that actually captures reality with 100% accuracy. But an illustration or portrait or CG rendering never captures that tangibility in quite the same way because of errors. The thing you're forgetting is computers are just a tool, they are not the ones doing the work, it's a glorified paint brush with a human controlling it and humans make errors. Even the greatest of artists made mistakes.