CGI Still Looks Pretty Bad

it was oldschool and i liked it.

but there was one shot of all the space ships flying through space and it was bright and tryed to show detail. but there was noone since they didnt have the money. miniatures and dark lighting would helped.
 
I liked the movie. It was much more Pitch Black than Chronicles of Riddick (which I liked, but not as much). In fact, they pretty much said "remember that last movie? Well, won't worry about it because it'll all be undone within the first few minutes if this one."
 
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 you certainly have a point in terms of wrestling with the uncanny valley, you are missing an important element in your “computer can never…” argument: you are ignoring the human element that makes the computer do everything.

CGI is created on a computer, sure, but that computer – it’s hardware and software, the models, engines, textures, animations, etc – are all created by artists and computer scientists. As these groups of talented people learn more and develop new ways to replicate what our eyes see and how our brains react, their CGI creations improve. You should read up on everything that goes into CGI – not just the cookie-cutter behind the scenes footage on dvds, but the actual science behind it all.

A perfect example is the computer advancements done on Gollum in The Hobbit: they actually studied/analyzed how light passes through each layer of skin and tissue, how and where different wavelengths are absorbed and/or reflected based on countless variables of the skin tone/thickness/location/light intensity/type/color, etc. They then used this to create a software engine that replicates those real world properties. Those efforts are a HUGE reason why Gollum looks so much better in The Hobbit.

The short version: It is incorrect to think that the uncanny valley is insurmountable. There are artists and scientists studying how EVERYTHING works in real life and figuring out how to recreate it on the computer in order to trick the human eye and brain. Being human themselves, they know what to look for in order to succeed. The quality of CGI improves exponentially based on these people’s knowledge and techniques. The more they learn/create, the smaller the uncanny valley becomes.

The problem is not that the uncanny valley is impossible to overcome; the problem is production companies do not give CGI studios the time nor the money to make advancements as fast as they otherwise could.
 
it was oldschool and i liked it.

but there was one shot of all the space ships flying through space and it was bright and tryed to show detail. but there was noone since they didnt have the money. miniatures and dark lighting would helped.

Speaking of miniatures and spacecraft, it has been 30 years and I haven't seen a single CGI space battle shot that compares to 5:12-5:27 in this video for me:

[YT]xPZigWFyK2o[/YT]
 
i3f0Bdm.jpg
 
While you certainly have a point in terms of wrestling with the uncanny valley, you are missing an important element in your “computer can never…” argument: you are ignoring the human element that makes the computer do everything.

CGI is created on a computer, sure, but that computer – it’s hardware and software, the models, engines, textures, animations, etc – are all created by artists and computer scientists. As these groups of talented people learn more and develop new ways to replicate what our eyes see and how our brains react, their CGI creations improve. You should read up on everything that goes into CGI – not just the cookie-cutter behind the scenes footage on dvds, but the actual science behind it all.

A perfect example is the computer advancements done on Gollum in The Hobbit: they actually studied/analyzed how light passes through each layer of skin and tissue, how and where different wavelengths are absorbed and/or reflected based on countless variables of the skin tone/thickness/location/light intensity/type/color, etc. They then used this to create a software engine that replicates those real world properties. Those efforts are a HUGE reason why Gollum looks so much better in The Hobbit.

The short version: It is incorrect to think that the uncanny valley is insurmountable. There are artists and scientists studying how EVERYTHING works in real life and figuring out how to recreate it on the computer in order to trick the human eye and brain. Being human themselves, they know what to look for in order to succeed. The quality of CGI improves exponentially based on these people’s knowledge and techniques. The more they learn/create, the smaller the uncanny valley becomes.

The problem is not that the uncanny valley is impossible to overcome; the problem is production companies do not give CGI studios the time nor the money to make advancements as fast as they otherwise could.

I already addressed the human aspect in a follow up post at the bottom of page 14.
 
Making statements involving technology and art that include the term "Never" is just kind of silly to be honest.
 
Actually we can. We still haven't had a single artist in history capture life 100%. The only medium than can do it is photography and film.
 
ILM was damn close with Davey Jones. Hell a significant number of CGI/Mo Cap creations have had more life than most actors can ever give an a lifetime of various performances.
 
It's all about capturing the essence. Something you learn in art school is the more detail you put into a piece the more it ironically can look unrealistic. Animation has similar principles, it's about capturing life not creating it.
 
Making statements involving technology and art that include the term "Never" is just kind of silly to be honest.
To say never is a bit arrogant. Our technology is at an infant stage comparable to what will be in a hundred years!
 
Last edited:
ILM was damn close with Davey Jones. Hell a significant number of CGI/Mo Cap creations have had more life than most actors can ever give an a lifetime of various performances.

yeah but the reason why Davy looked so good was they used the actor's eyes and put the rest of the CGI around him that was why stuff like the eyes (which as mentioned the hardest thing to simulate 100%) looked so real.
 
It does seem like James Cameron is one of the few to give CGI artists time and help to improve the technology. I think it's amazing how 10 years ago people were complaining about the cgi in Van Helsing, yet it has barelly improved, lol.
 
yeah but the reason why Davy looked so good was they used the actor's eyes and put the rest of the CGI around him that was why stuff like the eyes (which as mentioned the hardest thing to simulate 100%) looked so real.
His eyes were CG, that's why Davy Jones is so amazing! They were going to use the actors real eyes for close ups, and that's why in some of the behind the scenes photos the actor has green painted eyes. The eyes in all of the closeups are entirely CG!

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1212815,00.html
Verbinski initially wanted the same sleight-of-eye trick for Davy Jones, Knoll recalls. ''He felt like, when we're in tight, if the CGI doesn't turn out to work well, I want to be able to use Bill's real eyes.'' But ILM's crack team did so well at creating watery, sparkly orbs in CG form, simply using Nighy's darting eyes as reference, that Verbinski never demanded the real thing. As convincing as the eyes look in those close-ups, according to Knoll they are not the actor's actual eyes.
 
Last edited:
every year someone thinks they used real eyes i bow down to ILM. its THAT GOOD.
 
Recently from John Knoll
http://www.awn.com/vfxworld/john-kn...star-wars-and-tough-times-in-the-vfx-industry
Last year I was flipping around on cable and Pirates of the Caribbean II was on. I came in just as Davey Jones was making his big appearance and you know what, I feel that work really holds up. I look at that and I can't think of any way to make that any better than it was. So I am proud of how Davey in particular turned out. It's a very memorable character that was really very successful. I’m super pleased with how well that worked. That one has a special place in my heart.
 
Last edited:
Only CGI that has really impressed me was Jurassic Park in 1993 and the hordes of bugs in Starship Troopers (no coincidence they were both animated by Phil Tippett).
 
Well for me the vfx in films that have impressed me are:
The CG Transformers in the first film
Davey Jones in Pirates 2 and 3
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness
King Kong 2005
Avatar
Iron Man 1 and 2
Narnia Prince Caspian
Some of the work in Prometheus
Hulk in the Avengers
Gollum in The Hobbit
District 9
Captain America 2
The train chase sequence in The Lone Ranger
The robots in Elysium
 
Last edited:
As someone who grew up watching really cheesy practical effects in the movies of the time, I'm thrilled with most a list CGI. Doesn't take me out of the movie at all. I guess in the days of stop-motion, you guys would just have never watched creature of SF movies.
 
Stop-motion to me just has a certain charm that CGI cannot replicate. Plus, it looks way more real, except for the motion that is. I still love the way stop motion looks, though.
 
I also grew up with practical effects. As a kid I wanted to be a director or a visual effects supervisor coming up with things people have never seen before, done practically. I loved stop motion animation and dreamed of being an animator. I adored everything Phill Tippet did on Howard the Duck to the taun tauns, to the two headed dragon in Willow, and the lizard creatures in the first Ewok movie and the Dragon in Dragonslayer. I loved the work Jim Henson and Frank Oz did, especially Oz's puppeteering of Audrey 2 in The Little Shop of Horrors.

With CG it promises photo real, and the work being done today with a good team that's talented, the work borderlines reality. The poor CG released today is unfortunate and shouldn't happen, but does because it's cheaper for studios to go with less quality houses to save a buck. The work on making Peggy Carter old in the new Captain America is astonishing, the blending of an actual old woman's performance and facial detail with the young Hayle Atwells performance, tracked to her eyes and mouth is nothing short of amazing, replacing the standard approach to make up in movies.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/captain-america-the-winter-soldier-reaching-new-heights/
0005-PCV1180_1027.jpg

0009.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stop-motion to me just has a certain charm that CGI cannot replicate. Plus, it looks way more real, except for the motion that is. I still love the way stop motion looks, though.

Well, hell. :o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,079,673
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"