CGI Still Looks Pretty Bad

[JAK®]

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.

I'm quite sure there are many creations that look completely real if you are unaware that it was fake in the first place.

 

[The Endless]

When i first saw TWS i first thought Atwell had make-up on in that scene. Wasn't until i saw someone on here mention it was CGI. Great work.

 

[terry78]

It wasn't makeup?

How about that?

 

[georgec]

When i first saw TWS i first thought Atwell had make-up on in that scene. Wasn't until i saw someone on here mention it was CGI. Great work.

I didn't know it was CGI until just now. Amazing.

 

[CGHulk]

I'm quite sure there are many creations that look completely real if you are unaware that it was fake in the first place.

There's a lot of invisible effects in films that go completely unoticed, a good example are the Borne movies! People always criticize the weakest shots that got the short end of a very large stick and criticize the the whole medium of CG visual effects, while so manyshots that had CG enhancements went unoticed! I guess it's human nature to point out the one bad thing despite the sum of the whole!

You know what sequnce I think is flawless is in Mission impossible Ghost Protocol on top of Burj Khalifa in Dubai, thank you ILM!

 

[Octoberist]

The best VFX and practical work done in recent memory.

Warning: There is no nudity or vulgarity, but it does feature the graphic nature of the violence of the film (before and after) the effects. Knowing the context of the reel is the deal:

[YT]66anIoRmEMs[/YT]

The movie was low budget, used a combo of CG and practical and it looked beautiful.

 

[Spider-Who?]

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.

I just love it when people think they know anything about art and make ridiculously incorrect statements. One of these isn't real.

I already addressed the human aspect in a follow up post at the bottom of page 14.

I know and you did a poor job of explaining (and understanding, I suspect) that stance, hence my counter-argument.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult - it absolutely is - but it CAN be done. There are COUNTLESS examples from films where people have had NO idea what they saw on screen was CGI. Like I said before, artists - humans - are trained to be hyper-aware of what makes are brains say "that is real" and are constantly working to improve technology and techniques to create photo-realistic images. In the long term, the short-comings have nothing to do with how advanced the brain is, but the time and money it takes to create computer images that are advanced enough to trick the eye (that and some studios are full of less-than-talented artists).

 

[redhawk23]

One of the goofiest things I've ever encountered on these boards was people complaining about the CG in a shot of Stephen Lang drinking coffee from Avatar...it was a live action shot.

 

[Hotwire]

One of the goofiest things I've ever encountered on these boards was people complaining about the CG in a shot of Stephen Lang drinking coffee from Avatar...it was a live action shot.

Any video link?

 

[jmc]

I just love it when people think they know anything about art and make ridiculously incorrect statements.

I know and you did a poor job of explaining (and understanding, I suspect) that stance, hence my counter-argument.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult - it absolutely is - but it CAN be done. There are COUNTLESS examples from films where people have had NO idea what they saw on screen was CGI. Like I said before, artists - humans - are trained to be hyper-aware of what makes are brains say "that is real" and are constantly working to improve technology and techniques to create photo-realistic images. In the long term, the short-comings have nothing to do with how advanced the brain is, but the time and money it takes to create computer images that are advanced enough to trick the eye (that and some studios are full of less-than-talented artists).

I'm a student of art my friend. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'm a student of art my friend. I know what I'm talking about.

You need to study more, or go to a better school, especially if you've never heard of Chuck Close.

 

[redhawk23]

Any video link?

For whatever reason, people were thinking that Lang was CG in this shot from one of the first trailers.

 

[jmc]

You need to study more, or go to a better school, especially if you've never heard of Chuck Close.

Oh I've heard of him, the thing is you need to remember is his portraits tend to be effing large, hence why so much detail. What's been posted is a shrunk down version of his original artwork, as such the details gets squashed together and the painting strokes gets lost. The thing is if you compare his image to the real photographs it's not hard to detect which is the painting.

 

[redhawk23]

I've seen Close's work in person. It holds up.

And the thing is CG artists, for instance those who worked on the Hulk in the Avengers, work at a similar scale as Close, if not even more extreme, focusing on details that get completely lost in the final presentation of the image but overall the effort contributes to the intended effect. No one is ever going to notice the Hulk's nose hairs, but since the artists took the time, building everything form the tiniest details up, it all works. Its also a matter that, Close does his things by hand, other artists make use of more powerful tools. Further work is being done to develop programs that generate the way light bounces around inside skin, etc.

 

[CGHulk]

I'm a student of art my friend. I know what I'm talking about.

Just because your an art student doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

 

[jmc]

Just because your an art student doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

I assume you've studied then.

 

[redhawk23]

Even photos are ink dots or pixesl when you get right down to it, just as Close's work is made up of brush strokes.

 

[jmc]

The difference is the camera doesn't lie.

 

[redhawk23]

There is a lot of detail that is lost while using different types of film, not to mention motion blur, any number of in camera effects, lens distortion etc.

 

[CGHulk]

I assume you've studied then.

I've been an artist professionally in and out throughout my life, that's the nature of business. See art is subjective to who ever likes it, and not every artist student is as good as they think they are. They haven't been tested yet. Just because your teacher thinks your good doesn't mean you are. I've seen amazing artist not get into art schools because the head of the faculty is an idiot. Bruce Tim never went to art school. My friend John Kricfalusi had to retrain and fire animators who graduated Cal Arts. Some get through art school because mommy and daddy can pay the tuition. I've known plenty of people that graduated Cal Arts because mommy and daddy could afford it, and the school wanted their money. I was speaking to a young girl who got into Art Center and she was b*t**ing and moaning that they wanted to teach her anatomy, here this person wanted to be a character designer and story board artist. I wanted to yell at her!

 

[jmc]

And it's a fickle business too. Wish I could draw half as good as Close can.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The difference is the camera doesn't lie.

That isn't true. At all. As an artist, you should know that.

Just because your an art student doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

DING DING DING! Exactly. I can't tell you how many students at my art school couldn't draw themselves out of a paper bag, or went around spouting "facts" that they clearly misunderstood.

Oh I've heard of him, the thing is you need to remember is his portraits tend to be effing large, hence why so much detail. What's been posted is a shrunk down version of his original artwork, as such the details gets squashed together and the painting strokes gets lost. The thing is if you compare his image to the real photographs it's not hard to detect which is the painting.

His earlier work, sure, but his work since the 90s has been hyper-realistic where brush strokes are NOT visible. But that is besides the point. Like someone else said, even looking up close at a photograph will give away it's pixels/dots. Point is that Chuck's work is photo-realistic and capable of tricking you at all. If some one unfamiliar with Chuck Close were to look at the images I posted earlier, they wouldn't be able to pick the "fake". In short, Chuck Close (and countless other photo-realist artists) are examples that flat out disprove your stance that no artist has ever, nor could ever create something that looks 100% real.

This whole debate boils down to your misunderstanding of the Uncanny Valley concept. That could be your professor's fault, or your own. It doesn't matter, because I'm going to spell it out clearly:

The Uncanny Valley refers to the phenomenon that states that the more something appears to be real, yet - and this is very important - still retains noticeably artificial traits, we as humans are able to notice it/react uncomfortably.

Spoiler

Your stance is that the more real something looks, the more we can tell it is NOT real, and that this continues infinity. This is wrong. What you're describing is best called a slope or cliff, not a valley. Its not called the "Uncanny Valley" arbitrarily. It is called that because like a geographical valley, it has both a descending side and an ascending side - like a U or V shape. This means that as the fake image/object has less artificial traits the easier it is for the eye to be tricked. The whole point of the uncanny valley is to understand where and how the ratio of realistic and artificial traits stops being creepy/fake and starts tricking the eye. Countless movies and images have examples of artists crossing this valley and creating realistic images that successfully trick the eye and mind.

Art is NOT about what we can not do (regardless of the validity); it is not about setting limits and saying "we can never do this". If you - as an art student - really believe that it is impossible to cross this threshold (and that no one ever has, no less), then you are studying the wrong field and you need to stop wasting your money and drop out...and I truly say that purely out of compassion.

 

[Octoberist]

I do think we can do great photo real CG created portraits but it's the movement and subtle unpredictability of body language that we haen't grasp yet.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I do think we can do great photo real CG created portraits but it's the movement and subtle unpredictability of body language that we haen't grasp yet.

Movement is a big one, yeah. Thing is, if you give a good animator enough time and resources, they should be able to get the body movement down perfectly (a good animator is also a good actor and should have developed a near Sherlock-level of observational skills in that regard). But time and money are never things an animator has, thanks to the way the industry is treated. This is why so many studios have started using motion capture - this gives you the motion you want with less time actually animating. And the technology for motion capture is becoming increasingly more complex, measuring the most subtle of movements. In terms of superheroes, where the "rubber" effect is prevalent, this too, is declining as animation studios are becoming more informed on the science of physics and bio-mechanics. New and more sophisticated physics engines/algorithms are being created and adapted with each new film it seems like. The industry as a whole, while it is sadly crumbling in terms of personnel, is improving in it's technological bases at an amazing rate. We can create things today that 5 years ago would have been seemingly impossible, and it's only getting better. It's really quite awesome in that regard.

 

[Brother Jack]

I feel that great practical effects generally have a longer shelf life than great CGI, though that may not be the case in the near future.