Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Daily Gaming News > News Items

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
What You Can Expect From...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:03 AM
37 Replies, 1,468 Views
Bob Iger Done as Disney...
Last post by blackzc
Today 03:22 AM
20 Replies, 638 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by blackzc
Today 03:10 AM
6,092 Replies, 1,355,390 Views
Kung flu
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 02:50 AM
27 Replies, 406 Views
Post something good you...
Last post by stalazon
Yesterday 11:59 PM
278 Replies, 83,238 Views
Jens Nygaard Knudsen,...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Yesterday 09:41 PM
7 Replies, 295 Views
Saint Maud Ash Wednesday...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Yesterday 06:28 PM
0 Replies, 143 Views
PlayStation Plus Games...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Yesterday 06:24 PM
1 Replies, 150 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-03-2011, 11:02 PM   #41
abso
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenapple View Post
The problem is that CGI is not photorealistic. Emphasis on the realistic. Current CGI is great at making anmated things that the mind doesn't have an expectation of what real looks like: sci-fi (a spaceship), fantasy (a dragon), etc.

It's when you take CGI and try to make a human face, a dog, a cat, or a bodysuit that it stands out like a sore thumb. CGI is 100% glaring when it attempts the mundane.
Watch this video.

This was the tech used to do all the facial CGI stuff in Avatar, amongst a number of other movies. The tech is there to do it now, it's just too damn expensive to do on a large scale.
abso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 11:05 PM   #42
greenapple
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
It is until it isn't. I remember the first movie I couldn't tell wasn't real from the visuals alone: Starship Troopers. Sure the bugs were impossible, but the CGI was fairly flawless.

My point is that CGI continues its march towards photorealism, and soon even the best of us won't be able to tell any difference.

Try this little test: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_image_quiz.htm

Just for fun. Obviously it's easier to spot bad moving CGI.
I think you're missing my point. Your brain has no expection of what a giant alien bug looks like. Hence, the CGI is acceptable. If they tried to make Neil Patrick Harris CGI, trust me, it would stand out.

Similarly, still images are not the issue; realistic animation of mundane things is where CGI is always noticeable. No CGI technology today can take an actor in a body suit and replace his clothing with a realistic 3-piece suit, for example.
greenapple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 11:18 PM   #43
greenapple
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by abso View Post
Watch this video.

This was the tech used to do all the facial CGI stuff in Avatar, amongst a number of other movies. The tech is there to do it now, it's just too damn expensive to do on a large scale.
Avatar is exactly my point. That movie showcases the best that can be done today for a feature film. Any part of that movie that was mundane was easily noticeable as computer animation, rather than as film. It works fine if you're going in expecting computer animation.

Now, imagine if the Godfather or even Aliens looked like that. Pure CGI is not ready to replace sets, actors, and film.
greenapple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 12:21 AM   #44
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,889
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenapple View Post
Avatar is exactly my point. That movie showcases the best that can be done today for a feature film. Any part of that movie that was mundane was easily noticeable as computer animation, rather than as film. It works fine if you're going in expecting computer animation.
It can be done photorealistically. It's just a matter of how much money you want to spend. It's too costly to be indistinguishable from reality right now. But, you wanna dedicate a few supercomputers to rendering scenes, we could do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenapple View Post
Now, imagine if the Godfather or even Aliens looked like that. Pure CGI is not ready to replace sets, actors, and film.
It will be, one day.

Probably not until the industry moves to voxels and ray-tracing tho, since voxels&RT will allow a scene to render in a game/movie the same way they render in real life.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 12:34 AM   #45
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,889
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by abso View Post
If a Green Lantern accidentally peed on himself, would he die?
You, sir, are a genius

Meet the Green Lantern's arch nemesis...

Lemonade Stand Leonard!

__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 01:36 AM   #46
Ravenus
Subscriber
 
Ravenus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 394
Blog Entries: 1
It just said it was 3D......... ><

Looks fucking awesome though, other than the suit is shit. I don't know why they didn't just use a real suit cuz it looks super dumb. Oh well, still the movie looks bad-ass!
Ravenus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 01:47 AM   #47
actusoul
Evil Dead
 
actusoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 937
They have redeemed themselves...... I will definately watch this one and I am looking forward to it!!!!!
actusoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 08:32 AM   #48
abso
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenapple View Post
Avatar is exactly my point. That movie showcases the best that can be done today for a feature film. Any part of that movie that was mundane was easily noticeable as computer animation, rather than as film. It works fine if you're going in expecting computer animation.

Now, imagine if the Godfather or even Aliens looked like that. Pure CGI is not ready to replace sets, actors, and film.
I have to ask if you actually watched the video. The whole point of it was to show that you could not distinguish between a CGI human face and the actress' real face.

As for clothing, there are some really nice techniques out there already. See this cloth simulation video. Many are just computationally expensive to incorporate, or simply haven't been brought out of the lab and into the commercial graphics packages yet.

I agree though, that CGI is not ready to replace actors. In fact, it never should. There is no reason to do a CGI version of The Hangover. Even if the tech does get to that point, there is no reason to remove the human element. One of the main drawing points of film is to see other human's (realistically) cope with the (dramatic/comedic/absurd) events they are presented with. If you just animate it all, the meaning is somewhat diminished.
abso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 10:31 AM   #49
Sloth
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 840
arguing over CGI to me is like a classic nerd slap fight.
__________________
The Ravings of a Delusional Sloth
Slothman's Home Tree
Sloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 10:45 AM   #50
Agnostic Pope
Evil Dead
 
Agnostic Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 19,470
Blog Entries: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
You haven't seen "the Matrix" have you. Wait, you saw Suckerpunch too! :P

I for one support the idea of pure CGI movies. Giving photorealism the same flexibility that anime has had for decades now will revolutionize Hollywood.
Yes I have...which is why I say...

BULLSHIT to this sentence of yours. Look at Suckerpunch...all the CGI is there and while it looked good it sure as hell didn't make it a decent movie. Anime is crap (well not all of it but 99 percent of it is) and pure CGI will just make movies even more artificial/unoriginal. If I were to make a movie that just displayed the binary code would you like it? What has CGI made... but people even bigger brainless idiots who praise the shiny COOL AS DICKTITS movie about tree worshiping smurfs over a well (ANY) written plot. CGI is cool...for like pixar animated films and shit...or do you like movies like Hop and Scooby Doo?
__________________
http://i.imgur.com/WCiJp9W.jpg
Agnostic Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 10:46 AM   #51
Agnostic Pope
Evil Dead
 
Agnostic Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 19,470
Blog Entries: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
arguing over CGI to me is like a classic nerd slap fight.
This IS a video game site. GTFO jock!
__________________
http://i.imgur.com/WCiJp9W.jpg
Agnostic Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 03:29 PM   #52
Primus
Valar Morghulis
 
Primus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Fairfax Ruins
Posts: 2,475
I never got the hate for the first trailer and the CGI suit just makes it look like its pulsing with power. Mark Strong as Sinestro pretty much already had a ticket from me anyways, but I don't agree that this movie ever looked bad.

Now Thor is going to suck.

GL and Captain America are going to be fun movies.
__________________
XBL: Super Jumps TM

PSN: SUPERxJUMPS
Primus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
green lantern, green lantern movie, trailer, warner bros, wb movies, wondercon

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 AM.