pouët.net

Please take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrqWarXPw0

The characters in this video appear to be very realistic and also quite beautiful. Still it is possible to notice that it is computer animation and not real play.

One day, however, computer graphics might become so advanced that it will no longer be able to distinguish computer animation from real video shootings.

What is your opinion on this? Is this good or bad? Which chances and which threats does the progress in computer graphics bring?

Progress in artificial intelligence - Will trolls become obsolete?

Well, this made me think. Did you ever notice that over time when CG and photography hardware got better, the number of UFO pictures declined? This can only mean aliens found new forms of transportation towards Earth to still do tests on humans and cows and give us secret technology like Tesla cars and iPhones.

It doesn't look photo-realistic to me at all, but then maybe it's just me.

we need some further perfection in robotics, not cg

You're always going to need actors to make dramatic movies with, the question is what they're in front of: a movie camera, a mocap imaging array, a microphone or animation software.

The progress that's been made with artificial voices has been pretty disappointing, to be honest. We can do near-photorealistic humans but synthetic voices still sound really synthetic.

this.

Actors are pop culture icons. They are surfaces to reflect hopes and dreams, and the need to gossip. It's important that they are humans still. Their purpose is not just acting.

There have been virtual (pop) stars in Japan, but especially for drama and on a world-wide scale I don't see this happening in the next twenty years or so.

I was going to point out that they are artists, but then I remembered that it's 2010s we're talking about.

Bullshit.

C3PO is surely a pop culture icon.
Anthony Daniels is not.

...and nobody noticed that adok has been replaced by a bot.

It's obviously not an exclusive either this/or that situation. Surely they can be, -- and ideally should be --, both.


Yeah, 99.99% of all actors/musicians/writers are not icons. I didn't want to state the obvious, but here I go. My frame of reference was Hollywood, as the context was replacing mainstay actors in big budget movies, not the indie scene or the local theater guy.

Btw, extras, especially in mass scenes or background bit part players were already replaced by CGI long ago. Also the rubber suit guys from old monster movies. :P

They Know!!!

There was a bit of a kerfuffle when this came out 12 years ago, if I recall correctly.

I'm baffled to think that someone actually thinks that that's good CGI?

Bring me a CGI scene as good as the diner scene in Heat and I'll start believing in this whole replacement thing.

uncle-x: For a 2001 release (that means: most scenes were likely rendered in 2000 or 1999), it was pretty dang good in the CGI people rendering department. All things considered, it was a solid, but surely premature attempt.

The real problem with that movie was not the CGI as such, but the usual CGI movie problem (which is, to some extend, also a general problem of all those FF movies): Weak cardboard characters, cartoon-y physics and impossible virtual game-like cameras, that suggest an environment where nothing is real and nothing matters, where decisions of characters have simply no dramatic impact. So you are left with a fairly shallow tech movie with graphics that will look dated in a couple of years. A good example of how to avoid this is "How to train you dragon", a CGI movie that feels like a "real" film by handling its virtual environments as if they were real (f.e. look at those Kubrik-like tracking shots or the well directed flying scenes).

Progress in Humanoid robots, will hookers become obsolete ?

this here?

mhmmhh. great example.

No, the original with Pacino and De Niro.

i know. ;)

same problem tho. cgi doesn't do that kinda details. yet.

The characters from that youtube link are *far* from looking realistic.

But if I know that the character is artificial, I feel less in touch with it the more realistic it looks. That's because the point of creating artificial characters is to allow maximal identification with the character. Everyone can see him or herself in this --> :-) But it's hard to identify with a symbol that pretends not be one anymore.

So I think replacing characters by computer graphics only makes sense where it's more about visuals and about saving money. For example, in history etc. documentaries and porn movies.

For all other movies, I think I would not differentiate between a totally realistic artificial character and a steamboat willie Mickey Mouse.

I would've said the robbery with all it's different shots and angles would be more of a challenge.

I actually meant the truck hijack at the start. But this would be pretty speccy in cgi.

Buildings, vehicles, sky etc etc is obsolete, actors are needed for motion capturing, voice and promotion purposes.