This makes AVATAR look like a cheap video arcade game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Postmaster

Postmaster

Dark Side of the Camera
A FULL-CG animated piece that tries to illustrate architecture art across a photographic point of view where main subjects
are already-built spaces. Sometimes in an abstract way. Sometimes surreal.

That is all CGI done by just one guy.

My jaw just hit the the floor.

It makes AVATAR look like a cheap video arcade game.

Enjoy, Frank



here is the breakdown

 
Double post :)

but I disagree, this is just standard Arch Viz stuff, goto

www.evermotion.org

and guess what that video is just plain standard stuff.

doing renders of Architecture is very easy (in terms of photorealism) moving characters in massive near realtime environments are another matter altogether.

Making photo real humans is THE holy grail of CG, and all of the best CG artists around the world have yet to get reach it yet. so far we have photo real still of humans (not motion):

For example a typical artist Viki Yeo:

http://vikiyeo.cgsociety.org/gallery/713053/

I've seen even more photo real 'still' renders but you get the idea. But the gap between that and motion is a still a million miles away. (because the human face is complex organic structure)

Anhar
 
I have to agree with Anhar here. Avatar is on a different level because of the animation and the human element. Although I do find this artist's ability to render beautiful imagery absolutely amazing.
 
They did not animate the blue folks in Avatar - it was just motion capturing, including face tracking (thou they probably tweaked it here and there).

So no holy CGI grail for Avatar.

Frank
 
Have you ever tried to make a 3D model of a human behave and move like a believable human by hand Rodney?

Compared to this, the task of tying a 3D model (human or navi or whatever) to motion capture data is pretty straight forward and simple. Once the model is rigged you just throw the data at it.

Heck it´s almost automatic. Check it out: http://www.xsens.com/en/general/mvn

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
They did not animate the blue folks in Avatar - it was just motion capturing, including face tracking (thou they probably tweaked it here and there).

So no holy CGI grail for Avatar.

Frank
Click to expand...
Video games have done this for a while now and some of them have done it extremely well.

I did expect more from the Avatar trailer after hearing that the CGI was going to blow all other attempts off the map. I just don't see it.
 
Anhar Miah said:
Making photo real humans is THE holy grail of CG, and all of the best CG artists around the world have yet to get reach it yet. so far we have photo real still of humans (not motion):

For example a typical artist Viki Yeo:

http://vikiyeo.cgsociety.org/gallery/713053/
Click to expand...

Even this is still kind of soulless and in the uncanny valley:


302385_1230816242_large.jpg
 
Pretty astonishing that this was done by a single person.

Did anyone else feel like not EVERY element in the picture was CG, though? There were some moments where there was clearly some layering going on -- and I believe it was CGI layered over actual video (e.g. not CGI)
 
I think the only not CGI thing is that guy and some cloud backgrounds, but I´m not sure.

Frank
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Yup. Reminds me of Final Fantasy and that was in motion. Definitely not real.

Now, in the dark with some shadow and lighting changes.... it would probably fool a few people.
Click to expand...

So maybe it's a generational thing, but I actually like CGI people looking like CGI people. I like the "souless" quality and plasticy features the same as I prefer life-like robots in the real world to have a unique visage that is robot-like (plasticy skin, stiffer motions). I think that people's push for CGI elements to be able to effectively exist on the screen the same as live action comes from not enough people (certainly in this country) being able to accept and empathize with animated characters the way they can with their live action counterparts.

It's probably a much larger debate on speciesism in general (e.g. we worry more when a human is in peril than we do when a dog or horse is) and then another leap which would regard robotics, A.I. tech, etc. But I really think that the more "elite" the society of people, the more they have the inability to empathize with anything that is not of themselves.

If a story is about cats or plants or animated sock puppets or people, we as humans SHOULD be able to empathize irregardless of the other things' likeness to ourselves. Unfortunately I think as time goes on we get further and further away from the ability to do so.

I think there are exceptions in mass media (R2-D2, Old Yeller and the couple in UP spring to mind), but think about how incredibly hard the storytellers had to work for us to care -- and some people still are unable to empathize or care at all about characters that aren't specifically human and specifically live action. I call them "heartless", others might call them "rational".

I don't know why it's easier for children to empathize with things in nature and characters on a screen (be them animated or otherwise), but I assume it's because they haven't been fully programmed by society yet and haven't had it slammed into their brains that humans are the right and true god of every single thing in land, space or imagination. I remember once a child crying because a leaf tore. A leaf! I remember crying as a child when I found a dead squirrel and once when a tree in our neighborhood was cut down because it had gotten sick.

Where does all the empathy go I wonder?
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Yup. Reminds me of Final Fantasy and that was in motion. Definitely not real.

Now, in the dark with some shadow and lighting changes.... it would probably fool a few people.
Click to expand...
It's the eyes. The eyes are the mirror to the soul...and that image seems "soul -less" Kinda hard to get by that one I think.
 
Ian-T said:
It's the eyes. The eyes are the mirror to the soul...and that image seems "soul -less" Kinda hard to get by that one I think.
Click to expand...
The whole black bar over the eyes thing always entranced me (even as a wee boyo)... because, sure as shi*, you cannot "see" them. (*and by "them", I mean the person*)

blackbar.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
It's the eyes. The eyes are the mirror to the soul...and that image seems "soul -less" Kinda hard to get by that one I think.
Click to expand...

Cause they don´t focus properly. Often overlooked, even by good artists.

Here is what minor Photoshop tweaking can do (thou far from perfect but you get the idea)

Frank
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    102.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top