This was something the hit the computer industry hard back in 2007 when Crysis was released for the PC. I can only imagine what the will be available in 2020, seeing as most of the scenes in major action films are 100% computer generated.
With the work being conducted to increase the capability of graphics rendering while reducing power consumption, heat production and overall size VR, AR, and MR applications will probably be very hard to tell the difference between what is real and virtual.
seeing as most of the scenes in major action films are 100% computer generated.
Most action scenes mix in real life footage, which excludes them from the "100% CG" criteria. Can you think of any that don't? (And ideally a segment that goes on for longer than 30 seconds.)
Here's some pretty cool footage of how they compiled a few of the shots in Gravity. Lots of SFX, plus practical shots to get the actors faces
https://youtu.be/rCm3FYp4hdI
Your criteria are unclear, what counts as real life footage? Captured bdrf? Photographic textures? Photogrammetry? Motion capture? Made by an artist equipped with lots of reference?
I guess my thoughts are, why would you? The only time you would use VFX is if you can't do something in real life cheaper, and since it's extremely expensive that rules out filing the frame with mundane realistic objects.
Aside from time and budget, art direction and production design often rules out a photorealistic look anyway, even if technology allows it.
I'd like to dig further into what you mean by photorealistic CG being fiction? There are still tricky areas that are actively being researched, but I've seen plenty of CG assets that are photorealistic.
What do you think is technically missing from CG video, that makes it lack realism?
If you approach the subject with an open mind, you'll find that we really haven't achieved those goals. But the most I've managed to wring from people is a grudging admission that even though we haven't done it yet, we could do it if we tried. I disagree.
I played through COD WW2 a couple of weeks ago. The single player campaign is great.
My dad and I used to play the original Call of Duty together when I was a boy. Technically, we played CoD: United Offensive, which has the best multiplayer in any video game ever, as far as we're concerned. We used to swap war stories over dinner, much to my mother and sister's frustration, I'm sure.
COD: WW2's single player captures some of the original game's feel. And yes, the faces are great. It helps draw you into the story between gameplay.
The multiplayer has sadly evolved into something much less interesting. My dad and I won't be playing it together.
Then we'll be desensitized. That's all there is to it. Nobody's going to put laws in place limiting graphical rendering.
But, I don't actually think you're right, anyway. Crime rates have been going down in the US and Europe, not up. It's just FUD. There's no correlation at all.
USA and UK both had increase - that's strange. UK has imigration crisis going on, that could explain part of it at least, so I checked my country (Poland), and it also had small increase in 2016 as well, but it was minimal 503->514. The downward overall trend is pretty clear. Homocides per year. Population is ~36 000 000
People have no problems distinguishing between theather/movies/interactive movies (where faces are even better than in CoD)/games, and real life. And homicides (as well as other violent crimes) are going down for the last 20 years or more, while computer games are more and more popular.
It's quite clear to me, that violence in computer games doesn't make people more violent in real life. On the other hand it's possible that violent people do choose more violent games than less violent people.
Also, while we're on the subject of murdering people - easily accessible firearms do make people more likely to kill people. That's pretty low-hanging fruit right there.
I think they were somewhat beaten to the punch by Ninja Theory's astonishing work on Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. They won the real-time award at SIGGRAPH 2016 in triumphant fashion. Not only did they create a tremendous technical achievement, but they produced a game with genuine artistic intent on a fraction of a typical AAA budget.
> I think they were somewhat beaten to the punch by Ninja Theory's astonishing work on Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. They won the real-time award at SIGGRAPH 2016 in triumphant fashion. Not only did they create a tremendous technical achievement, but they produced a game with genuine artistic intent on a fraction of a typical AAA budget.
Their previous game "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West" also had pretty good facial animation. Especially when compared with contemporary AAA titles like Mass Effect.
I had a similar reaction when I saw a video of snappers rig[0] in Unreal 4 a couple of months ago - I don't really play many AAA games these days so I guess I must have missed where the rigs advanced to the point where modelling wrinkles in the face became feasible. Their tech[1] seems to be used in a few AAA games and looks pretty convincing to me.
An activision Dev/manager gave a talk in my graphics class earlier this year. He said Activision had contracts wth the CIA/etc because Activision's facial motion capture/analysis equipment is better than anything the gov has.
I feel pretty fortunate to have been a gamer during the transition from 2.5D graphics, through the evolution of 3D graphics and the various levels of generational advancement over the years. The characters became better looking and more detailed over time, from sprites to models whose mouths would move in a Kermit the Frog sort of fashion, but they were still hollow and unconvincing puppets. It wasn't until Half-Life 2 that characters in games could properly convey emotion through sophisticated facial animation and sufficient detail. That, for me, was the first time I could emotionally connect with a character in a game, and it was such a fundamental shift in my understanding of what a game could be.
The evolution in rendering here is nothing short of amazing. For the most part I've fallen out of love with gaming, just as a function of getting older or getting burned out on it (or both), but new generations of gamers really are very lucky to be able to have some of their first gaming experiences with characters like this.
It's sad that entertainment by violence and combat are the drivers for things like this.
I wonder what far reaching higher order effects come from this selection bias. Is it just a feedback cycle that could be broken? The makers of high budget world-building projects are self-selected for this kind of content, leading to consumers acclimating and demanding more of this, etc.
It's already leaking out of the games world: there's a major shift in Hollywood movies to superhero movies centered around video game-style combat.
28 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 69.2 ms ] threadWith the work being conducted to increase the capability of graphics rendering while reducing power consumption, heat production and overall size VR, AR, and MR applications will probably be very hard to tell the difference between what is real and virtual.
Most action scenes mix in real life footage, which excludes them from the "100% CG" criteria. Can you think of any that don't? (And ideally a segment that goes on for longer than 30 seconds.)
But, those are all examples of why photorealistic CG is fiction. We've never achieved it in video.
I'd like to dig further into what you mean by photorealistic CG being fiction? There are still tricky areas that are actively being researched, but I've seen plenty of CG assets that are photorealistic.
What do you think is technically missing from CG video, that makes it lack realism?
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:sillysaurus3%20%22real%...
To answer your question precisely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15294721
I'd love to debate this with you, but few people seem interested.
Here's the criteria for "CG video": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15698859
If you approach the subject with an open mind, you'll find that we really haven't achieved those goals. But the most I've managed to wring from people is a grudging admission that even though we haven't done it yet, we could do it if we tried. I disagree.
My dad and I used to play the original Call of Duty together when I was a boy. Technically, we played CoD: United Offensive, which has the best multiplayer in any video game ever, as far as we're concerned. We used to swap war stories over dinner, much to my mother and sister's frustration, I'm sure.
COD: WW2's single player captures some of the original game's feel. And yes, the faces are great. It helps draw you into the story between gameplay.
The multiplayer has sadly evolved into something much less interesting. My dad and I won't be playing it together.
It's quite frightening and raises some issues, however, that as first-person shooters evolve, we'll be desensitized to shooting more realistic humans.
But, I don't actually think you're right, anyway. Crime rates have been going down in the US and Europe, not up. It's just FUD. There's no correlation at all.
I don't think it's linked, but the US murder rate actually increased in 2016. I couldn't find European wide stats, but the UK rate has been increasing: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/world/europe/england-wale...
It's quite clear to me, that violence in computer games doesn't make people more violent in real life. On the other hand it's possible that violent people do choose more violent games than less violent people.
Also, while we're on the subject of murdering people - easily accessible firearms do make people more likely to kill people. That's pretty low-hanging fruit right there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yh-zFCILR4
https://youtu.be/OMENy0ptoyM?t=48s
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yh-zFCILR4
> https://youtu.be/OMENy0ptoyM?t=48s
Their previous game "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West" also had pretty good facial animation. Especially when compared with contemporary AAA titles like Mass Effect.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo_FALeUc8c
[1]http://snapperstech.com/
The evolution in rendering here is nothing short of amazing. For the most part I've fallen out of love with gaming, just as a function of getting older or getting burned out on it (or both), but new generations of gamers really are very lucky to be able to have some of their first gaming experiences with characters like this.
I wonder what far reaching higher order effects come from this selection bias. Is it just a feedback cycle that could be broken? The makers of high budget world-building projects are self-selected for this kind of content, leading to consumers acclimating and demanding more of this, etc. It's already leaking out of the games world: there's a major shift in Hollywood movies to superhero movies centered around video game-style combat.
http://www.geekscape.net/youd-be-surprised-how-much-cgi-goes...