PDA

View Full Version : Will 3D photorealism become a redundant art form?


DimensionalPunk
08-01-2005, 11:41 PM
Eventually if not already in some cases it will become very easy to create photo realistic art with our 3D programs. Look at how quickly Bryce and similar programs made 3D landscaping redundant to just taking a photo. True though you can make landscapes that don't exist but how will that translate when photorealism becomes as easy for human characters? Will it move in the direction that Pixar leads or will we create photo realistic beauties or grotesqueness's that can't exist naturally? Probably both but in any case photorealism as we see it will become a redundant art form and will hopefully inspire more creativity.

jmBoekestein
08-01-2005, 11:45 PM
I believe the prime market for it was visualisation and visual effects, as soon as photorealism got there. So no, they won't be redundant. BUt as soon as the novelty wears of more typical works will probably come about. The whole point of making something yourself is doing it your way isn't it.

PerfectBlue
08-02-2005, 06:41 AM
The whole thing is, no one has achieved perfection... 3D is a brand new medium, and everyone is still trying to achieve photo quality. Once it has been done for a while, yea it may get a bit old and artists will explore new areas in it; it will progress the same as 2D painting has. :)

heythatreallyhurts
08-02-2005, 11:45 PM
edit: woops, misunderstood thread title.

bonestructure
08-03-2005, 09:53 AM
There's an important place for photorealism in 3D. There always will be. But I don't think it's the main focus of 3D. One of the tasks of any artist is to create a personal, recognizable style. You can't have a style in photorealism, that takes stylisation. I've had various pieces of my work criticised because they 'look like CG'. Well, yeah. Am I supposed to apologize for that? I do illustration primarily. Book, DVD, CD covers, stuff like that. My personal projects often are to create odd environments and rooms. I don't consider what I do to be architectural design. But a lot of people think if you create a room or a building, it's architectural design and should be photorealistic. They fail to grasp what it is I'm trying to do. I don't WANT a person who looks at my work to think, my goodness, I thought it was a photograph. I want them to think, my goodness, what a wonderful piece of art. This is not to say I don't enjoy viewing architectural renders. I think they're marveloius and I learn a lot from the I can use myself. But they're not, strictly speaking, art. Even in photography, looking at the photos of beautiful interiors in Architectural Digest is wonderful, but the photos aren't art. Art in photography comes when the photographer puts something of themselves in the image, when they have a style. 3D is no different. You have to put yourself in the image, thoughts, emotions, personality, something. I think a lot of people who get into 3D start out wanting to create photorealism. But when they're artists they move beyond that, into style and stylisation, to creating a definitive, recognizable look for their work, something that distinguishes it. I don't mean necessarily toons, but a personal style and look. We have so many options for modeling, lighting and texturing that photorealism is just one tool among many. Architecture, films, advertising, product design, a lot of work in CG requires photorealism. But that doesn't make it art.

Silvergray
08-03-2005, 10:33 AM
Bonestructure, what are you talking about?

3d renders arent art, you say.

A 3d program is a tool, like paintbrushes or plaster of paris. you use tools to make art. Just beacuse you use a computer program instaed of oil or acrylic to present something that used to exist in your head. It doesn't mean it isnt art.

Same goes for Photos BTW!

ashakarc
08-03-2005, 01:32 PM
You can't have a style in photorealism, that takes stylisation.
By this theory, photography can never have a style !! or a photorealistic image is absent of style, or even architecture can never have a style !!

I wonder what's your definition of style? I might be missing something here.

-----

In my opinion about the main question of the thread, NO. It will never be redundant form of representation, it will be even more needed as time goes by. The benefits of depicting reality with accuracy are countless and in all desciplines. Unless civilzation take a wrong turn to the stone age, virtual photorealism was born to stay.

bmcaff
08-03-2005, 02:01 PM
There is so much one could say in response to what you have said Bonestructure but I would just like to point out that there is a world of difference between a render that is photorealistic compared to a photo taken by a five year old with his fisherprice "my first camera" as opposed to a photo taken by a renowned and talented photographer. Photorealism is certainly plagued by the former but there is lots of the later as well. People who work within photorealism AND know how to create unique and stylised work..

Photorealism is always and will always be with us and for good reason..

jamesdansereau
08-03-2005, 04:21 PM
First as technology gets better and as the field matures yes you will see alot more photo realistic 3d art.
I think though your falling into two distinct traps when you ask that question.

The first trap is that lower cost of machines and software combined with signifigantly improved easier tools. Will create an enviroment where anyone can turn on a computer and create an image say of Steve Sthalberg quality.

The second trap is photo - realistic.theese traps sorta go hand and hand

The first trap I'll answer this way. Look at any type of modern media. From photography to television to web design to music etc. etc.. All of theese have been majorally changed by technology. The cost of the tools to work in theese mediums has all been drastically reduced. The ease of the tools to work in theese mediums has all been drastically made easier. Yet not everyone in this world can produce and engineer a song like the neptunes not everyone can make a film like Robert Rodrigez not everyone can make a photo like Ansel Adams. Or conversly anyone can pick up Adobe Go live or Frontpage and make a website but does it look good. Finally Look at drawing of all the fields this is the cheapest you need a pencil and paper. Look at the ease of tools almost everyone is taught how to use a pencil at a young age. Yet there arent many who can make decent human likeness. With this incredibly simple and cheap tool.

The second trap is photo realism. Webster defines it as painting with a meticulous attention to detail. This is a very good definition in alot of ways but can actually be applied to most artistic mediums including photography. The fact is that most modern images and or sounds that we see just didnt happen. They were meticulously planned. Alot of the tools used in photography like motion blur, depth of field, quality of light the difference in color of light i.e. outdoor light is blue spectrum indoor is yellowish spectrum flourecent is greenish in spectrum. Dont exist naturally or it is not noticable to the average human. Theese are tools of the mediums. And the true masters of the respective mediums understand them and meticulously plan them. Leigh in her tutorial on texturing comments that everthing in this world is touched and or affected by nature and or humans. Nothing is perfect or pristine. Which is very true. Yet in most commercial art, photoagraphy or what not. Hours and days are spent at making everthing perfect and pristine. Models dont have skin blemishes , furniture never is dusty, cars never dirty. Actors never stutter or mess up a line and always speak the language perfectly. The Big Mac on TV is the most perfect Big Mac ever made and you will never see one like that in any McDonalds ever period. Why is this ? Meticulous attention to detail and perfection. Everthing is planned down to the smallest detail. Nothing is left to chance or nature. Photo realism is not just clicking a button and you have something thats photo realistic. Not even in photography is this the case. It's the meticulous attention to detail that makes something photo realistic.

So the short answer is that even though you may have incredible easy to use cheap technology no it wont become redundant or outdated or done by the masses because to make high quality good images or media you need a passion for the medium and yes a meticulous attention to detail and a desire to push the limits to make something more perfect then before.and most people dont have the time or patience or desire to master this. It still all comes down to the human touch.

PSR
08-03-2005, 04:59 PM
I don't see why 3d photo-realism would ever become redundant.

It is an essential element in most movies, Advertising relies heavily on the pristine images that it provides. And people never seem to tire of making realistic representations of the things that interest them.

I think what was said by jamesdansereau, is very interesting. Photo-realism today often means very unrealistic or maybe hyper-real. I mean, because of 3d, I've seen dozens of photo-real Vampires for example, although, I've never actually come across one in my travels, for comparison.

So no, definitely not. Not while imagination exists

JMcWilliams
08-05-2005, 11:42 AM
The first trap is that lower cost of machines and software combined with signifigantly improved easier tools. Will create an enviroment where anyone can turn on a computer and create an image say of Steve Sthalberg quality.

Surely this statement is a direct contradiction to the point you made in the rest of your post?
How will getting more processing power and better tools make everyone a Stahlberg?

And with regards to the original question...
If I place a lump of clay on a desk in front of a camera, that clay looks real... but who cares? It's what I do with that clay that counts, If I'm a crap artist, it'll look like a realistic crap model.

Realism can have style just like anything else. Different films can have completely different visual styles, from the design of the sets and props to the lighting and camera work. Yet they are all photoreal, because they ARE real.

jamesdansereau
08-05-2005, 07:51 PM
JMcWilliams
What you quoted was what I was saying is a trap or a thought process I see from people that I disagree with. Ive been an editor for over 8 years now and with every new advent of technology and or price reduction of equipment I have heard a similar type of comment. I.E. technology is getting so good we wont need Editors,compositors audio engineers, Director of photography. I have even heard we wont need actors. And yet all theese people still have work. If you take the first three what would take half million to million dollar suites 7 years ago can be done with about 9000$ or less now days. The ease of editing something has been so simplified that what was impossible to do in some of the multi 100,000 dollar suites can be done in 10 minutes now on the newer equipment.

Newer better technology is just a better tool for a detail orientated passionate about what they do person. Not the replacement.

Further I agree with almost everything that you said except the last sentance.

The whole media spectrum from early cave paintings to middle age paintings to todays movies and sitcoms and commercials is based on one basic principle. "suspension of disbelief."

Seriously never have i been in mexico and everthing been warm orange in color than i travel to san diego and suddenly everthing is cool and blue in color (traffic).
Ive never in my life seen in sepia tone for 15 minutes of my life then everything changes to color. (wizard of oz). Never has my brain racked focus. Never had a dolly out zoom in effect happen (jaws). The living room in "everyone loves raymond" is actually a collection of 1 by 4's and door skins and doesnt actually exist. Any food item you see in any magazine or television ad would kill you within 10 minutes of eating it. Any blood you see in any old black and white film is chocolate which you could eat. The questions kids ask celebrity's at MTV's spring break and TRL are scripted by producers. Yes Pro wrestling is SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. Ive never seen a gecko talk or do the robot(geico car insurance)

Even Ansel Adams the preimere realist of photography planned all his shots meticoulously. There are only a couple of his works that he released that were actualaly Verite. The rest of them were planned down to the exact minute when conditions would be right for the shot he wanted.

It's not "real" it suspension of disbelief.

JMcWilliams
08-05-2005, 10:43 PM
JMcWilliams
What you quoted was what I was saying is a trap or a thought process I see from people that I disagree with. Ive been an editor for over 8 years now and with every new advent of technology and or price reduction of equipment I have heard a similar type of comment. I.E. technology is getting so good we wont need Editors,compositors audio engineers, Director of photography. I have even heard we wont need actors. And yet all theese people still have work. If you take the first three what would take half million to million dollar suites 7 years ago can be done with about 9000$ or less now days. The ease of editing something has been so simplified that what was impossible to do in some of the multi 100,000 dollar suites can be done in 10 minutes now on the newer equipment.

Newer better technology is just a better tool for a detail orientated passionate about what they do person. Not the replacement.

Further I agree with almost everything that you said except the last sentance.

The whole media spectrum from early cave paintings to middle age paintings to todays movies and sitcoms and commercials is based on one basic principle. "suspension of disbelief."

Seriously never have i been in mexico and everthing been warm orange in color than i travel to san diego and suddenly everthing is cool and blue in color (traffic).
Ive never in my life seen in sepia tone for 15 minutes of my life then everything changes to color. (wizard of oz). Never has my brain racked focus. Never had a dolly out zoom in effect happen (jaws). The living room in "everyone loves raymond" is actually a collection of 1 by 4's and door skins and doesnt actually exist. Any food item you see in any magazine or television ad would kill you within 10 minutes of eating it. Any blood you see in any old black and white film is chocolate which you could eat. The questions kids ask celebrity's at MTV's spring break and TRL are scripted by producers. Yes Pro wrestling is SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. Ive never seen a gecko talk or do the robot(geico car insurance)

Even Ansel Adams the preimere realist of photography planned all his shots meticoulously. There are only a couple of his works that he released that were actualaly Verite. The rest of them were planned down to the exact minute when conditions would be right for the shot he wanted.

It's not "real" it suspension of disbelief.

ahh, sorry I misunderstood. In anycase I agree with you. :D

jamesdansereau
08-05-2005, 10:56 PM
No problem JMc
I verbalize and visualize alot better then I can write and sometimes its easy to misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

CodeNothing
08-08-2005, 07:38 PM
Eventually if not already in some cases it will become very easy to create photo realistic art with our 3D programs. Look at how quickly Bryce and similar programs made 3D landscaping redundant to just taking a photo. True though you can make landscapes that don't exist but how will that translate when photorealism becomes as easy for human characters? Will it move in the direction that Pixar leads or will we create photo realistic beauties or grotesqueness's that can't exist naturally? Probably both but in any case photorealism as we see it will become a redundant art form and will hopefully inspire more creativity.

Well the art isnt all in the asthetics.... true photorealistic art will become easyer and easyer to achieve, but do you get tired of watching movies because the actors look too 'real'? A lot more goes into character/environment art besides the asthetics of photoreal/cartoony etc... if the characters are well designed and have life to them then we will find them interesting no matter how they were protrayed.

Alice
08-08-2005, 07:47 PM
A discussion equal to this one was heated while I was in artschool and people painted photorealistic paintings with aqrylics or oilcolour.

What artforms have become redundant over the years?

frinkky
08-08-2005, 08:30 PM
Too true. The majority of the human race watch our technical demos and wonder what the hell is going on. The average joe is captivated by originality and believability (if there is such a word). Our struggle is to create realism artificially, yet the best anims I have seen are quite basic, technologically. It is the beauty behind the characters behaviour and its mannerisms. It is that that deserves attention. It is almost like watching a good stand up comedian. You laugh because the small intricacies of life they bring to life are known by all.

DimensionalPunk
08-09-2005, 09:57 PM
Too true. The majority of the human race watch our technical demos and wonder what the hell is going on. The average joe is captivated by originality and believability (if there is such a word). Our struggle is to create realism artificially, yet the best anims I have seen are quite basic, technologically. It is the beauty behind the characters behaviour and its mannerisms. It is that that deserves attention. It is almost like watching a good stand up comedian. You laugh because the small intricacies of life they bring to life are known by all.

That's a good point. When I was saying photorealism will become redundant I was thinking of the shaders and renderers but animating without mocap is a different story. Will mocap make animating uneeded? Not at today's standard. Throwing animation into the equation is very interesting. It would open up a photorealistic art where you could do manurisms and acting that a normal actor isn't capable or talented enough to do.

avmport
08-10-2005, 08:50 AM
I agree with you my friend. I believe that, on a few years, photorealism will be a common place, and what will really count in a artistic production will be the idea, the concept beyond that. Itīs not about form itself, itīs about the idea beyond the form. Itīs about "depuration" of that idea, created in a form. It has a lot to do with conceptual art, and i think 3d will turn that way too.

cheers,

JMcWilliams
08-10-2005, 12:08 PM
It would open up a photorealistic art where you could do manurisms and acting that a normal actor isn't capable or talented enough to do.

Old news man, films have been using digital replacement actors for stunts for years now ;) :D :twisted:

arquebus
08-13-2005, 04:46 AM
This is one of the biggest fears in art, that if you become too realistic, you lose style and creativity. Its really a shame because a lot of artists purposely hold back their technic and sort of stay content with a medium level of quality because it looks like man made art, and never unlock the potencial effects that photorealism opens.

This fear originated with the invention of photography. Suddenly many professional artists were no longer appreciated for making portraits and recording historical events. It is no coincidence that the abstract art movement occured at the exact same time as the popularisation of photography. What great secrets has abstract art unlocked in mankinds awareness? None, in my opinion. CG has given the power of art back to the people by sheer popular demand. Hot CG artists dont hangout in art gallerys and babble double talk about how art is some kind of mind science, theyre just out there doing it.

FatherGlory
08-13-2005, 08:46 AM
I personaly hope it does become redundant... but not in a bad way. I just want to get it over with so its so common place that everyone can do it no problem with no focus. Then everyone can spend less time on the task of creating things photorealistic and more on being creative.

I am not saying photorealistic CG can't be creative what I mostly mean is it still requires lots of skill, tools and hardware to get it to look real. Once that stuff is outa the way the artist will have a lot more energy to devote on what to do with this new Redundant powerfull asset.

BTW: My opinion is mostly coming from the video game field. The industry is focused on powefull graphics 90% games are utter crap. I much rather have that realism part taken care of so the industry can focus on the more creative aspects.... but that is complete other topic.. :)

JMcWilliams
08-13-2005, 12:51 PM
BTW: My opinion is mostly coming from the video game field. The industry is focused on powefull graphics 90% games are utter crap. I much rather have that realism part taken care of so the industry can focus on the more creative aspects.... but that is complete other topic.. :)

I don't think it will ever get to a stage where 'anybody' can make photorealism with ease, unless you talk about having lots of presets for them to use in which case they aren't the ones creating it so they are only fooling themselves.

But yes, it will get easier in the sense that we'll get better tools, such as realtime engines that have powerful lighting and FX. But trust me, bad artists will make it look unrealistic. :D

The rest I agree with. :thumbsup:

NeptuneImaging
08-13-2005, 04:03 PM
I don't think it will get redundant because there are some artists out there who will want to get to this level of work in their careers. For me personally, I do not want to recreate a human being in CG because for one: Reality is already boring as it is and two, not everyone (ones that I know personally) can make something totally realistic.

I am going to be making a short kids film soon, and I want the characters to be realistic but no so real that I lose perspective...photorealism make be a plus for me, but not a requirement or an aim. Thm main character is a little kid, and my friend drew up a stylised version of the character and I was like "alright, it looks cool". My aim for this film is not a super-realistic effects show. I will not make the same mistake Square did on Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (I loved the movie BTW)

Bottom line, if I do a photorealistic piece, it's cool...but I'll keep it focused on the creative end. The best photorealism can be made in other parts of CG, most likely animation. :)

And if I am bantering too much, I apolgise...

Kashif R.

JMcWilliams
08-13-2005, 04:10 PM
Reality is already boring as it is


I never understand how anyone can ever say that. :shrug: The universe is full of the most interesting things. As you mentioned, photorealism has it's place, it's what you do with it that counts. :D

NeptuneImaging
08-13-2005, 04:18 PM
I am sorry about that, I should have clarified what I meant. Creating reality is boring...I would not want to make a place that mimics what I already have. I would rather have fun with it...

and you are right, the universe is full of interesting things. Sometimes I grow inspired by the realistic looking characters and environments, but sometimes they look too perfect (mainly the buxom babe character). After reading Leigh's book numerous times, to me, the best photorealism are things in CG that are not perfect....

PSR
08-13-2005, 04:18 PM
It is no coincidence that the abstract art movement occured at the exact same time as the popularisation of photography. What great secrets has abstract art unlocked in mankinds awareness? None, in my opinion.

Has something of a "What did the Romans ever do for us?" ring to it.
:hmm:

JMcWilliams
08-13-2005, 04:21 PM
I am sorry about that, I should have clarified what I meant. Creating reality is boring...I would not want to make a place that mimics what I already have. I would rather have fun with it...
.

Ahhh, I see. :D yes, then we are both in agreement.

NeptuneImaging
08-13-2005, 04:24 PM
Oh, of course.... :)

I hope to show my attempt at it...

CGTalk Moderation
08-13-2005, 04:24 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.