René Morel's latest test animation.

[Gilgamesh]

hot damn!!!!!
:eek: :eek:

[dutch]

fantastic!


we all need a little sarcasm: )

[Stahlberg]

Jean-Eric asked me to comment, thanks JE, I might have missed this and that would have been bad:
I like this VERY much, these tests are only getting better and more ambitious, this one is the best one yet I think. Yep. Most likely it's even the best of it's type ever. I wish I had modeling, lighting and shading like that. I just can't say enough good things about it.
The animation - yeah, it's always the animation isn't it... animating realistic human movement seems to be the single hardest thing to do, especially from scratch, by hand. (don't know if this is by hand though.) Note how the neck doesn't seem to respond quite right to the movements of the body - yes the neck moves, but more independently.

When animating I've found there are three basic types of neck/head movements -
1. larger, purposeful movements originating in the neck - following/steering the saccades of the eyes, gestures, stretching, ducking etc
2. inertial motion - when the rest of the spine suddenly moves one way, the neck will bend, sort of take a while to catch up - sort of like waggling a long bamboo pole back and forth.
(Also happens with very large and sudden type 1 moves.)
3. steadying damping motion - instinctive automatic compensation for body movements, so that our heads and eyes move as little as possible - like a steadycam.

Even the first one is hard enough, but 2 and 3 is where it gets really complex, because these often coexist and 'fight' each other. They are almost always very very small movements, but we've evolved to see them clearly, since a large part of our communicating is head/neck movements.
This test is a bit lacking in type 3 movements (I don't think type 2 would be applicable here). The result is a neck that seems to be stiffer than normal.

Hey, I know I couldn't do any better, probably worse. Many are the tears I've cried over trying to get the neck movements right... :)
This IS a fantastic world-class project, can't wait to see more.

[ambassador]

great work and shading, the movement seems to be a bit jittery and jumpy between key movements, still good though.:wip:

[SheepFactory]

:eek:

[3dflasher]

Awesome motion. Superb lighting and modeling, as always. My only complaint is that it's too short. Get to work Rene. We want more videos that last longer ....please!!! :p :p :p :p
Freakin awesome.

[urgaffel]

Increedible texturing, shading, lighting and modeling. But the walk looks a little jerky. Not very jerky, just enough so that you notice that the head moves a little funny. Bobbing up and down kind of... But beautiful nonetheless!

[Dis]

it's down. :(

[stelvis]

I think its interesting that while there are now quite a few people who have succesfully followed in steven's footsteps and created incredibly photoreal looking characters, that there still seems to be enormous problems animating them

this was the principle problem with FF-TSW as well - fantastic looking characters, which, despite some of the best facial animation I've seen (in places), still managed to look completely wooden in all but a few shots

its almost like there is an animators equivalent to the speed of light ie - as a character gets closer to being truly photoreal , you need an exponentially increasing quality of animation to pull off the 'illision of life' succesfully, the result being that its almost impossible to achieve a truly convincing result - no matter how good the animation is there are always little tell tale giveaways that even the most visually ignorant viewer will recognise as being 'false'

strangely enough, the more stylised the character the more and more it can get away with and still have convincing 'life' to it.. theres probably a lesson in there somewhere... :)

stu aitken
stuart.aitken@axisanimation.com

[MINDPHASER]

I for a long time watch your job!
Also I shall say that I like that that you make!

[rebeldreams]

I agree 100% with stelvis. I think it's the "willing suspension of disbelief" thing. We all watch Bugs Bunny and marvel at how realistuc he seems, how human (ok, MOST of us do!) but as a figure approaches 100% realism, our minds start flagging more and more problems. I think it's because as organisms, we're "programmed" to see movement in something that looks like a human being and analyse it, maybe.. if something LOOKS like a human, but doesn't move like one, we start going "MAYDAY! MAYDAY!"

Anyway, enough of the pseudo-philosophy :D

This project is going to be awesome! If I could acheive 1/100th part of what this guy is acheiving, I will be a very VERY happy man.

Peace and love, all.:eek:

[Stahlberg]

You hit it on the head, stelvis! I call it the law of diminishing return. At first a minor amount of time, money and effort will get you 60 - 70 % of the way to a finished 3d piece, either still image or animation. Then you need to double and redouble the effort and time to rise the next 20 % (yes, even considering technological advances during the same time period). And so on. At the end the scale rises much faster for animation than for stills. Very frustrating, because at first you think, this is fun... then gradually the feeling changes to despair... :)

[Wiro]

I can kind of see a reason to try and make photoreal characters...kind of why people try to climb the everest. But still, I can't help feel that so much time is wasted. Why not just film some people? No offence to those that are really into photoreal humans but personally I think that other than for novel purposes is there really a reason to push for this? I'll take stylized ones with proper character above digital manequins anyday.

I have to say I'm nonetheless impressed by the technical skill of Rene though.

Wiro

[JacquesD]

Originally posted by Wiro
I can kind of see a reason to try and make photoreal characters...kind of why people try to climb the everest.
Probably for the Challenge and to become better climber,
that'd be probably easier for them to climb any other mountains after that.
I'd tend to think the same way for CG.
I'm pretty sure that to achieve a very good piece of art(image, animation) even if that's not realistic but something really beautiful, you need to be very good at a lots of things which are required in realism such as shading, Lighting,...

But still, I can't help feel that so much time is wasted.
I think that go for that kind of challenge requires a very good sense of observation, to be very good at modeling, animating, shading. That means to me that the closer you get to realism the better you are.
Why do think Pixar spends so many time doing research on shading, and lightings for their movies?, they make cartoon movies but they want a leaf(Bug life)to be as detailed as a real one and to react to the light the way it does in real life, the skin to look like real human skin(Toy story II),....

I could go on giving reasons why I think it's interesting to go for that kind of challenge(realism in general) but that would take too long.


Why not just film some people? No offence to those that are really into photoreal humans but personally I think that other than for novel purposes is there really a reason to push for this? I'll take stylized ones with proper character above digital manequins anyday.

I have to say I'm nonetheless impressed by the technical skill of Rene though.

Wiro

That the way I think, nothing personal
:)

[Stahlberg]

Why go for realism? Well, I guess in my case I guess it's based in a love for the incredible richness and beauty of reality... I just can't help it. Cartoons are fun to watch with my kids, but as a project, would never inspire me to do my best. Other kinds of stylizations too, to me they all pale compared to reality.

So will realistic virtual characters ever be popular? Maybe - they do have advantages over the real thing:
1. You can redo anything later - the language, ethnicity, lighting, dress code, weather, etc.
2. You can easily create programmable libraries of responses for interacting with humans
3. SFX - stunts become easier, aging and gaining or loosing weight, even loosing limbs, or turning into a monster, is simple.
4. Compositing becomes easier.
5. A great artist like Renee can dictate exactly the look he wants, without having to compromise.
6. And yes they do also lack the biggest disadvantage in working with other people - unpredictability, unreliability, or even downright badness. :)

Of course there are also disadvantages, but most of those are getting smaller each year.

[Wiro]

I can see your point Stahlberg and I respect that but it just doesn't give me the same kick to see a perfectly realisticly modeled human which as such is just a copy of reality (even if it is a very damn good recreation as you and Rene are doing) as I get from seing someone interpreting reality to create their own twist
on it.

And to your points:
1. You can redo anything later - the language, ethnicity, lighting, dress code, weather, etc.

Well that's cool but you can do that with good actors as well. Someone has to speak the language, changing ethincity will change the way you look so you might as well change actor or use some good makeup artists. Lighting, dress code and weather are not bound to CG either.

2. You can easily create programmable libraries of responses for interacting with humans

So can real humans and with much less work involved as well.

3. SFX - stunts become easier, aging and gaining or loosing weight, even loosing limbs, or turning into a monster, is simple.

This may well be the best reason; to create a human to augment real actors. But I can't see CG humans actually being the main attraction of a movie, totally replacing human actors. This is where my sceptisism comes in; you can get away with a few seconds of synthetic humans if there is no way to do it with real ones but I still doubt there is any reason to use them fully throughout other than for a wow effect (which didn't last for long in Final Fantasy)

4. Compositing becomes easier.

Sure, but again...as an addition to real humans.

5. A great artist like Renee can dictate exactly the look he wants, without having to compromise.

So could the people behind Final Fantasy. It still didn't make me think they looked more interesting than real actors.

6. And yes they do also lack the biggest disadvantage in working with other people - unpredictability, unreliability, or even downright badness.

You call it a disadvantage, I call it having character :)

Maybe I'm too square minded Steven and yes, there certainly is a use for photoreal digital actors but it's just that...thing...you know...

I saw a painting a while ago of a candle in a room at a museum in Basel. It looked absolutely photoreal and it was impressive to know it was actually done by hand with a brush. But compared to the more stylized, rougher stuff around that painting...well, I knew what looked more interesting.
On the other hand, that candle could have done damn well as a matte painting. So yes, everything has it's place.


I know what you mean too Ripper. I purposedly exaggerated by saying it's a waste of time to get some reaction :)

I've had my go at creating a "real" body as well and I learnt alot from it. But don't think that creating a human is the peak of 3D. Even if you know anatomy down to the smallest bone it doesn't mean you can create everything else because of that. There are enough great artists around that can prove it.

Hope I haven't made myself any enemies here...it's all for the sake of discussion ;)

Wiro

[M4Dn355]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
hot damn!!!!!
:eek: :eek:
I think that pretty much sums it up right there!

[Titan]

M4Dn355

I 'll second that Hot DAMN!!!

[Julez4001]

Ripper -- u hit on the nail.
I wish i could run a www. script so whenever anyone ask that question over and over again, YOUR answer would come up.


Also "why did all of the cultures try yo sculpt humans and painters painted in realism...."
would get the same response.

[Stahlberg]

Wiro, I understand where you're coming from, sometimes I've wondered too about what the heck it is I'm doing all day long.
:)
About redoing things - you can't go back and change some things in a movie that's in the can. Not without a huge expense in post production or re-shooting. WIth computer graphics it's much easier, just load the old files, change them and re-render. Or re-use them for a different project. And yes, I can change ethnicity, sex and age in my characters with the use of a morf target and different texture maps, no need to create a whole new character.

Programmable libraries - I'm talking about sequences of animation that join together seamlessly. This is impossible to do in real life.

It doesn't have to be better than real humans, just to the level that the average audience member doesn't care... but it will have to be cheaper than real for it to ever catch on. I think we'll be there within 6 or 7 years. In any case, sooner or later.

Unreliability is not character, not if the supermodel is supposed to be in Atlanta on Wednesday morning and a whole team of pros are waiting for her, and she calls from Rio saying she's not coming because she's sulking about something... that has actually happened to me. Oh, man.

About the guy who painted the candle, the difference is that if you want the real candle it's cheap and easy - but if you want the real supermodel you got to pay thousands of dollars an hour. Where would I or Renee get that kind of money? :)

Lastly, yes, IMHO the human face and body IS the hardest thing to do, in any media. I'm sure Renee can do anything else in 3d he set his mind to, and do it better than most.

[pascal_blanche]

funny.. I always thought that your girls where not photorealist Steven, but surrealist ;) You don't try to copy reality it's like you are trying to push your models beyond that point.. They look fabulous , realistic AND stylistic :) Maybe animation should follow this path .. better than reel.. Always found a bit boring to copy reality.. except the fact that René's work go further than anything i've seen before;) ... but then he`ll get trapped into this anoying problem: people will looking at the little details, nor the whole anim, remember final fantasy the movie... ah crap.. here we go again :wip:

[Stahlberg]

Thanks, Pascal, and the same back to you! :)

[mrben]

PERSONALLY photorealism bores me silly, final fantasy was as dull as dishwater apart from the crazy alien things. i have alot of respect for those of you that persue this goal. it just seems a bit .. well .. anal

it's all a matter of taste .. art for me is way more interesting now than it was when people were trying figure out how to represent a leg or an arm with paint, now they're trying to represent spirit and soul .. far more alluring i feel.

great work though ..

hehe

ben

[alchoi]

Wicked stuff man ... here's one for the animators ...

Couple of stylistic suggestions ...

I'd vary the timing (ever so slightly ... I'm talking in terms of two to four frames) on the characters eyebrow movements to break that symmetry up a bit ...

Also, I'd try using the eyebrows to antic eye movements a little bit more ... it pushes the feeling of spontaneity in the acting ...

And lastly, when moving through an expression, I usually prefer pushing the opening expression and landing on a really strong closing expression ... just in terms of what the audience retains ... I like the closing expression a lot .. I'd just push it a bit more so he seems lost just a little deeper in some grim thought ...

About the neck movements seeming a bit stiff, I got that impression too ... and maybe (I'll go back and play the clip again after this suggestion) but perhaps the timiing on the torso should be even slower then the timing on the head jitters ... and maybe the head jitters could slow in and slow out a touch more so they seem less even and less like a metronome ...


Again, these are just stylistic suggestions in how I'd approach this particular scene ... but truth be told, I ws blown away by it on first viewing ... it's my belief that when people start to nitpick an idea, they generally trully enjoyed it (ie. all the little quirks and continuity errors people are spotting in the Lord of the Rings now).

Heheh ... anyway, good work ... and I hope my suggestions help.

Al.

[James Lang]

Personally, I found the characters dull and unispiriing.

Brilliantly modelled and textured aside.

I wonder when we will see lipsync with actual 'sound', I'm sick of waiting a month and half between 'tests' on the site, it's lost all it's original glory, and I for one am simply not arsed about seeing the end product, the first woman and man were greatm, the second woman was way too much like the first, and the old woman has to be the crappest thing I've seen so far on the site. Like I said nice models and textures, but I wonder when the final product will hit - summer 2012?

:/
:annoyed:

[mao]

:eek: Feel like watching Final Fantasy:eek:

[polymath]

LOL

I think some of you are missing a good use for 3D Human-Like Characters. On the computer(not to mention on the canvas too), we can go hyperrealistic. Its a bit difficult to do that with real people ;) Though not really an important issue, I think it expands our creativity.

Who else can make humans fly without wires?

;)

Must have been incredibly difficult if that short was done by hand/keyframing :( Looks great though ;)

[Stahlberg]

James Lang, that's like looking up at Michelangelo working on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and shouting "Hey, when's it gonna be finished? It was cool at first, but it's been 5 years and I'm BOOOORED! You suck!"

(Except M. got paid for that, and I don't think Renee is for this. So please be more constructive and supportive.)

[rebeldreams]

You're right there, Stahlberg... but didn't Pope Julius II spend about 10 years doing just that ?? Sometimes, genius is misunderstood.. or should that be misunderestimated..?

BTW, my two-penneyworth on the animation itself. I get the feeling that the character is "strutting", and so the exaggerated movements are justified (of course I could be whistlin' dixie...) It looks to me like the character hiimself is doing one of those sarcastic "Oh so it's like THAT is it..?" speeches to himself.

Yeah, ok, I'm probably way off, but that's what it looks like to me...

C'ya!

Callum

[James Lang]

Originally posted by Stahlberg
James Lang, that's like looking up at Michelangelo working on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and shouting "Hey, when's it gonna be finished? It was cool at first, but it's been 5 years and I'm BOOOORED! You suck!"

(Except M. got paid for that, and I don't think Renee is for this. So please be more constructive and supportive.)

Well, I'm sorry but that's my opinion.

And no, that's hardly the same comparison Steven, I don't need to be constructive 'OR' supportive on this at all, like I said the models are nicely modelled and textured brilliantly, but so far, over time, I have been severly disappointed with what's been coming forward from the amazon soul team, I don't know if Rene is getting paid for this either, but I'm sure he will be when he releases the final, but I wonder just how many of you guys will actually pay for this future 'online' comic, I'll bet not many of you at all will even visit the site again once it's all finalised and requires payment to view online animations, yes? And they're getting use of a motion capture studio, hmmm, I beg to differ from they're so-called all on our spare time and no budget stance, as they seem to be getting a lot of professional help on the side, I'm saddened to see 3d artists the likes of rene being made out to be some sort of 3d gods, if the market wasn't flooded with so much piracy and students with no bloody art skill to start off (here's another head - done with no reference - etc, etc), there'd be none of this. Oh, if only everybody spent some time and used reference when they created stuff everybody would be this good.

BTW, on a personal note, but not meant as a stab at you, I would've stayed with Nurbs modelling instead of moving onto subds, as I personally don't think your new models (subd ones) are anywhere near as good as your original nurbs models.
and the animation...hmmm.....
:mad:

[JacquesD]

James Lang quoted
if only everybody spent some time and used reference when they created stuff everybody would be this good.

What does it mean exactly?
Do you really think that anybody with good references, same tools and enough time could do better than any Great artists like this one for instance(http://www.dusso.com/)?

http://users.skynet.be/fa009830//WebPics/Dusso_01.jpg

Do me a favor, show it to me!
I'm really looking foward to seeing this!

[stelvis]

>>I can kind of see a reason to try and make photoreal characters...kind of why people try to climb the everest. But still, I can't help feel that so much time is wasted. Why not just film some people? <<

hehe - yeah i know exactly what you mean...
ironically enough since I'm kinda known for doing that sort of thing as well :)

I think its some kind of frankenstein complex myself - I WILL create life!

I still find it facinating to try - though as steven says the more you push the longer and longer it takes

I'd be quite happy if the technology for capturing a real actor's performance and transferring it to a 'digital actor' worked enough to be convincing though - I think that actually does give a kind of valid reason to be persueing the whole thing since it would effectively revolutionise who could become an actor and the type of characters we might see - I don't want to get into a fight with animators here by the way - I think for stylised characters animation is far superior to any kind of mocap approach, but for real characters I think some future evolution of mocap (ie one that works properly) is the way to go

stu aitken
stuart.aitken@axisanimation.com

[stelvis]

just to add to the debate a bit:

I completely disagree with Steve on one major thing:

the point of trying to achieve beleivable digital actors should NOT to find some cheap replacement for real people who are considered too difficult (and here I agree with wiro that even unpleaseant aspects of peoples make-up informs their personality, which is what we pay to see after all) or too expensive (and it never will be cheaper anyway) - that way lies utter mediocrity and to me shows a distinct lack of undertsanding of how important subtle things like 'charisma' and personality really are

to me the technology is much more about being able to change or enhance a real actor or performer's (and that category could include pupeteers, animators, whatever) performance. not to replace it with some 'library' of canned motions.

the art and technology behind creating realistic CG characters will lead to anyone being able to become a performer based on talent rather than looks, and will let people who look like one thing play something or somebody completely different.

I can think of many possible occasions where a director might like the way one person performs but needs the character to look diffferent - this has traditionally been done through make up and wardrobe, but ultimately performance driven CG will allow much more flexibility

one last thing - wiro's comment on hyper realism is bang on - I think what most of us are trying to create is some slightly skewed or an exagurated version of reality rather than the mundane and everyday - a bit like the movie or illustration industry itself really

Stu aitken
stuart.aitken@axisanimation.com

[Stahlberg]

I don't need to be constructive

No? Here, in Forum>Critiques>3D Art? Ok...

BTW I'm replying to your comments about my work on this new thread, since this is not the place for it.
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4976 (here)

[Stahlberg]

Stelvis, I did NOT say the point of what I'm doing is to try to find cheap replacements for real actors. I'm saying, sooner or later that's what's going to happen. There's no stopping it, like it or not, and I don't really like it. I grew up with Hollywood, I love movies and stars, I always wanted to be one, I don't want that to disappear. Perhaps the biggest stars can never be touched. I hope so.

You said it will never be cheap enough, well some people said the car would never replace the horse. But technology has this way of slowly but inexorably changing everything, and now we have stinky dangerous metal boxes instead of beautiful horses. Did we gain or loose? Neither, I suppose.

[The Magic Pen]

The movie is to tiny to be able to judge very well but since you are a top notch animator I assume it is good :wip:

[James Lang]

Now on the subject of good artists who do their research and it bloody well shows,

Stelvis - aka - Stuart Aitken

He's a f**kin good artist - who knows his sh*t, and he's one of my own personal fave artists on the 3d scene today, it's people like Stu who should be the one's up there on a pedastal.

[Jean Eric]

I think I must intervene here before this forum gets out of hand (This has already gone a bit too far for my taste).

Please, this is a civilzied discussion forum, not a Bashing ground.

First, I want to reply to Stelvis with all his assumptions regarding René Morel and Amazon Soul.

1. René Morel does this out of his spare time, with no sponsors, no corporate backers or any other help than that of a few friends who have helped with the environments in which his characters will evolve.

2. To my knowledge, René Morel has used no or very little MoCap for his project.

3. René has even turned down several high-profile jobs to work on his personal project which is Amazon Soul.

I have great respect for René and the work because it's a matter of love and passion. Wether or not you agree the goal is worth it, you sometimes have to remember that the road to that goal is often more important than the goal itself.

Why visit an other country when you can stay at home and read a book instead? Because it's not the same thing. Achieving total human realism is still one of the greatest challenges in this industry and it's human nature to challenge the best of challenges. Those who attempt this should be admired IMHO.

Very few people are able to achieve this kind of perfection. People like René or Stahlberg are among the few who are able to reach that level of realism on digital characters. I get angry when someone tells me something like "Yeah, but why go through the trouble, and just make a photograph instead"... Argh!!! You make me really mad... :-)

Thank you!!!

[xynaria]

Regardless of any photorealsim considerations/virtual actor blah blah blah arguements.. does this work? I can't really judge the animation well with that framing, length and size though I like the fact that it avoids a lot of the animation slo mo that inflicts many. Cetainly as a piece of modelling texturing and ABOVE ALL .. character.. I would say this a pretty damned impressive test.


Does James Lang have anything he has done to show us to set us all an inspired example I wonder????? :p


:)

[rendermonkey23]

Well said Jean...

[l_farley13_l]

For Rene:

Awesome little animation posted. I think the skin could flow a little more around the mouth, so the dimples at the ends of the mouth move inwards.

Also it would be interesting to see the whole char walking to so the amount of cushion he takes when stepping down could be seen (of course it also depends on what shoe he's wearing and what he's walking on.)

The raised eyebrow bits works, but it is somewhat odd that the middle does not move very much. If it is sarcasm, the eyes might grow a bit taller too!

About Photorealism:

It's fine as a way of sharpening skills like life drawing etc. but when the ___ hits the fan art really hasn't changed for the last 500 years. Leonardo and Michelangelo didn't copy their subject (not as much so in portraits) , but rather used them as a template for creating a mood or highlighting an expression, and felt free to modify every detail and shadow to create the desired outcome.

Right now it seems so much of "photorealism" are simply studies, not real works of art. A great lot of work and impressive, but not something that started as an attempt to create a certain emotion, and use all that is available in creating the structure and mode of shading to make this emotion palpable.

Usually even a comic book's storyline can be summarized into basic emotions : Why is the character doing what he is doing, obviously he is driven by some mental reaction that continues throughout the story. The best have perhaps a combination of opposing emotions :
A smile of simple heavenly beauty and dark demonic deception.

All in all I think with so much devoted to your comic, you have to be willing to bend and manipulate your created reality and leave something to the imagination with a delicate eye so you may begin to make ART!

Oh .. .. . do I love Da Vinci! Imagine what he'd be doing now, he loved animation, technical hurdles and above all that little spark of persona! :D


-Farley13


Sorry for the long post JE! (and anyone else reading at this point) I'm just very enthusiastic about the possibilities of this genre that suddenly looks like it could become great! (and historical) I want someone of Rene's talent to show something of CG in true beauty so it becomes a medium of exploration for the worlds greatest traditional artist's to take part in too! It almost angers me not to see at least one thing CG represented in “American Artist” which is filled with so much breathtaking handmade work of so many other mediums!

[psumo]

I checked out dusso's site
WOW incredible matte paintings

I wonder how people get this good.

[Totitch]

i just want to say that realistic style is not my favorit one,but the work done here is really really great!
Too much great maybe for jealous people! ;)
The work is very good and it looks that the hearts are in it!!!
I like your stuff,especially the women face...
just one critic: Hurry up!!! :p :p (What about one update every month! :rolleyes: )

Respect!

(And stop squabbling!!! isn't it a happy happy joy forum? :bounce: )

[AndrewMyers]

About photorealism:

All of you seem to be skipping over a major point. What about games? The technology in consoles and PCs today is increasing so fast that I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years they have enough power to do GI, hair, fur, physics, a billion polys per FRAME *cough*, all in real-time. Just look at 3D in games 5 years ago compared to today. Or the fact that 10 years ago it would take me a whole weekend to render one 640x480 image, but now my home PC can do realtime physics sims.

This means so much for the gaming world! Imagine being able to play a game where the character is totally realistic, to the point of being indistinguishable from life. Sure, it would be easier to film a person if it were film, or to take a photo instead of make a photoreal render, but for games, I don't see any quick way of being able to put a real person into a video game. Photorealistic realtime gaming is going to be the revolution that creates a real space for these artists who challenge themselves to create the ultimate in "trompe d'liole" <sp?>.

Really, though, if I were playing a game where the character looked like Renee's dude, I'd have a heart attack and die and go straight to heaven. It would rule, would it not?

:p

As for a critique to the work itself, I think the modeling and animation is great. My only real problem is that the entire emphasis is surrounded around a good lip-sync, and without any audio, there's no way to know that it's actually accurate. Without the actual words, he could be saying "kqiu2734o9haksdbc9123+++++3761562hjnbvyafv" for all I know, and it would still seem right.

Andrew

[V-A Rautiola]

For Steven and everybody else..

Digital humans. Why we create them.. Dont know about you, but i like the challenge of creating everything as real as possible. And this "real" is defined by object/character and its surrounding enviroment interaction with each other. Even it would be a cartoon character, it still has to be "real" in order to make it look like it has a life.


Or something.. Maybe we can not find pictures of qirls from the internet. :D

V-A
http://3d.tunneli.com

[JacquesD]

Agree with you V-A Rautiola.

[stelvis]

hi eric - these were *NOT* my comments - why would I be bashing rene when I'm trying to achieve similar goals??

I think you've got somebody else's posts confused with mine - I was merely having (a quite friendly I thought) discussion with Steven and others about where digital character technology was heading - apologies to anybody who though I was doing otherwise, attacking people is not why I'm here

I'd also add that while this thread has become quite heated at times I don't think it has ever got nasty - people DO have very deeply held opinions on this topic for some reason :)

just to set the record straight - I love the work Rene has done for amazon soul and I (and many others) have long been inspired by Steven's (groundbreaking in many ways) digital girls too - I have already stated that I love doing this sort of stuff too - but I do find the debate about its worth quite interesting -ie worth debating - isn't that why we're here?


Stu Aitken aka stelvis
stuart.aitken@axisanimation.com

>>First, I want to reply to Stelvis with all his assumptions regarding René Morel and Amazon Soul.

1. René Morel does this out of his spare time, with no sponsors, no corporate backers or any other help than that of a few friends who have helped with the environments in which his characters will evolve.

...<<

[syomka]

Well, you have a hot discussion here guys!

I would also like to add a couple of words on the matter of why it
needs to strive to create a photorealistic character in 3d. I would
like to draw an analogy with traditional art. Computer is just a new
tool in contemporary art but the principles of the art (including 3d
art) are still the same. It was said by one old master that "we're
drawing from nature to learn how to draw without nature". Picasso,
Kandinsky, Malevich - these artists were able to draw a figure
virtuously (and of course Leonardo, Michelangelo mentioned above).
They all studied the school of traditional art and only after it,
having a huge experience and skills, they moved further to evolve
their own style. The same thing concerns 2d artists that work on cartoon
characters. The characters they draw would be more convincing than
characters of a person who has no special education or experience (of
course there are exclusions of this rule). The same thing happens in
3D when you need to know how to build a realistic character. It
certainly needs to pass this stage. At first time it takes long time
and has many mistakes but gradually you get good experience and
confidence. This experience will come in useful when working on
grotesque characters.

It is obvious: FF wasn't excellent, but do not forget that these guys
were the first. It is not the time to become disheartened and give up
of doing photo realistic characters. Who feels an ability to do it
must do it. Rene one of those! I really like his work. His Mika was a
great inspiration for me and let me to start my own realistic
character.

Why do we need realistic character in movies? Will it replace the real
actors someday? Just ask guy that work on virtual Bruce Lee. There are
may people waiting for Marilyn Monroe and Elvis back to screen… and
many of you remember "Fight club" movie. Some of its scenes were
completely created with virtual characters. Did you notice that?

P.S. Regarding lipsync problem please refer to http://www.keithlango.com/lipSync.html
Sorry for my english.

[Wiro]

Well, the difference is that you could recognize the medium of the old artists as paint, canvas and marble. They had a style that didn't look photoreal per se. Yes they studied anatomy deeply and I think this is indeed something everyone should do before starting on "cartoony" characters.

There are many people waiting for Marilyn and Elvis, yes.
THEM!
Not some digital puppets that have their features but no way will be able to move, sing and act exactly like they did. You can copy their looks but not their soals.

And I doubt anyone would want to watch a nu-Marilyn Monroe film just for the ooh effect.

Wiro

[V-A Rautiola]

Since i was bit out of a topic..

René Morel truly has unique eye for creating humans. Can not wait to see finished clip. He, like Mr. Stahlberg and Mr. Aitken, really inspire us all.

I have to agree that when character gets more complex, animating it gets much harder. When animating humans, motions are easily too rough, exagerated. Since they should be very gentle and overlapping. Specially in face, since motion should be so unsymmetrical and yet in harmony. I found it hard to find balance for both sides of face.
Well, as long as the story is great, tale should be told.

I agree with Stu:
I think its some kind of frankenstein complex myself - I WILL create life!

V-A
http://3d.tunneli.com

[Wiro]

Heheh, yeah but why REcreate life? Wouldn't making your own lifeform be cooler than copying something that already is?

Even Frankenstein didn't look realistic...he was definately stylized. Or do you know of many with a square head and screws sticking out of your neck? ;)

Wiro

[Iain McFadzen]

Don't underestimate the human desire to do something "a little bit better than last time", and the equally potent "a little bit better than everyone else".

The race for photorealism or perfection doesn't need any justification, it's what human beings are all about.

[j3st3r]

Wiro is right...

I prefer Final Fantasy style in the game`s cinematics for example. It`s much better than the movie`s, although it`s fantastic as well. I think the attempt to reach photorealism will kill the unique style, that artists possess.

If you put aside all the best attempts, you will find little differences between them.

PAX

[goodlag]

we love 3d:)

[stelvis]

some more ramblings on the subject :)

the real reason 3D is so obsessed with the photoreal IMO, is becuse thats the very nature of the thing itself - 3d programs are above all else about *simulation*, especially on the rendering side and increasingly on the animation side as well (eg dynamics, bevioural AI, etc) so I think its rather natural that a lot of people creative output is also essentially about simulating the real world - and seeing if they can do it better than the last guy

even when people are inventing fantasy worlds in 3D its still usually about trying to make them look as if they were real - in fact you could even argue that most other 'styles' in 3d (eg cell shaded, cartoony) are really trying to simulate the realworld qualities of other media (eg drawn animation, plasticine stop-motion, etc)

one of the strangest things I keep reading is how people are trying to come up with impressionist style looks in 3d as if somehow that made it more 'creative'...its still about simulating something else

thats what I think 3d is : the art of simulation

[MadS]

To each his(or her :p ) own.

[JacquesD]

stelvis: Totally agree with you :)

[Volker]

I don't understand the whole deal with the realistic animation in the first place.

MOTION CAPTURE IS NOT ANIMATION!!!!!!!

Motion capture to an animator is like data entry to a creative writer. I currently animate for a game company in Santa Monica, and had considered changing studios for certain reasons. Why didn't I? I wouldn't be able to stand cleaning up mocap! All these "realistic" animations aren't even true animation at all.
(In my opinion...)

Don't get me wrong, the images themselves on Rene's site are absolutly beautiful, but why all this talk about the animation? Why don't we talk about how wonderful the actor was?

~Zach

[staglider2]

Nice done within current state of possibilities. No matter how sophisticated (see final fantasy movie) your tools and even expertise are : realistic 3D human animation (especially the face) will always have a noticable degree of robotic-ish, curve-interpolated feel. At least when not mocapped.

david

[xynaria]

If Leonardo/Michealangelo/Picasso/Rembrant/Goya/Matisse/Van Goph/list goe on endlessly were alive today what would they feel about 'photrealism'/computers etc etc and how would this affect their work.
Pass
We can conjecture but we couldn't say..Hell it took David Hockney to point out the use of the frame device in art that seemed to escaped history for so long but the amount using it makes you thnk they'd use anything they could that made a more *(con)vincing* end.

At the end of the day whether any character or enviroment you do is laid claim to by either the *artist* or the viewer on the grounds of photo realism or not is surely ultimately not that relevant.. more so that it works in it's own terms however *photrealistic* the representation and whether as a representation of a real or dead *actual* person or as a convicing piece of Character Design.


It could perhaps be argued that Homer Simpson is a far more convincing character than Micheal Jackson.. but that's a whole other debate, although possibly one that lays itself open to some hopefully inspired (if possibly wicked) humour. :wip: :)

[dmonk]

I think what should matter in the end is whether or not you like the finished piece. I think that if some one creates something that in the end I can say to myself, without being over critical, "hey I liked that." Then that artist has done the job. If something is beautiful, I don't tend to nit pick over the level of "perfection there is in it.

There is no such thing as perfection, but it doesn't hurt to try.

BTW
I think Rene's work is great.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.