CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-20-2013, 11:43 AM   #16
Dillster
Always Learning
 
Dillster's Avatar
portfolio
Dylan Saunders
Dublin, Ireland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooby
....We can fool people in certain types of cinematic shots with certain lighting, but I dont feel a blanket 'we're there', which implies full mastery, is an accurate statement..


I think that statement referred to stills, not animations. The Galleries here have plenty of stills that look perfectly realistic, as judged by the responses in the related threads. We apparently have a harder time spotting a fake human in a still image, but an easier time spotting the flaws when it is animated.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 11:48 AM   #17
Dillster
Always Learning
 
Dillster's Avatar
portfolio
Dylan Saunders
Dublin, Ireland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO
.......Often enough in fact it's the hyper reality effect throwing people off..


You could have something there. I wonder if they started adding grain to movies so they looked more like those shot on film years ago, would it fool us a bit more with CG human realism?
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 11:54 AM   #18
ThE_JacO
MOBerator-X
 
ThE_JacO's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Raffaele Fragapane
That Creature Dude
Animal Logic
Sydney, Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,954
We add grain because we have plates to match. Chemical film has chemical grain, and digital shoots have sensor noise.
The grain and colour offsets we add are meant to align to the plate when we have one we work on top of, or to make the CG sequences fit into the general photography and not stand out as too pristine when you have full CG scenes.

As simple as that.
__________________
"As an online CG discussion grows longer, the probability of the topic being shifted to subsidies approaches 1"

Free Maya Nodes
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:00 PM   #19
patfour
Frequenter
 
patfour's Avatar
Paul Allen Tillery IV
Digital content creator, filmmaker
Atlanta, USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
I don't think digital doubles are a fair comparison because they are primarily used in action scenes. Show me a digital double framed from the chest up, standing their doing nothing, and I suspect it won't fool anyone.


I think a strong example of this being "really close, but not quite there" would be TRON: Legacy's Clu and the digital Flynn near the beginning (apologies that not all those images are from the film). In still frames they look to me like they exist as real, physical objects, but as wax figures rather than living humans. I accepted this for Clu since he only existed in a digital world, but for Flynn in the "real world" I found it distracting.

I should emphasize that I have huge respect for the artists who worked on those characters, and the effects are much better than anything I'm capable of doing. Still, at the end of the day I didn't find the characters' rendering convincingly "alive."

I'm sure there have been digital doubles that totally fooled me in the 2-3 years since, but I'm inclined to think that when they're 100% convincing, it's often helped by framing, action, and motion blur that shields them from scrutiny.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:30 PM   #20
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
I don't think digital doubles are a fair comparison because they are primarily used in action scenes. Show me a digital double framed from the chest up, standing their doing nothing, and I suspect it won't fool anyone. I haven't really seen fire done convincingly in a film yet either.


Digi doubles are certainly not only for action scenes. We did stuff for the one Harry Potter film where the digital versions replaced the actors' faces for a transformation sequence. The animation was a little strange for me, but the shading? Spot on. Also, regardless of how a digi double is being used, they're still lookdev'd to a high degree, including close up renders and comparisons which are shown to the VFX sup.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 05-20-2013, 01:02 PM   #21
ThE_JacO
MOBerator-X
 
ThE_JacO's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Raffaele Fragapane
That Creature Dude
Animal Logic
Sydney, Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by leigh
Digi doubles are certainly not only for action scenes. We did stuff for the one Harry Potter film where the digital versions replaced the actors' faces for a transformation sequence. The animation was a little strange for me, but the shading? Spot on. Also, regardless of how a digi double is being used, they're still lookdev'd to a high degree, including close up renders and comparisons which are shown to the VFX sup.


That's all in the UVs though! (see post #4).
__________________
"As an online CG discussion grows longer, the probability of the topic being shifted to subsidies approaches 1"

Free Maya Nodes
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:17 PM   #22
sentry66
Expert
 
sentry66's Avatar
portfolio
node crazy
USA
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooby
I wouldnt say 'we're there' yet shading wise. We can fool people in certain types of cinematic shots with certain lighting, but I dont feel a blanket 'we're there', which implies full mastery, is an accurate statement.

For example, even if you just take a still from this, I have never seen any shading that is as convincing on this level, and certainly not in motion. you look at this and you just know that it isn't CGI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HD0QHCT9g

I spend much time studying this area, so I'd love to be shown a CGI example which has a similar level of actual realism.



Exactly, that's what where my line of thinking is as well.

There's so much subtlety to everything in that video

And I mean, that video is only 1080p30....what if there was an 8k high-fps version of it? What if the camera pulled in even closer and we were just staring at a patch of his skin below the eyelid?

I've spent my career studying how biology structures are actually made like this close up of skin:

and how those bulges are then made up of these:


they all have micro-translucent properties that collectively form a complex macro appearance of SSS. That macro SSS is what CG artists currently dial in, but that doesn't hold up when you zoom in further also with higher resolutions.

All those translucent shapes are layered together as dead flaking skin, alive skin, and fat:

Then there's also muscles, blood/pulse, and other things that change the macro shading

If you could see that last image in motion, it'd blow people's mind how complicated it is with the skin stretching and bulging while gliding and squishing over the fat layer with tension points where it moves more in some areas and not as much in others.

not to mention a lot of skin is moist with refractive oil in all those cracks further complicating the shading


I mean, how many artists bother to put hairs on lips to get the shading that much more accurate?
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/316187/enlarge
Instead we fake it with a blurry reflection slider instead of using normal sharp reflections reflecting a complex and dynamic micro surface to create the reflection blur.

It's the same thing as the old argument of using specularity vs reflections. Reflections are better, but more expensive. Before blurry reflection algorithms became the norm, people couldn't fathom using reflections on every object in their scene - same with SSS/translucency. People were often content using straight lamberts for a lot of the objects and ignored the subtle broad blurry reflections that were actually happening and the small details they can pic up when you crop in close to them.

We simulate everything right now with pixel maps instead of geometry - which works fine for today's current film standards. People have pulled off fantastic shots that are perfectly good enough to fool people in that specific instance, but resolutions are getting higher. Frame rates are getting higher. Stereo 3D is getting better. The magnification across the board is getting more extreme.

I've been dealing with this at my job for awhile now with doctors wanting to show the person's head so people are quickly oriented, and then zoom into a craniotomy to show what they see under their surgical microscope - and have that transition seamlessly hold up rendered at (as of a 6 months ago) 4k stereo at 60fps.

Techniques and the amount of detail we have down right now won't hold up as well in the future under the scrutiny of newer technology and newer cinematic shots that'll demand realism beyond what's currently capable.

Chances are, whatever CG we think looks uncanny valley right now probably would have looked fine on low-res VHS. I mean, just look at this VHS/DVD/bluray image:

Last edited by sentry66 : 05-20-2013 at 09:53 PM.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:44 PM   #23
Narntson
Expert
 
Narntson's Avatar
portfolio
Noah Arntson
Glendale, United%2BStates
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooby

I spend much time studying this area, so I'd love to be shown a CGI example which has a similar level of actual realism.


The term 'actual realism' cracks me up-- how can one realize this in cg?

The Benjamin Button crew sold me pretty good!
 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:58 PM   #24
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentry66
Exactly, that's what where my line of thinking is as well.

There's so much subtlety to everything in that video

And I mean, that video is only 1080p30....what if there was an 8k high-fps version of it? What if the camera pulled in even closer and we were just staring at a patch of his skin below the eyelid?


But that's got absolutely nothing to do with this thread, which is about "why do some CG people look dead?". The answer to that question is not "because current shaders and geometry limitations don't allow us to zoom into their skin at a microscopic level". For the purposes of the topic being discussed here, the shading technology, as myself and one or two others have already pointed out, has been there for a while. We're able to simulate skin pretty damn well for renders of CG humans characters, well enough that the CG doubles are, as I mentioned before, virtually indistinguishable from the original person. You talk about faking things as if that's bad - who cares how it's done? How it looks is what's important. Does it look real, even though they're using blurred reflections instead of tiny hairs? Yes? Then it doesn't matter that they didn't go in there and create tiny hairs.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:20 PM   #25
sentry66
Expert
 
sentry66's Avatar
portfolio
node crazy
USA
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by leigh
But that's got absolutely nothing to do with this thread, which is about "why do some CG people look dead?". The answer to that question is not "because current shaders and geometry limitations don't allow us to zoom into their skin at a microscopic level". For the purposes of the topic being discussed here, the shading technology, as myself and one or two others have already pointed out, has been there for a while. We're able to simulate skin pretty damn well for renders of CG humans characters, well enough that the CG doubles are, as I mentioned before, virtually indistinguishable from the original person. You talk about faking things as if that's bad - who cares how it's done? How it looks is what's important. Does it look real, even though they're using blurred reflections instead of tiny hairs? Yes? Then it doesn't matter that they didn't go in there and create tiny hairs.


I think it has everything to do with this thread. I also don't care what technique is used either, but if a technique has an obvious limit to how well it'll hold up to scrutiny, another one must be chosen.

Something isn't accurate enough for the context they're being shown in - that's all.

Just because a CG double looks perfect in a medium range shot at 24fps with heavy motion blur, grain, and color grading, doesn't mean it'll hold up to some of the portrait close up high-res shots posted here on this site where people can however long they want to carefully evaluate every pixel.

Those portrait shots put everything under a magnifying glass and subtle things can start standing out as looking a little off.


How do we know the models the OP is talking about wouldn't hold up in normal film shots? Maybe they would hold up just fine in that context, but not under careful scrutiny when they're removed from the film and rendered up close in plain lighting with no post effects.



I remember 15 years ago playstation 1 video games using 32x32 pixel sprites for trees. That worked fine for the PS1's 256×224 output resolution. That technique doesn't hold up anymore with 1080p gaming - unless it's for far away shots.

Last edited by sentry66 : 05-20-2013 at 10:33 PM.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:30 PM   #26
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,791
You're totally missing the point. Why remove it from a shot to analyse it? Why your determined focus on technique and process as opposed to final product? As I said before, for the purposes of this particular discussion, the only thing that matters is the final result. If the result looks real, then who cares if it still looks real or not when you pull the asset out of the shot?

Having said that, film assets are generally nevertheless lookdev'd in neutral environments. It seems to me that you've not worked on a film production before, because I've never worked in a studio that lookdev'd assets in graded and shot-lit environments from the get go. The actors are shot in neutral environments and that's how they're matched in the initial lookdev process, or least that's been the case in every studio I've worked at. Neutral lighting, gray backdrop, no grading, just like the environment in which the reference photography was done in.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:49 PM   #27
sentry66
Expert
 
sentry66's Avatar
portfolio
node crazy
USA
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,075
I'm not saying remove it from the shot at all.

I'm saying the context they're shown in is what matters as far as how detailed they need to be.


Rendering at a lower resolutions makes the uncanny valley disappear.
Render at higher resolutions increases the chances of uncanny valley being easier to detect.

if something is noticeably wrong looking at a certain display resolution, then that asset doesn't have enough detail and care put into it for that particular situation.

I'm not saying you need to be able to zoom into an object down so that 1mm of skin fills the entire frame (though you would if that was what the shot was). Increasing the final output resolution effectively zooms in on assets.

You might not be able to rely on the same exact techniques when movies are shot at 8k. Assets will need to be even higher quality in order to hold up to that amount of final out resolution.

Some of the current techniques have limitations and will eventually have to be abandoned in order to simulate reality a little closer when shots are viewed under the higher magnifying glass future displays technology will bring.



I understand the point of this thread was the OP asking what does it take to fix uncanny valley shots.

My answer would be:
it's a moving target

There is no one answer that holds true as the most important factor for each situation.

It depends on the viewing resolution, proximity of the asset to the camera, and if it's an animation - then temporal resolution is another factor. You'll only notice something is off if you can see it clearly.

Last edited by sentry66 : 05-20-2013 at 11:20 PM.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 11:33 PM   #28
Ruramuq
ruɾamöχ
 
Ruramuq's Avatar
portfolio
Ruramuq   
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 678
Realism, has been achieved visually? but then in motion, not yet..
Not for me, the visual aspect and motion itself come together.

Saying that we're able to do x thing, since long ago is meaningless for the simple reason that movies are directed to fit into specific cases. This means that these digital doubles are limited in one way or many ways.. to satisfy a purpose.
So it does not fit the idea of 'achieved realism'.
Instead I would say, 'good, satisfactory composition'.

The best for this kind of discussion, would be to be specific about what movie's scenes look good/bad. Then we would analyze them as much as possible. And maybe understand the reason of why they are, yet not realistic.

Everything in a movie is supposed to be directed, so the viewer focus it's eyes to where ever the action is. Therefore, lack of realism could pass unnoticed in many cases, not because one has been fooled, but because one did not observe it in detail.
There are other cases were cg things could pass unnoticed, but most are imo, vague situations.

Uncanny valley, is popularly used to define something as realistic or not.
It has turn ambiguous(wrong), to be used reliably.
__________________
I may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 11:53 PM   #29
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,884
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
It's the Eyes. The eyes are important just to avoid the problems (never mind about trying to "excel" with them).

The solutions, until recently, have had more to do with appealing to the perception of depth or feeling in the eyes than any kind of "Medical Replication" of how eyes work.

The usual advice is knowing where the speculars have to go, how wet you have to make the eyes look, and paying attention to the shadow that eyelids and eyelashes cast on the eyeball as well as checking to make sure the eyeballs reflect enough color from surrounding areas so they don't appear too white.


When you've nailed that. Then you have to work hard again on the motion.
The more realistic something is, the harder you work and in that regard Stylization is also important.

But basically the tactics I've come across that are somewhat effective are more about disarming audience defenses by way of playing with their perception.

It only has to LOOK like a living human being or character after all.

P.S.: And Leigh is right. Final result is the only thing that matters. Our EVE character, for example, featured "contact lenses", fake specular cards, and multiple rows of switchable eyelashes... it was all about making sure the image was what we wanted to a certain level.

Obsessing with some kind of "true solution" is going to be a waste of time. It's called Visual Effects, not human genetics.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 05-20-2013 at 11:57 PM.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 12:04 AM   #30
sentry66
Expert
 
sentry66's Avatar
portfolio
node crazy
USA
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO
And you think all the super slo-mo you see in movies is all shot in lens on Phantoms and there's no CG?


I can't speak for everything, but I thought at least some modern shots were shot with high speed cameras and not relying on CG or vector motion slow-mo filters

http://vimeo.com/48571597




Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
P.S.: And Leigh is right. Final result is the only thing that matters. Our EVE character, for example, featured "contact lenses", fake specular cards, and multiple rows of switchable eyelashes... it was all about making sure the image was what we wanted to a certain level.

Obsessing with some kind of "true solution" is going to be a waste of time. It's called Visual Effects, not human genetics.

I think Leigh and I really are saying the same thing, just focusing on different situations.


You gotta make the asset hold up for the shot it's going to need to do.

If you have an extreme long duration close up shot, you'll have to work that much harder to make it hold up and look believable.

You generally improve realism by bringing things closer to actual physical reality or closer to the human perception - which perceives things in a more exaggerated or stylized way and omits paying attention to other things - hence how magic works via distractions. To some extent, you could say extreme color grading and post effects counts as this.



I gave some examples of what the next few extreme stages would be to work on for realistic skin shading at future resolutions and/or specific extreme shots.

I never said everyone needs to implement that level of detail for every shot they do - it's overkill, unnecessary, and too expensive - if even possible right now with today's hardware.

I just don't think our current techniques with their limitations will still be used 20 years from now in regards to shading. Technology will keep moving forward and we'll keep raising the bar until we have no reason to raise it any further.

The bar will have to be raised at least a little bit when 8k arrives on the scene, especially when more extreme shots are called for.

Last edited by sentry66 : 05-21-2013 at 12:43 AM.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.