The end of uncanny valley

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2013   #16
Originally Posted by Faux: Wasn't the uncanny valley first 'detected' in chimps?


The term originally comes from robotics. But it only applies to realistic representations of humans -- so chimps don't really count, and neither does Gollum, Davy Jones, etc.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #17
Originally Posted by grahamef: The term originally comes from robotics. But it only applies to realistic representations of humans -- so chimps don't really count, and neither does Gollum, Davy Jones, etc.


I'd count anything that could be mapped to the curve of the valley. Chimps can indeed be unsettling when they start seeming too human.

I've always assumed the uncanny valley was a defense mechanism our ancestors have long used to avoid illness as being naturally repulsed when encountering individuals whose skin-tone, movement or mannerisms seem somehow wrong might help one avoid contracting an infectious disease, ingesting a contaminant or even passing on certain congenital defects through breeding.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #18
I'd say it's impressive. I spend a lot of time watching animals move and nothing about this jumped out at me that I would have picked up just casually watching it.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #19
Originally Posted by grahamef: The term originally comes from robotics. But it only applies to realistic representations of humans -- so chimps don't really count, and neither does Gollum, Davy Jones, etc.


I still get it with Gollum, even in the Hobbit. There was one scene I've seen online where he does so many eye darts in such a short time it just looks freakish to me. I feel like he's tracking a bee that's flying around his head at crazy speed. Maybe an animation director told the artist to do that, maybe Andy Serkis was hamming up the scene in the reference, whatever it was it just felt wrong and mechanical to me.

Cheers,
Brian
 
Old 05 May 2013   #20
Originally Posted by grahamef: The term originally comes from robotics. But it only applies to realistic representations of humans -- so chimps don't really count, and neither does Gollum, Davy Jones, etc.


The original hypothesis was about robotics, but that in no way limits it from being applied to other areas outside of robotics.

As far as I remember it, it didn't just provide an explanation as to why we might find near-realistic representations of humans unsettling, but also why we might find non-human robots appealing.

As it applies to visual art (moving or still), it can explain why we tend to have a more negative reaction to photo-realistic humans over photo-realistic representations of non-human characters such as chimpanzees, mutated hobbits and squid men - in that as we get further away from human, the valley becomes smaller and easier to get out of.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #21
Yes the uncanny valley is the "zone" were a certain level of realism still makes pure believability impossible but at same time turns suspension of disbelieve impossible because of a mixed message.
I think this is very much related to consistency of the message. Uncanny valley is when we get a message that says : real, unreal, real, unreal, unreal, real, real, etc... this makes impossible for us to adopt a position.
When i see a cartoon i put into the brain drawer "unrealistic" and close the drawer. And then take pleasure after that rule because of stop(suspend) thinking about it. In the uncanny valley the drawer is always opened.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #22
The Great Quaalude-Ape.

Look good? yes it does.
technical marvel? Yep.
move right? uhm...no.
the under water feel like as was mentioned before is far to exaggerated and constant.
the first thing I did after watching this is go look at some real chimp footage.
and they are ALOT more spastic and twitchy than this guy, yes they move slow a lot of the times, but it is broken up with a lot of fast tick and twitch type movements.
this one looks like he should be smiling and saying "dude" a lot..
not to mention the suicidal tendancy's with the gun in the one shot..
personally I found that to be pretty "uncanny" as well.
__________________
Master & Servant Entry

there are 3 things which may not long be hidden.
The Sun
The Moon
and The Truth.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #23
Originally Posted by pipdixel: We're also hyper sensitive to it. Most audiences can't really see what we see. Its like an editor who can see a single bad frame that someone who doesn't edit would not.


Yes that's another factor to consider.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #24
Originally Posted by earlyworm: The original hypothesis was about robotics, but that in no way limits it from being applied to other areas outside of robotics.

As far as I remember it, it didn't just provide an explanation as to why we might find near-realistic representations of humans unsettling, but also why we might find non-human robots appealing.

As it applies to visual art (moving or still), it can explain why we tend to have a more negative reaction to photo-realistic humans over photo-realistic representations of non-human characters such as chimpanzees, mutated hobbits and squid men - in that as we get further away from human, the valley becomes smaller and easier to get out of.


Maybe my quick post was too terse, but we're in 100% agreement on those points.

Originally Posted by moogaloonie: I'd count anything that could be mapped to the curve of the valley. Chimps can indeed be unsettling when they start seeming too human.


My point was that you shouldn't say that the uncanny valley has been crossed, and then hold up a clip of a realistic chimp as proof. Most humans are not familiar enough with the subtle details of chimp appearance, movement, and behaviour to be unsettled when a depiction is close but not close enough, in the same way that we are unsettled by similar depictions of humans.

Very impressive work by The Mill in any case.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #25
Originally Posted by Poisen: the under water feel like as was mentioned before is far to exaggerated and constant.
the first thing I did after watching this is go look at some real chimp footage.
and they are ALOT more spastic and twitchy than this guy, yes they move slow a lot of the times, but it is broken up with a lot of fast tick and twitch type movements.


I guess it's open to interpretation, but to me it read as a deliberate choice, to make the piece more dramatic and to really drive home that this is not a normal healthy animal, it's one that's lethargic and depressed. Yes it was pushed further than reality but that's something that can be desirable in animation/movies/graphic novels etc. Push the point to make it read as clearly as possible. Sure I can nitpick the motion (I study animation so it's part of my job to do that) but I think in general it achieves the needs of the scene and communicates the message effectively. That for me is the most important goal and to me this piece is very successful in that respect.

My wife watched the piece and had an immediate emotional reaction and empathy for the 'character'. I think that's exactly what the client wanted to achieve.

Cheers,
Brian

Last edited by Horganovski : 05 May 2013 at 05:42 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #26
I'd like to know if real chimpanzees find this uncanny or not.
I found the 1:20 mark unsettling, was that testicles?
 
Old 05 May 2013   #27
The muscle sysems and hair interaction is certainly fascinating, anyway.
__________________
Project Dogwaffle is the (Un) natural Paint Program! http://www.squirreldome.com/
 
Old 05 May 2013   #28
Its a cool tech demo for sure but it still didn't look quite right. I think the Caesar in that new Planet of the Apes was more realistic (even though his skin tones were made such that he might be more relate-able to the audience).
 
Old 06 June 2013   #29
Reasons why not?

Fantastic Work, very well done.

What seemed immediately off to me (and it may be my unfamiliarity with apes) was the lips.
They felt way too smooth, lacking of or too small of crevasses.

I feel that it could be similar to when you see a super shinny car (even in real life) it feels CG. That you have to scuff it up a little, give some inconsistencies to make it feel more real?
 
Old 06 June 2013   #30
Yes, very well done.

The thing that occurred to me first was that the skin seemed too translucent and too much subsurface scattering. Seems like apes would have more of a dust covering than that. I have more of the dust covering than that.
Also the bump on the skin seemed a bit too smooth and could use a little more refinement.
Other than that, the only thing that stood out to me was that the hair was a little to fine in places, but that's a nit pick.
If we all still used VHS none of this would be a problem.
__________________
Project Dogwaffle is the (Un) natural Paint Program! http://www.squirreldome.com/
 
Thread Closed share thread



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 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.