3D kitchen

Started by inkydigit, June 30, 2009, 07:52:03 am

Previous topic - Next topic

rcallicotte

Well, I'm not certain.  What I read once is that this has been Pixar's mainline strategy, due to the combined CG and coexisting animation technological limitations in the 3D animation industry overall.  Think about entirely animated films that have tried reaching CG realism (counted on one hand, maybe) and these didn't do all that well.  And, in this in context, special effects houses are not included in what I understand is the animation house industry.  STORY and controlling what Pixar can with their awesome Renderman shaders has gone a long way to making them who they are. 

Anyway, my point - Pixar could have pushed the graphics realism a lot further than almost anyone out there and they haven't.  "Up" is a perfect example.  It's less CG intense overall than "Wall-E". 


Quote from: Walli on July 02, 2009, 05:11:55 am
well, I think its even more complex. Even if Pixar mostly does "cartoon" style - most of their work "feels" real and thats probably even more complicated to reach.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: calico on July 02, 2009, 10:46:40 am
Well, I'm not certain.  What I read once is that this has been Pixar's mainline strategy, due to the combined CG and coexisting animation technological limitations in the 3D animation industry overall.  Think about entirely animated films that have tried reaching CG realism (counted on one hand, maybe) and these didn't do all that well.  And, in this in context, special effects houses are not included in what I understand is the animation house industry.  STORY and controlling what Pixar can with their awesome Renderman shaders has gone a long way to making them who they are. 

Anyway, my point - Pixar could have pushed the graphics realism a lot further than almost anyone out there and they haven't.  "Up" is a perfect example.  It's less CG intense overall than "Wall-E". 


Quote from: Walli on July 02, 2009, 05:11:55 am
well, I think its even more complex. Even if Pixar mostly does "cartoon" style - most of their work "feels" real and thats probably even more complicated to reach.



Uncanny Valley...

A hyperrealistic but just not real enough movie/character is just sort of "rejected" by our mind. We "accept" cartoon-like animations/characters because we sort of know it isn't real and we can simply add stuff with our imagination to make it work for us.
In transition from cartoon to 100% realism you'll have to pass the Uncanny Valley and I think current technology is just not developed enough to do this and therefore probably the reason why you don't see these types of work that much.

rcallicotte

So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Jack

The only cg film I have found to be real is probably beowulf
My terragen gallery:
http://wetbanana.deviantart.com/

old_blaggard

It's really interesting to see how Pixar balances their work. Up was, in fact, very CG intensive: while perhaps not as incredibly detailed and "sharp" as Wall-e, a whole lot of work was put into creating the atmosphere and styles throughout the whole movie. Because all software nowadays is pushing towards making things look as realistic as possible, it can be a huge challenge to maintain a unique artistic style. That's to say nothing of its integration of the story and technological challenges.

My point is, you really have to look at the style of the film and consider its particular challenges. Even if it looks simpler, Pixar is never lazy when it comes to its art ;).

Quote from: calico on July 02, 2009, 10:46:40 am
Well, I'm not certain.  What I read once is that this has been Pixar's mainline strategy, due to the combined CG and coexisting animation technological limitations in the 3D animation industry overall.  Think about entirely animated films that have tried reaching CG realism (counted on one hand, maybe) and these didn't do all that well.  And, in this in context, special effects houses are not included in what I understand is the animation house industry.  STORY and controlling what Pixar can with their awesome Renderman shaders has gone a long way to making them who they are. 

Anyway, my point - Pixar could have pushed the graphics realism a lot further than almost anyone out there and they haven't.  "Up" is a perfect example.  It's less CG intense overall than "Wall-E". 


Quote from: Walli on July 02, 2009, 05:11:55 am
well, I think its even more complex. Even if Pixar mostly does "cartoon" style - most of their work "feels" real and thats probably even more complicated to reach.

http://www.terragen.org - A great Terragen resource with models, contests, galleries, and forums.

Henry Blewer

What about Gollum? Are we all 'stupid, fat hobbits, who hates Smeagol!' Granted, The Lord of the Rings movie were not 100% animated. I found Gollum intriguing and well done.

I think the real reason they do not do realistic characters and scenes, is the render times. I can't imagine animating any thing using Terragen 2 on my computer (5 years old now). 30 seconds is 900 frames x 8 hours = 7200 hours or 300 days. It would be fine with 15 similar computers. But think about how much time would be involved doing a 2 hour movie.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

rcallicotte

@o_b - Nothing was said about Pixar's dedication to excellence.  Yeah, I agree it's a lot of work.  My point was it was cartoon-style and I think it's a wise move.

@njeneb - I don't think anyone has figured out how to make human mind accept a fully CG movie that doesn't screw with our heads enough to help us get past that block to enjoy the story / action / whatever.  That's why only a few have done it and, if it isn't cartoon-like in some way, it fails at the box office.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Henry Blewer

I also think of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. It used live actors, but was mostly CG. I really like the movie. But, it's also a little off point... ::)
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

scott8933

Once again, when I was in marketing - the company I worked for did the campaigns for both Pixar's movies and Disney's original CG movies (like Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, etc.)

One thing we noticed was the level of detail in the environments in Pixar's work. You could always look closer and find something new. Most of the other studios kind of stop at a certain level of detail/depth and leave it at that. Pixar always had something new to find, that you hadn't noticed before (and we'd be seeing these movies hundreds of times as we cut trailers and TV spots). Taken as a whole, it makes for a "deeper" experience, that I think Pixar is known for, even if general audiences don't explicitly notice this, it comes across on one level or another.

My criticism for the Kitchen image isn't their attention to detail (which is excellent), but in the way the grunge is sort of just overlayed on top "globally". To me, its too even, and doesn't come across as a place that someone got dirty because they lived in it and used it daily for years and years.

Examples - the drawer pulls would have more wear on and around them, because that's where you'd be grabbing it. The floor would have wear marks where the table and chairs, especially the chairs, would have been sliding around in the same place for years. There would probably be wear marks on the floor in front of the sink, because you tend to shuffle your feet there more than elsewhere.

Not that any of this should be taken as huge criticism - its a great image.

And while I agree with Gilliam on some points, I disagree on others. CGI has come a long way, and practical effects/modelmaking came a long way before being phased out. If you look at one of the "pinnacles" of model-making vfx, Blade Runner - it still has its shortcomings and some particulars that say "model" to me. Mainly, the physics of atmosphere don't scale down in a very linear way. So Blade Runner has gorgeous models but sometimes iffy smog and haze.

CGI can simulate physics and things wonderfully, but in its own way can still fall short. As the above rendering shows.

Neither one can really work perfectly, though done well enough can effectively suspend your disbelief - which is after all the point of moviemaking.

domdib

Somebody likes spam fritters in their kitchen  :)

inkydigit

thought I could smell something!
;)

inkydigit

Quote from: D.iters on August 27, 2009, 04:41:09 am
Thanks for your reply Julie. I'm sorry to belabour the point, but just to be totally clear ...

Yes, you can clean your dishes with the antibac kitchen cloth set and no soap? That is, would you reccommend this?

Thank you, Kimberly

wha?
I use a power washer!

Henry Blewer

Maybe a forum for kitchen stuff is leaking from another site. I wonder what they make of micro vertex jitter?
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T