http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g85/362285/362285_1232630961_large.jpg (http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g85/362285/362285_1232630961_large.jpg)
Quote from: inkydigit on June 30, 2009, 07:52:03 AM
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g85/362285/362285_1232630961_large.jpg (http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g85/362285/362285_1232630961_large.jpg)
Lolz I used to have a fridge like that!!!
wow this is cool very natural would be a nice place to have a brew and a chat :)
Looks real. Reminds me of some kitchens I saw in my relatives' homes who lived in the outskirts of the city years ago.
makes me think of my grandparents kitchen :)
A 1956 Better Homes and Gardens photo.
Quite a nice image!
i loooooove this kind of render !
i really would like to do something like that :(
one day or another, i need to learn modelling !!!
Professional Silo is on Sale now for $129, until July 3rd. That is, if it matters. I'm sure you might not feel the urge to run right out and buy this. Lots of tutorials for it, though. Another couple of good programs are zBrush and Modo, both of which seem to be improving quite a lot.
Quote from: Seth on June 30, 2009, 12:08:44 PM
i loooooove this kind of render !
i really would like to do something like that :(
one day or another, i need to learn modelling !!!
Very nice render, but something about it instantly screams CGI to me. I think its the over-use of the grunge textures on everything, on otherwise immaculate surfaces. No dustbunnies in the corners, nothing on the floor - it all just looks a little unnatural, that the level of wear looks artificially made - seems to lack a human quality to it. Hard to put my finger on it I guess.
But good work just the same.
Terry Gilliam's case against CGI was this - shooting things in-camera, be it a real city or a model or whatever, bears the imprint of many real people interacting with real things. CGI tends to be one guy an a cubicle, so everything has only the imprint of the one guy who built the geometry, painted the textures, lit the scene, etc. It hasn't been "handled" by anyone, and thus lacks humanity. I guess that's the vibe I get from this image - that it has the patina of age, but lacks humanism.
http://www.utes.com.tr/eng.html (http://www.utes.com.tr/eng.html)
got this url from the fridge magnets!....some more info(english)
Wholeheartedly agree Scott, and Gilliam's comments make a lot of sense. I hadn't heard that before.
- Oshyan
its a very good 3d work this must have been an immense workload to put in the detail. I think one point which makes it look a little bit unreal is the outside of the window - I guess on a photo this area would "blow out" and be almost pure white. Also the little plants around the window have an artificial color.
But I think when flipping through a magazine, 99% people wold take it a s a photo.
These are all interesting insights and am glad I come here to get these points of view. I wonder if the reason quoted by Scott is why Pixar does its work the way it does. For a huge 3D house, it would be easy to create stuff more realistic, but Pixar stays on the side of cartoon-like.
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.
What scott8933 says (and Oshyan wholeheartedly agrees with) may be true, but then that critique surely applies to all cgi. What do you want these artists to do? If you want 100% authenticism complete with dust encrusted corners and "dust bunnies" I suppose you've got to take a photograph of a museum display, and even that is not going to be 100% authentic as it's been artificially set up.
If the guy had'nt used as many grunge textures to simulate that lived-in look, I wouldn't mind betting that some wise-acre would have criticised the scene for looking too cgi because most of the models were too clean/pristine looking. Is it a matter of balance, and who's to say when that balance has been struck right?
No. I'm happy to sit back and admire work like this; the incredible amount of detailed modelling, the excellent lighting, and, yes, the grunge texturing, which IMO is proficiently applied. I know I haven't the patience, or indeed the ability, to construct a scene like this. So, it's a big thumbs up from me.
John
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.
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.
The only cg film I have found to be real is probably beowulf
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.
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.
@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.
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... ::)
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.
Somebody likes spam fritters in their kitchen :)
thought I could smell something!
;)
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!
Maybe a forum for kitchen stuff is leaking from another site. I wonder what they make of micro vertex jitter?