is hollywood cgi limitless?

[draggoon01]

i was listening to a conversation about this. in summary,


person 1: computing power is not a limiting factor
* computers are fast and cheap today
* rendering is done in parallel and studios can afford to buy enough computers to get whatever job done
* the limit is with humans, cost of hiring enough artists for a task
* whole movies could be done with just actors and cgi sets, but it's cheaper to build a set or go on location


person 2: computers are the limit
* better methods of rendering exist but the algorithms aren't used because cost-benefit analysis deem currently used methods good enough
* cgi in movies is inferior to quality found in single images people draw
* you can still tell when cgi is used in movies. it is possible to make cgi so good it isn't noticeable but those methods are too slow for movies which need to be done within months


who is correct?

 

[Chubbz]

im not sure who is 100% correct, but i dont dig person 2's negativity, so i win

 

[purbeast0]

I'm going to have to go w/#1 because the last 2 points in the #2 person's argument are false. There are plenty of photo-realistic CGI effects in movies.

 

[Kaido]

It's a mix. Computers have certainly increased in power over the last 10 years. Because computing power has improved, so has the software. You can now do things easier, faster, and more realistically than before. True realism takes a tremendous amount of (human) effort right now, however. Eventually software and computing power will increase to the point where it's a non-issue, but that is down the road right now. Just take a look at Poser - ten years ago it let you make cartoony people but today it is getting close to Xbox 360 quality right out of the box:

http://www.e-frontier.com/go/poser

 

[0roo0roo]

of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

 

[0roo0roo]

on a related note
http://www.popularmechanics.co.../4218826.html?series=6
transformers cgi article

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

but there's a ton you can't either

ie CSI:NY, they turn LA railways into rivers. I saw it and I had no idea.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

but there's a ton you can't either

ie CSI:NY, they turn LA railways into rivers. I saw it and I had no idea.

They film CSI:NY in LA? :laugh:

 

[0roo0roo]

thats true, like on cast away bonus dvd they show what parts of the island they extend or paint out and you can't tell.

but plenty of other things still look phoney. even spiderman starwars and lotr have their problems.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

but there's a ton you can't either

ie CSI:NY, they turn LA railways into rivers. I saw it and I had no idea.

They film CSI:NY in LA? :laugh:

they film ALL of the csi's in LA

I'm sure they film parts in NY/Miami/Vegas, but alot of work that you wouldn't expect is done in LA. As mentioned above, I believe the railways around the east la river/alameda area serve as Hudson river in CSI:NY. Warehouses around that same area double as police garages.

 

[Strk]

I'd say it depends entirely on the studio. Sin City and 300 were pretty much entirely green screen films. The last three Star Wars films, especially the last two, were largely green screen as well.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

o rly? The 3D community would like to disagree with you

http://raph.com/3dartists/artg...y/alceu_baptistao1.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/jun2.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6518.jpg

And just for kicks:

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6410.jpg

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Kaido
http://raph.com/3dartists/artg...y/alceu_baptistao1.jpg

nope, but kinda hot... is that wrong?

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/jun2.jpg

nope.

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6518.jpg

ok that's pretty realistic.

 

[tatteredpotato]

It's limited by something because Special Effects will be better next year.

 

[EGGO]

It really depends. As a graphic artist there's a lot of limiting factors, but none of them are something that, say, are permanent. Compare our special effects to the early 90's, or even 1998. In just a few years time there's a world of difference, and back then we would swear that it was lifelike back then.

In the end, the three biggest things that'll determine lifelike quality is the build, lighting, and textures in CG. Some people are good, some aren't. Right now, that seems to be the case, but only because we're exposed to CG and stellar CG. There's a TON of stuff you have to do just to make an object look like it belongs in a real set, from taking the ambient light temperature and angle to taking a picture of a reflective surface so that you'd be able to have the right kind of reflection on any given texture. That's not including things like particles or hair.

Each season it seems that there's something new that's discovered. Just recently we started to use HDR texture/materials, and new algorithms and discoveries are allowing us to make more lifelike quality of water flow, fire, steam/smoke, and other things.

To sum it up, both guys are correct, depending on how much time/budget the studio has.

 

[EGGO]

double post

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

o rly? The 3D community would like to disagree with you

http://raph.com/3dartists/artg...y/alceu_baptistao1.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/jun2.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6518.jpg

And just for kicks:

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6410.jpg

Hand drawn/painted images can be way better than those.

Edit: Didn't look at the third one, I agree with Atheus

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course computing power is limited. i'm sure with more power they could use more realistic lighting solutions no?
we are no where near photo real humans..
the fact that we can still pick out much of cgi in films tells you theres a long way to go.
if you watch or listen to the special features of some cg films you'll hear them talk about the cheats they still have to use. like on over the hedge or pixar films they still can't have furry creatures make contact with each other like hugging without creating a lotta work for themselves.

o rly? The 3D community would like to disagree with you

http://raph.com/3dartists/artg...y/alceu_baptistao1.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/jun2.jpg

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6518.jpg

And just for kicks:

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6410.jpg

photoshopped still art doesn't really count. even old master painters could render quite realistic humans.
its when they move that it all falls apart. still those still don't quite look right no matter how close they are.
theres a long way to go.