• CGI Breakdowns HD: The gap between real-life and 3D is closing in.
    57 replies, posted
[media]https://youtu.be/lc08hesGUiw[/media]
The only way I can tell if something's CGI when it's so realistic is the movement. There's just something off about it. It's a subtle detail, like with the hair.
Eugh wow that creeped me out. It looks so lifeless. Also those Final Fantasy CG lips.
Some shots look a lot more lifelike than others, for example the first and last shot look a lot better than most others. Incidentally, these are the ones with the least facial motion, something I noticed in the conversation between the two. The facial movement just looks off, and in turn it gives away that they're still 3D models. Still, it looks pretty damn impressive.
The mouth doesn't move far enough, or quick enough, when she talks. I think that's what tells me it's not real, personally.
I don't know why, but in spite of how good this CG is, the skin on her face (outside the eye sockets) seems a shade too bright. It looks a tiny bit like a flesh mask.
They human eye is so good at determining the uncanny. It's incredible.
It's getting pretty close now, definitely climbing up out the valley but it's not here yet.
It looked so lifeless and I loved every second of it. There's something haunting about the idea of not being able to tell between a CGI replica and a real human except for subtle nuances in the motion or animation. Good premise for a horror film.
i think what they need to do is slow the framerate a bit and blur the DOF behind the characters, and give them more muffled edges the problem is that the framerate moves so fast its getting the soap opera effect, and that really brings our attention to the little irregularities that break immersion i will admit it looked pretty realistic when it's not focused around portrait shots, but right now the facial expression technology looks just off enough to make me feel weird
Looked like shit tbh
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47800536]They human eye is so good at determining the uncanny. It's incredible.[/QUOTE] I want to assume it's this weird natural safety mechanism to keep you wary of imposters. It's not even the facial animation that's still keeping the gap between uncanny and believable, it's extremely minute details in hair movement, body response, and skin texture. Our examples are getting extremely close, but they still fail because once we pick up on a tiny inconsistency, we latch on.
I dunno why they tried using this as an example, I've seen much better, more lifelike CGI.
If we hadn't known it was cgi beforehand I wonder if we would've still been able to tell it isn't real. I'm sure I would've noticed something is off but I doubt I would've recognized what or why.
I feel like we're still so far away from mastering all the nuances of tissues and muscles. The movement looks tweeny still.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;47800599]It looked so lifeless and I loved every second of it. There's something haunting about the idea of not being able to tell between a CGI replica and a real human except for subtle nuances in the motion or animation. Good premise for a horror film.[/QUOTE] It'd be fantastic to make some run-of-the-mill horror movie reveal one of the characters or the main villain was CGI all along. I bet you could have enough with poor lighting and far-away shots that nobody would notice. [editline]25th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Glitchman;47800674]I feel like we're still so far away from mastering all the nuances of tissues and muscles. The movement looks tweeny still.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the facial animation was sloppy, that and the weightless hair are the only glaring issues. There weren't many "dots" on the actress' face, maybe they're using some new tech but the facial recorders on, say, Beyond: Two Souls gave better results than this. Still, there's only so much you can do when recording a surface instead of the dozens of little muscles that work together to move that surface around.
This would be amazing if our brains weren't wired to tell us that something is off. Even if you don't know what it is, you always know something is CGI. There is always some unnatural trace left behind.
At certain points the lightning seems off and I feel like the motion blur was a little too strong.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;47800599]It looked so lifeless and I loved every second of it. There's something haunting about the idea of not being able to tell between a CGI replica and a real human except for subtle nuances in the motion or animation. Good premise for a horror film.[/QUOTE] So blade runner?
The reason animations look off is because there isn't enough tracking detail in both tracker and the mesh. Making realistic cgi motion with all the muscles and skin movement requires a fuckton of work. Face has a lot of muscles and movement, I don't think we can simulate all that realistically. Overall realistic organic animation is really tough both technically and artistically.
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;47800649]If we hadn't known it was cgi beforehand I wonder if we would've still been able to tell it isn't real. I'm sure I would've noticed something is off but I doubt I would've recognized what or why.[/QUOTE] To be honest, first time I saw it, it was in 360p (thanks shitty internet) and I didn't realise everything was a render since the start, even by the thumbnail.
To me it's the lighting that is off on her skin.
this just looks like beowulf
nowadays, texturing and polycount doesn't seem to be the problem as much as accurate animating I could tell which ones were which, but only because of janky movements in the head and face/eyes
[QUOTE=General J;47801688]nowadays, texturing and polycount doesn't seem to be the problem as much as accurate animating I could tell which ones were which, but only because of janky movements in the head and face/eyes[/QUOTE] Some of the skin looked off as well. It depends on the skill of the artists. If they're really good, you can even make realistic faces in videogames [video=vimeo;86232748]https://vimeo.com/86232748[/video]
If you're just going to have the actress sit there and act out the scene, why CGI it at all. It's easier to fool the brain with a CGI scene in the background than a CGI human
Should have used the CryEngine.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47801722]Some of the skin looked off as well. It depends on the skill of the artists. If they're really good, you can even make realistic faces in videogames [video=vimeo;86232748]https://vimeo.com/86232748[/video][/QUOTE] Damn, that's really good. The entirety of the first scene and the closeup on the dude's face in the second are very good, but the lipsyncing in the last one is a bit off. Still looks great though.
like others have said, one of the biggest tips is the movement. It doesn't matter how beautifully realistic something can look, if it moves unnaturally it just won't feel natural. Even with mocap, there's a lot you need to do to make a human face move 'right', one of which is not letting actions be so weirdly smooth. Like, the mouth looked like it had a rubberband holding it in shape while something pulled it around for puppeteering
Nobody's hair moves like that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.