Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Photorealistic CGI TV Series Coming Real Soon Now

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the ja-the-tv-is-gut dept.

Television 259

ziggy_zero writes "SoulPix has revealed their project named "SoulFire", a photorealistic computer-generated TV series created entirely with 3ds max. Here's a trailer (it's in German). Looks pretty cool, better than those CGI cartoons I've seen - although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality. Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players, so you might be better off getting the Quicktime version."

cancel ×

259 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532994)

First Post!!!

How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533180)

A Photorealistic CGI Goatse Man Cumming Real Soon Now.

Flash! Vichy France Lives On! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533332)

Knowledgable students of international diplomacy from all over the world might easily agree that the Vichy French government of Marshal Henri Petain was never replaced at the end of the second world war! It would be easy to conclude that the entire collaborationist superstructure, rising above the badly-hidden Nazi foundations, was moved to and directly installed in Paris after American troops liberated the city in 1944. The policies of that grand old French patriot, Henri Petain, live on in with Jacques Chirac! You doubt that? What is the difference between, one, lying down and exposing your soft belly while Adolf Hitler's Panzers roll over your countryside and, two, building nuclear power plants suitable for producing enriched uranium for the world's latest Fascist, Saddam Hussein?

Of course there is no difference: French cowardice has not changed a bit in, literally, centuries. Worthless, worthless France.

photorealism (5, Interesting)

MJArrison (154721) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532997)

I just watched the trailer (thank god for slashdot articles "from the future") and noticed that not a single one of the charcters blinked in the entire preview. Whether it's blinking, or speed of limb movement, or A/V sync, minute body motions are going to continue to seperate live action from CGI for a few more years to come. Photorealism exists only in still frames for the time being.

Re:photorealism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533064)

or in the expensive forms of animation, of which television isn't one. Even motion pictures may not be, depending on who's funding it. At the moment we're stuck with what works best for the cost.

Still, it's better than it was

Re:photorealism (4, Insightful)

indiigo (121714) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533086)

Except for still shots. Watch closely in mags in the next year. Cover shots? Ads? No little sidebar saying so-and so is wearing Gap--no sir-- that is a CG complete rendered at 1/2 (and soon to be 1/10) the cost. And you won't know.

Models revolting, although a model hunger strike wouldn't be very fruitful.

Re:photorealism (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533105)

He said "Photorealism exists only in still frames for the time being", you replied " #Except for still shots".

How fucking stupid are you?

Re:photorealism (-1, Offtopic)

indiigo (121714) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533349)

Yeah bitch How you like my mod then? CAPITAL LETTERS: If I ever Meet You I Will Kick Your Ass.

Re:photorealism (0)

bluxus (657798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533215)

A model hunger strike would be so unfruitful as to become absurdly funny. It really would be hilarious if the waif became something even more waifish. Where else can the weight, fat, muscle tissue go? Into some other dimension or something? With the left socks of the world?

Re:photorealism (5, Insightful)

visgoth (613861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533109)

The problem with attempting photorealistic humans is that the closer to "real" you get, the lower the tolerances for what is acceptable are. A creature that is only 50% human looking will be far more "real" looking than a 99.9% accurate looking human. Why? Because each and every human is hardwired to know exactly what a person looks like and moves like. It'll take some time until we get to the point where flesh and blood actors are out of a job.

That being said, cgi is great for things like Gollum, dinosaurs and other such stuff. It's also great for stunt doubles, where some things are just too damn dangerous to pull off with a real live human.

Re:photorealism (2, Interesting)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533149)

actually humans are easier to pull off than most animals because you don't have fur to deal with. it's really hard to make good looking fur, and it takes about 100 times the resources to render a furry creature than a human.

Re:photorealism (1)

visgoth (613861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533197)

I'd have to disagree. Great looking hair is now just a matter of render time. Check out mighty joe young for some damn nice fur. The problem with photoreal humans is when you attempt to animate them, it all breaks down. The subtle things that we only notice at a subconcious level can't be solved by more cpu cycles.

Re:photorealism (4, Interesting)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533219)

Fur has been all-but-trivial for several years now. Hell, Maya Complete comes with fur presets. Or maybe it's Maya Unlimited. I forget. Silly names. Either Complete isn't, or Unlimited is. I can never keep them straight.

The grandparent's point still stands. We've seen 3D renderings of animals, including furry animals, that are good enough to stand up to moderately close inspection. We have never seen a 3D rendering of a human face that could pass even the most cursory glance.

Re:photorealism (1)

Robo210 (548438) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533306)

Unlimited

Re:photorealism (1)

heli0 (659560) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533369)

People who have a DX8 video card should check out this nVidia demo: Wolman Demo [nvidia.com] that uses

Real time volumetric fur rendering

8 blended fur layers

61 bones, 4 bones/vertex

Re:photorealism (3, Funny)

cmeans (81143) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533377)

You've not seen my brother's back...it may not be technically "fur", but there's enough hair there to slow down a render farm :)

Re:photorealism (2)

oavina (148513) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533113)

Ok done, ./'ed already.

You can quit accessing the poor shmucks server now.

- KBasara

Don't complain of my spelling, i don't even care.

Re:photorealism (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533165)

Are so many slashdotters so dump. where does ./ come from? the same tard brain that thought up a reference to apple MAC, in all caps? the same gits who call microsoft "Microsloth" and thinks it's funny the billionth time around

Re:photorealism (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533326)

you know, the link was only a few minutes old when I tried. I really think that /. should be a bit more responsible and offer to temporarily mirror the files before slamming the unexpecting server.

Re:photorealism (5, Insightful)

lingqi (577227) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533118)

I remember reading somewhere that there is a chasm when the models gets too near "realistic." Like from no resemblance to real world (cartoon networks' toonami robot) to "100% human-like" models, the "realism" would scale linearly until you get to about 95%, which the realism just falls because the models simply "don't look right," or something. of course, eventually it would be possible to climb back the chasm to reach 100%, but I suppose that's really hard. =)

I read this in wired a while back, I believe; and no blinking is not a fault of the CG tech, but rather that of the guys doing this stuff - in better CG things (final fantasy for one - heck even in games they put in blinking characters now), they put in the details.

Btw, FF (movie) seemed weird and creepy but you CAN'T explain what's no "not real" about it - a good example of the "chasm."

And for another example - for anybody who seen the promotional video of Final Fantasy X-2 where there is a comparative track between the real singer doing her song and dance number, and cutting to the CG (Yuna) doing the same, you can see how strangely unreal the CG version is - though looking at CG version alone does not necessarily give you the idea.

Actualy you can tell (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533214)

The most obvious thing was the lack of radiosity rendering, which is of course encredibly expensive.

But if you know how 3d rendering works it's easy to see whats missing, and what was done wrong.

reboot (3, Funny)

LinuxCumShot (582742) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532998)

i hope its better than reboot

Re:reboot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533020)

Reboot wasn't bad. They did the best they could back then, and had some great computer refrences throughout the show. Just check out Season 3, for sale on DVD, for some truly funny stuff....with a good plot, no less.

Re:reboot (1)

atomray (202327) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533099)

Not bad? I disagree.

Season three, at the time, was excellent animation but the writing and storeline made it one of my favourite shows ever. After they were dropped by ABC, they had the freedom to develop a more mature and intelligent plotline, which was quite interesting. The division of the final season into 4 segments was quite original and provided a nice flow to the series. The little references and subtle jokes were really entertaining, even to my non-geek roommates. Lots of eye candy throughout the entire season - their journey through the web had to be my favourite part.

Damn, that was one of the finest shows on TV. They made a season four, I believe following one of the briefly mentioned subplots of season three (that Daemon had infected the Guardians), but I haven't been able to catch it (gave up on TV).

Re:reboot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533288)

Only half of season 4 was done, unfortunately, but they do resolve the Daemon storyline. And leave a cliffhanger (gah!). Last I'd heard, they were trying to find someone who could afford to pay them to produce the other half of season 4. So, if any fans win the lottery.....

Re:reboot (1)

azav (469988) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533289)

The show my friend, is Exo-Squad. Best storyline in an animated show ever.

52 episodes. Main characters die, real problems are addressed. So cool for 1994.

Re:reboot (2, Insightful)

RatBastard (949) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533196)

Reboot was a very good show. The animation was pretty close to the cutting edge when it was produced and the writing was very well done. It was a very good children's show.

Early Post, not First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533007)

We're going to war! You fags better get ready! Fuck all the pacifist hippy commie bastards. The U.S. is about to lay the smack down, either get on the bus, or you'll be under it.

someone give this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533019)

child a subway token and a map of somewhere else please...

CGI cartoons.. (1)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533011)

Well, the only CGI shows I can think of that I remember seeing recently were Beast Wars and the cartoon version of Starship Troopers. I'm not sure if either of them qualify for any ammount of quality compared to this. Beast Wars was a decent show; I wasn't a big fan of the Starship Troopers one though.

Re:CGI cartoons.. (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533052)

I was a big, big fan of Beast Wars, but I hated Starship Troopers. However, Starship Troopers was clearly far more photorealistic than Beast Wars.

The conclusion?

GIVE ME A GOOD STORY FIRST AND FANCY GRAPHICS SECOND

Re:CGI cartoons.. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533333)

Max Steel, and then there was Action Man.

Roughnecks: The Starship Trooper Chronicles (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533348)

Decent animation, but for a cartoon the story was pretty good, it really expanded on the book, and IMHO was better than the movie.

What's the point... (5, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533014)

...not to troll or anything, but what makes cartoons and simular endevors neat is that they don't look real. There's a lot to be said for stylized animation. On the other hand when these techniques are used to make shots posible that otherwise wouldn't be (like about half of Episode II) then I appreciate it.

Re:What's the point... (1)

visgoth (613861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533126)

The best line I ever heard regarding "photoreal humans":

If I want to go see photoreal people I'll go to the pharking supermarket!

Re:What's the point... (1)

or_smth (473159) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533266)

I don't know but in every movie I have ever seen that has used CG it looks a little fishy. Things like Spider-man, which is said to have great CG graphics I found rather mediocore when it comes to the look of it.

I attribute it to the physics. I could be totally wrong, but I think that the world of artist and more importantly, the world of animator is not governed by earthly physics. I think the computer is not set properly to account for the subtleties of the world and the further subtleties of the human eye. When I see CG in movies I see motion that happens too fast for motion. Spider-man was a huge victim of this, with Peter Parker moving faster than the world would ever allow (I'm aware that he is supposed to have super speed, but speed is best shown in film by slowing everyone else, not speeding the rate of one person up).

To continue with my all-ready used Spider-man example I do notice that even gravity isn't obeyed in half the scenes. Taking into account a certain amount of 'push' force at a certain altitude, Peter Parker would not fly in the air at that angle. He failed to arc in half the scenes and it gets really unrealistic when he exerts minimal force in order to actually gain ground by 'swinging' upwards.

I've seen a lot of CG capes that mysteriously defy gravity too.

I'm sure some 'crazy physics d00d' here could point out a lot more problems with a lot more CG. I think that every CG studio should have a Physist look over their work.

Sometimes the most glaring things in movies is that the CG seems to move at a higher frame rate than the rest of the movie. The character just moves too fast in too short of time and never really looks right.

ITS FROM A FUCKING COMIC BOOK DIPSHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533300)

GEE MAYBE THE PHYSICS LOOK WRONG BECAUSE SUPERHEROS AREN'T ACTUALLY REAL??!?!?

gEE THE PHYSICS ON THE GREEN GOBLINS FLYING SURFBOARD THING WEREN'T REAL!

wELL NO SHIT FUCKING IF THE PHYSICS WHERE REAL IT WOULDN'T FUCKING FLY DIPSHIT!

TELL ME HOW EXACTLY THE FUCKING PHYSICS ON A PERSON WHO CAN JUMP 20 FEET IN THE AIR AND SHOOT WEBS FROM HIS HAND ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK REAL EXACTLY?!?!

THAT'S LIKE BITCHING THAT THE COYOTE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FLOATY FOR A FEW SECONDS WHEN HE RUNS OF A CLIFF! IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL IT'S A FUCKING FANTASY GENIUS! FUCK!

Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Re:What's the point... (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533389)

I'm aware that he is supposed to have super speed, but speed is best shown in film by slowing everyone else, not speeding the rate of one person up

What makes you say that?

Obscene rates of speed can be shown effectively either from normal-speed view or accellerated-speed view. A good example of this technique, in case it's slipping your mind, is The Matrix.

It's all about the character and the focus. It's almost always better to show your focus character always moving at a "normal" speed, save for the rare exception. (_Children of Dune_ has a few nice moments like this.)

To continue with my all-ready used Spider-man example I do notice that even gravity isn't obeyed in half the scenes. Taking into account a certain amount of 'push' force at a certain altitude, Peter Parker would not fly in the air at that angle. He failed to arc in half the scenes and it gets really unrealistic when he exerts minimal force in order to actually gain ground by 'swinging' upwards.

Which scenes are you talking about? Aside from the ones that were almost totally off-camera, his physics were as fine and dandy as they could be expected. (Well, save for a bit right at the end with the cable-car.)

How about a CGI Drama (2, Insightful)

snitty (308387) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533016)

One thing that, as far as I know, hasn't been tried yet is a photorealistic CGI Drama, as in a a serious film with a good point that is CGI. I would be interesting to see if it were a good movie if it were scoffed off becasue it was CG.

The key is to take a GOOD (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533036)

movie and enhance it with CGI, but Hollywood seems to think that an 'action' movie is JUST action, and that plot is really an extra feature...

Re:The key is to take a GOOD (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533070)

First you have to start with a good movie. Hollywood finds coming up with one of those hard enough as it is!

Re:How about a CGI Drama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533088)

Rumor has it that pixar is re-doing a version of steve jobs' favorite, The Bridges Of Madison Country as pure CGI

You heard it here first, folks

slightly offtopic ... (2, Insightful)

soorma_bhopali (643472) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533017)

"Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players, so you might be better off getting the Quicktime version."

To me this seems to be the biggest problem in adopting these new compression techiques for audio/video(ogg vorbis/ DivX etc.)

Re:slightly offtopic ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533160)

What does that have to do with Ogg Vorbis? I'm curious.

Re:slightly offtopic ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533274)

Ogg blows in the same way the Divx blows. HTH.

Re:slightly offtopic ... (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533207)

Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec...

there's nothing weird about, 5.02 or lower has trouble playing files encoded with 5.03 so you need to upgrade if you don't have it. or use quicktime

First Kathleen Fent Tranny post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533024)

Yes, there it is! A penis and a set of big, hairy balls.

Great. I love cartoons. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533033)

Cartoons are fun.

No anime... no support ;) (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533035)

I'm sorry, but this TV series is not anime. As a member of the geek community, I believe we should stand up and say "NO!" to the non-Japanese people who wish to animate stuff.

--M. Oshii

The details (5, Interesting)

Spytap (143526) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533039)

...are the reason CGI from Pixar, although less than photorealistic (and with a definite cartoony primary-colored look) can feel more photorealistic than projects where a company tries to fool the eye using computers.

Re:The details (3, Insightful)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533260)

You just hit the nail right on the head. Geri's Game, a four-minute short film, was more fun to watch and more engaging than the entire 100-minute mess that was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Besides, Final Fantasy lost me when they got to the mannequin of Ben Affleck with Alec Baldwin's voice coming out of it. That just made no sense at all.

Can't wait to see... (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533053)

...the actor's guild on strike against beings that do not exist.
That will be a triumph of surreal/dada-ism.

Re:Can't wait to see... (1)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533295)

If they don't exist, they'll just make them. [imdb.com]

Wow! (1, Redundant)

msaulters (130992) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533061)

Final Fantasy, the TV series.

Re:Wow! (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533257)

hopefully, though, this series will have a better plot than FF:TSW had. Come on. Admit it. That plot was pure crap. Still loved the movie though. Best CGI EVER!

Not quite photorealistic... (1)

Tidal Flame (658452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533068)

...it's close, but it's still not perfect... I wonder if it'll ever be perfect? I'm sure you could pass it off as a real person to someone with bad eyesight, though...

Re:Not quite photorealistic... (1)

prbt (651156) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533172)

There were brief scenes in Final Fantasy that were nearly there - especially with the old guy (Sid?). The main problem for me was with the mouths, they didn't move enough; plus, you can often see inside the characters' mouths, and they seem to have some weird internal lighting effect.

Uh-oh... (5, Funny)

yozzle (628834) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533076)

Soon we'll have to deal with a computer generated version of Friends.

Re:Uh-oh... (0)

m1chael (636773) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533125)

there is always the possiblity of changing the channel... but im so lazy, the remote too far away.

Re:Uh-oh... (2, Funny)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533282)

You never know. It might be more life-like.

Re:Uh-oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533304)

How do you know they aren't already? They sure spew lines (both spoken and plot) like a computer would.

Final Fantasy Quality (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533090)

although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality

Many fans' primary beef with the FF movie was the thin plot, not the lack of impressive CGI. For a movie, a lot of effort can be invested in minute details etc to render with realism.
For a TV series, I would expect less quality simply because there is less time to rollout, and continuous rollouts as opposed to one big event.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality (2, Interesting)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533145)

Odd, I'd assume that serieses would be done much better than a movie as far as nuances go. Being in a series, you'd get more feedback about what works, what doesn't... You'd also have the experience of learning some 'tricks' for certain characters/situations.

It wouldn't be immediate, but the Simpsons started out looking terrible. Even South Park has had noticable improvement over time.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality (2, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533208)

Indeed. And as opposed to the simpsons (or at least a greater expected), there's also a strong correlation between CGI and technology. So as technology for digital imagery and 3d, etc becomes more advanced, we can probably expect much more realistic artistry as the capacity of digital storage increases (I'll bet it takes huge space to store all the meshes, textures, keyframes, etc) - as well as of course the graphic equipment.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533311)

yes, but at the same time, you can have YEARS to work out all the minor kinks in all your scenes. With a series, it's 13th hour rush.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality (2, Interesting)

Torgo's Pizza (547926) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533310)

Thin plot? No, it was a Japanese writer and a Japanese director trying to get an eastern concept across to a western audience. It takes several viewings to get the "plot" of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, but it's there and very deep. The majority of the people watching it just didn't get it.

quicktime is a wierd codec that doesnt work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533112)

Quicktime is a weird codec that doesn't work in most players.

Take your shitty corporate profit formats and stick em where the sun don't shine.

Mirrors yet? (2, Informative)

nstrom (152310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533127)

Connecting to 81.3.6.2:80... failed: Connection timed out.

These people put their hundreds of megs of downloads on one single HTTP server, and expect it not to crash and burn? Did anyone get a copy of this to mirror yet?

Re:Mirrors yet? (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533342)

chances are, they weren't expecting a full blown /.ing. Personally, I feel that /. should offer the sites they link to a temporary mirror, before they fry their poor servers.

Re:Mirrors yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533362)

Personally, I feel that /. should offer the sites they link to a temporary mirror, before they fry their poor servers.

I'm afraid that would go against the DMCA.

interesting, but awkward (4, Insightful)

thadeusPawlickiROX (656505) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533132)

Don't get me wrong, the visuals are nice and all. But the motion seemed really forced and awkward. I don't mean to put the show down, but realism is more then a pretty picture; details that are left out seem blatently obvious. Lack of skin texture gives it a nonrealistic feel, the sense that the mouths and words didn't match up well, and the way that the characters moved seemed very strange, almost like they were staggering around (especially in the concluding shot of the trailor). I think that the animation definately is good, and could be really successful in creating a good show. It's unfonate that a few things could detract from well done CGI images, but that seems to separate the average CGI animation from the extremely realistic.

Re:interesting, but awkward (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533273)

maybe using some motion capture would help out a lot. but then again, that would be like making the show twice. Not exactly cost effecient. Alos, they should blink. Yeah, blinking is important.

Come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533353)

You?! Put that show down!? No way! We all know you'd never do anything like that!

wow (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533152)

81.3.6.2 What a strange IP.

It's also quite slashdotted.

My question is, why? (4, Insightful)

sheetsda (230887) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533155)

Why are we shooting for photorealistic CG TV shows? I can understand the use of CG technology for putting characters in dangerous situations where actors can't be used, or creating shots that would be difficult or impossible to attain through other means. But why have total shows created of it, are actors *that* much more expensive than the combined cost of the brilliant artists and voice actors? Sure its a cool use of technology, but why is this going onto TV rather than staying on a geek's drawing board somewhere? As someone else already pointed out, they haven't got it quite right yet, with lack of blinking and other minute movements. What's the motivation behind this type of project, aside from the "cool hack" factor?

Re:My question is, why? (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533363)

Well, Let me ask you this --- "Why Not?"
This is a true test of how far computers have come in the 3dgraphics arena. After all, no test is more rigorous than perfectly emulating the world around us.
Personally, I don't go for photorealism in my art, but I do go for perfectly made. We all have our own artistic endeavours, and they want to try for photorealism.

Has anyone heard anything recently about the supposabley revolutionary techniques in photorealistic CGI developed for Matrix2&3?

And, yeah, it really does have that "cool hack" thing going for it too^^

I'll stick with real cartoons, thanks (4, Insightful)

BitHive (578094) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533162)

Like Invader Zim, South Park, and Futurama, where they use 3D effects for effect, not as a central element of the show.

Re:I'll stick with real cartoons, thanks (1)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533237)

Amen to that.
Invader zim used the effects very well, at that. Subtle, but there.

Re:I'll stick with real cartoons, thanks (0, Offtopic)

shogun (657) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533376)

old-fashioned Team Fortress Classic

Only Noobs call TFC a classic. ;-)
Wheres QW-TF when you need it.

Re:I'll stick with real cartoons, thanks (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533379)

AFAIK South Park is fully CG.

3dsmax / maya (0)

john_smith_45678 (607592) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533168)

Why is the world wouldn't they use Maya instead of 3DS Max?

DivX 5.03 (2, Insightful)

Longinus (601448) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533169)

"Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players..."

Accordingly mplayer the trailer was encoded with DivX 5.03, so if it doesn't work for anyone, they probably just need to upgrade DivX to the latest version.

Re:DivX 5.03 (1)

Ack_OZ (64662) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533226)

so if it doesn't work for anyone, they probably just need to upgrade DivX to the latest version.

either that, or wait until the slashdotting is over...

Cost Effective? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533183)

I'm wondering if animated shows like these can attract enough viewers to become viable to produce. I know many recent CGI movies and televison shows have disappeared because their expenditures were higher than their revenues. Lets hope the same doesn't happen to "SoulFire" that befowled "Final Fantasy: The Spirts Within", "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genious", and "Star Wars: Episode II".

3DS Max (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533184)

Nothing generated in 3DS is photorealistic.

I'm not trolling, 3DS max definitely has it's place for many things .. but I'm sorry to say it doesnt generate photorealism very well (compared to Maya etc.)

If you have examples of photorealistic 3DS Max CGI ..please let's see the urls.

A New CSI TV Series Coming Real Soon Now (0, Offtopic)

Nathdot (465087) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533187)

NOOOOOOOO!

Ohhh! c_G_i.

Thank the good lord for that.

-----------
LAW & ORDER: Elevator Inspectors Unit

I wonder how long... (3, Funny)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533203)

Several thousand slashdotters downloading a 60 meg video file, I wonder how long their server will exist as matter in the solid state.

Also, they'd better start working on their lip-syncing, it's quite horrible.

BitTorrent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533212)

Could somebody (preferably the operator of the site trying to host the trailers) please set up a BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] stream of the highest resolution versions.

There really is no valid reason not to - it will make all involved much happier. Their server won't melt and everyone who wants the file will be able to download it. BitTorrent really is the best solution to distributing large files.

Re:BitTorrent! (1)

niai (310235) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533316)

good idea

DivX works for me... (1)

nstrom (152310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533223)

apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players

Video shows fine for me, using ffdshow alpha 2003-01-03, get it here [cutka.szm.sk] . Also works fine with latest mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] .

I like low tech cartoons (4, Insightful)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533241)


It's probably just me but I like the low tech cartoons.
They seem to have more character.

I like the hand drawn style of Betty Boop, the claymation style like Wallace and Gromit, paper cutouts (or Sgi computer simulations of) like South Park, and the puppet animations like the works of George Pal. [scifistation.com]

photorealistic? I think not. (1)

sirshannon (616247) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533243)

Final Fantasy wasn't photorealistic. This isn't as good as Final Fantasy. That means this isn't photorealistic.

BitTorrent Mirror (4, Informative)

nstrom (152310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533271)

I managed to get the file, so here's a mirror using BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] . If you don't know what BitTorrent is, first go to the BT site [bitconjurer.org] and download and install the client (Windows/OSX/Unix versions available).

Please keep your BT window open for as long as possible (at least an hour or two) after your transfer completes. Thanks!

BT link for DivX (35MB file): http://cobaltnine.net/bt/FINALTRAILER_720_divx.avi .torrent [cobaltnine.net]

While I do very much enjoy CGI TV shows... (2, Funny)

norweigiantroll (582720) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533279)

I much prefer the mod_perl and ASP ones.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533280)

Since most download links are already slashdotted I could only download the small quicktime file, so I can't really judge the quality of the rendering. But going by the movement I can only say that I've seen better game cut-scenes than this (like "Blade Runner" for example). Apparently they only used a limited amount of motion capturing, if any. Sorry to sound like a troll, but it looks really, really crappy (if you consider that they claim it's photo "realistic").

CGI TV? (2, Funny)

FsG (648587) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533296)

I knew Perl/CGI could do anything.

Photorealistic animation: an oxymoron? (2, Informative)

geekwench (644364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533315)

An earmark of good animation is that it has an illusion of reality to it. This is why Pixar Studios' product, although more "cartoony", is very convincing. There are all sorts of little details included. After watching the trailer (I believe that someone else mentioned this as well), I noticed that not one of the characters blinked. There's also an overall feeling of "not quite right, somehow." Air, human skin, and various other surfaces, all bend light in distinctive ways. CGI figures, no matter how well-rendered they are, have 'edges' that are visually crisp. The characters are just a little too perfect. People and real objects aren't.

Really, what's the point of the exercise, apart from the "but it's sooo kewwwl" factor, and possible future studio leverage against the SAG? [snarky chuckle] If you want absolute photo-realism, just shoot live-action, and you know you'll be right on target. OTOH, live-action is the best reference resource for any animator, CGI or otherwise. Personally, I think that the very best CGI that I've seen lately was shot live with motion-capture: Andy Serkis' performance as Gollum in The Two Towers. Andy's little tics and quirks were what made the character come to life. No matter how good the current hardware and software is, there are [gasp] some things that a computer just can't do.
A computer is an incredible tool to use in the production of art - I know from experience; I use mine for all sorts of art-oriented applications. But art isn't produced by logorithms alone. Like any other artist, CGI animators need to learn how to really see and observe the world around them. The quality of an artists' observations always shows up on whatever "canvas" they use.

i love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533319)

its great how the term 'photorealisitc' is bandied
about as if it means anything more than exactly
nothing. a complete page of #ffffff is photo
realistic if your materials have no shading going
on. by definition, anything you see is photo
realistic. there hasn't been a CGI TV series that
looked better than well done hand-drawn. most of
it looks worse than mediocre hand done art, for
that matter. and whats with all the focus on pure
CG animation? .. chewbacca looked a lot better
than any CG does.

Maybe its the shades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5533347)

But I think that guy on the contact link bears a strange resemblance to poochie.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>