| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (76)

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What uncanny valley?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:12AM fwacce said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Please don't bring that phrase up. It has become the most overused and completely irrelevant term on the internet as of late. Every time there's any posting about CG people, the conversation has to be about UV to try and appear smart. It's just a theory that may or may not be useful, but so far unproven as to whether or not it even applies.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Eh? Uncanny Valley is not irrelevant, it is a very real phenomenon.
Just go see Polar Express, that CG xmas movie from a couple of years back. The people look very realistic, but have creepy dead eyes which make them quite freakish.

Also, see some of the real-world robots that are made up to look cosmetically like humans. If they are still, they look human, but then they move, it is slightly wrong, and they look extremely creepy.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@fwacce

This looks like it IS crossing the uncanny valley. We don't even see that realistic CG in movies. Don't be such a twat about it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:06AM Exo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ fwacce

quite the contrary, it looks like you are trying to appear smart by refuting the statement and acting as if you know more, enough so to say that this topic is overused.

just shut up if you don't want to be a part of discussion k?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:54AM heypaul said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Quit being such dicks to fwacce, guys. There's a reason the uncanny valley is just a hypothesis. The things that we consider outside the valley today (for instance, over-exagerated Pixar CG characters) are the very things that Mori would've considered smack dab in the center of the valley when he proposed the hypothesis in the 70's. If you choose to argue the existence of the valley at all, you'd have to at least concede that the perception of where this valley exists shifts with technological advancements in portraying artificial humans. You may think Buzz Lightyear is too unrealistic a representation to fall in the uncanny valley, but I guarantee you, it'd creep a Yanomamo tribesman the hell out.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 2:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Hey nerds. Shut up.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 2:19AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can beat the uncanny valley in still images. Video is a completely different story. Personally though, I don't think they've even beat it with a still photo this time around (the girl in the chair looks very..well...uncanny) (ultimate lulz awarded if that is actually just a photo of a girl, and this is all a trick, and she really is just that uncanny IRL)

Anyway, none of that really matters. What matters is that this technology is completely pointless. Why do I want to interact with the movie I am watching? It's cool in a game like MGS4 where you get to switch viewing angles and what not...but for a film, I'd much rather have the director pick the BEST angle, without me doing anything, so that I won't miss anything and so that I don't have to screw with it. I realize the gaming implications of this, but it's completely impractical from the gameplay perspective. This seems no more interesting than the previously mentioned MGS4 interactive cut scenes, and it feels like a gigantic waste of time on AMD's part.

Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, but other than for cut scenes, I don't see this getting any use in actual gameplay. If moving the camera while your character is on rails is of interest to you...then...well that tech already exists. Pixar could have announced that you can now pan and tilt the camera in it's next movie, and it would have been about as equally exciting of an announcement.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 5:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Great, now every nerd who's used the phrase "uncanny valley" is going apeshit on fwacce.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 6:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The uncanny valley argument is largely irrelevant for any practical reason. Beyond that, the evidence supporting it is contradictory and circumstantial at best.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 6:48AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing about the uncanny valley is...you either see it, or you don't. Trying to explain it to someone that doesn't notice it, is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person. (Sorry if anyone is uhh...having a text-to-speech thing read this to them) It's equally as idiotic for someone that doesn't notice it, to try to tell someone that does, that it doesn't. Who are they going to believe? Their eyes, or you?

Personally, I can't watch things such as the CGI movie Beowulf or the CGI movie Polar Express. The character models freak me the hell out with their massive valleys.

Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 7:09AM BurntMeatloaf said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm not sure if the uncanny valley even applies, here. If everything is put together with camera shots, then what you're really seeing is a reconstruction of a real person based on photography. The uncanny valley shows up when people try to build their own models and animate them with more artificial means, such as point sample motion capture or hand animation.

This is more like putting a 3D photograph into a scene, airbrushing it, and adding custom lighting. Impressive, and it requires real horsepower to do it in realtime, but I'd rather see something done from scratch. That's harder to do, and more representative of real, practical products.

Wait... did I just say "practical" in a thread about GPUs with teraflops of performance? Never mind.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 7:24AM Ghen said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
The uncanny valley doesn't exist. Just people not finishing the work they started.

"Oh its good enough, send it to the developer and lets have lunch"
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:22PM freelance said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
These comments are an example of what the guys who know everything do when no one in the real world wants to be around them anymore. They just come here and piss each other off.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 8:45PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, that is one well-fed troll.
Reply

Posted: Aug 17th 2008 2:47PM GreyFox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey!

I liked Polar Express!
Reply

Posted: Aug 14th 2008 3:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i'd hit it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:06AM blehh said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
amazing
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 7:25AM foxhound said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...This just inches us that much closer to S1M0NE, eh?

Truth be told, I'd prefer digital actors & actresses over the actual ones. It would put all those stupid TMZ-ish shows to the wayside, because the creators could just "delete" any character they don't need. ;]
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:09AM mapi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The real intended application of this technology?
Porn.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
hell yeah son

Marilyn Monroe is gonna be gettin the business by John Wayne
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:12AM KeenCommander said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
And there goes your child pornography laws...doh!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:27AM Klitorisaurus said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can't wait to see a Whoopi Goldberg scene!!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So this was what Valve was waiting for to make their Gordon Freeman model as realistic as possible....
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Screw pictures, see this stuff in motion at youtube under "cinema 2.0". I hope this technology reaches the next generation of consoles although I still have doubts. Seriously though, fracking awesome!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:17AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Odd that it makes her look older...
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:17AM Huey2k2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Holy shitcakes... I didn't realise that wasn't a real person when I first looked at it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:22AM Halwende said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition confirmed for 2010 with Cinema 2.0 technology! :P
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:44AM zuburi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Continuity across different posts? You win, sir!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Looks phenomenal for CG; looks crappy as a image.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:32AM Grey Acumen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
that's because in order to cover up the "uncanny valley" effect, they dropped the image quality down and put it through a few filters to make it look like an amature webcam or photo. This way you don't have the detail to recognize the ways that she looks off.
If you look at the better quality pics, you can see that it's still inside the uncanny valley, though I will admit that they're on the far cusp of it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 4:08AM original fred said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Filters my butt, do you know how much power it takes to render? Realistic light algorithi-thingies and jiggawatts and such take forever.

You have to tighten up the graphics on all the levels up to 11.

I should know what I'm talking about: I'm on the internet.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:28AM porath said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
are you guys sure the image in the main body is 3d rendered? the other examples in the gallery are quite obviously of lower quality than the first supposed rendering...
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:32AM porath said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
nevermind, in the youtube video the guy says it's actually rendered in realtime, but i wonder why that other character looks so much worse in comparison
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:36AM Grey Acumen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
See my comment just above yours where I was replying to sesur. The first image they show is actually a lower quality pic.
Essentially, they are just simply NOT showing us the detail, so that our own mind will work to fill in those details. We'll fill things in so it actually looks right. The other images have more detail, so our minds don't attempt to fill anything in and it can see which details actually make it look less than real.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 3:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The difference is that in the first shot, all you are seeing is a hi-res 3d captured head and nothing else. It's canned, captured, data, with nothing but a 2d environment map background. Obviously, they are able to push the levek of detail a lot more and the fact that it is pure captured data makes it a lot easier to get the 'realistic' look right.

In the second sequence from the new Ruby demo you are actually seeing a whole 3d environment. It's still nowhere near as expansive as a real game but at least there is a full uni-directional set (if the camera would swing around there would be nothing, as witnessed in one of the demos). There are also prop cars, two moving characters, more shaders, etc. In short, there is a lot more going on. Hence the quality bar drops slightly, and on top of that Ruby has a really cartoony design so she sticks out like a sore thumb from the otherwise more photorealistic environment.

Personally, I am actually a lot more impressed with the second set of images (and the demo they are from) as they actually provide a real glimpse of what next generation games are going to look like. The environment, detail, lighting, shaders on the cars, and post-fx certainly look a generation ahead of what we are seeing now and by the time we actually get games that really take advantage of this gfx cards will have advanced yet another generation or two. To imagine a fully fledged game with AI, more animated characters, vehicles, etc. on screen at this sort of fidelity (and with a more unfified art direction) is rather exciting.

As a side note, that capture technology is nothing new really. EA have been using a similar approach, based on Paul Debevec's work, for capturing facial animation for games like Tiger Woods and Need for Speed, and probably others, for a while now. The final in-game quality however, is not as high as in this highly streamlined tech-demo but that is more a limit of the current generation hardware and the fact that it is running in a fully fledged game environment.

Peace.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 10:10AM DivinoAG said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'll just start by saying that I have seen this technology video quite a few years ago, after it was released on a Siggraph; that's not brand new developments.

The point of this particular tech is to allow realtime *re-light* of a captured video, not of 3D models. So unless you're doing a live-action game, the technology demonstrated here isn't going to help much. And since it's live-action, no uncanny valley concepts apply here.

Despite that, this was one of the visual effects breakthroughs that allowed the development of techniques used for the Matrix Reloaded, particularly on the Burly Brawn sequence (now you know how many years ago I've seen it), which was latter much improved to use with Doc Octopus for Spiderman 2.

What those techniques allowed directors to do was film the actors doing the face performance that would appear during action sequences, and that performance would then be seamlessly (as possible) integrated with the body 3D models.

In conclusion, the only thing this article offers new is that AMD is working on a hardware solution to make all this run in real time. But there are still many years until you see that showing up on a new Call of Duty.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:32AM iHavePants said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can I has video nao?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:46AM Gir said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I gotta go pig! I'll see you later!
I GOTTA GO PIG! I'LL SEE YOU LATER!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:12AM iHavePants said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You gon' make biscuits! Yooou gon' make BISCUITS!? Yoooouu goonnnna make BIZKITS?!?!?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love those little tacos :)
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:49AM darkinchworm said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Enough sheen for a factory of plastic? Negative. Can't be an id engine.

Enough neck and shoulder muscle for an entire third-world country? Negative. Not an Epic engine.

Hmm, how about that...
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I can't believe my eyes, i work in this industry and this is the 1st time in my life i have been fooled by a rendering. huzzah! the future is hear!
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 7:10AM BurntMeatloaf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What's that about games with $50 million budgets?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 2:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
don't worry, you still have time to figure out the difference between "hear" and "here"
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:25AM Ridgecity said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The difference between those 2 renders is lighting. take a picture outside without any flash and you will look real and flawed. Turn any HD show and look at fake flawless people that's to 4 lights aimed at the face.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:26AM In A World said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Is that a screenshot from Duke Nukem Forever?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 5:56PM Krystalle Voecks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:26AM Ridgecity said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
and who is going to use this? Hollywood, games will use them once prices come down for that kind of studios, and probably EA will be the first using it for their sports games.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:34AM Gwr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OK these is what we are all thinking about: Virtual Porn.
Next step? Robot sex.

Thats right I said it,we want it they will make it.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW