|
nighthawk654 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
From what I can tell after watching the video the photo realistic technology is getting there, but isn't exactly where it should be at this moment in time. It isn't quite where it should be yet although it looks pretty good so far at it's current stage of testing.
abigguitar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There will come a time when we will be able to produce convincing CG films with 100% digital actors. We aren't presently there, but this Image Metrics demo clearly shows that it will be done in the future. The problem for now is the renderers are still a bit primitive and there's no convincing way to produce the human voice by computer yet. But, one day we will be watching 100% digital Marilyn Monroe, James Dean and Elvis Presley films. The main problem is the creepy factor.
cutecandylady (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wow this is actually amazing. i did think that her face looked a little odd but i thought that might have been because of make up or something...wow...this i great :)
ProjectILT (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
PS: So for all the future "Complete CG movies" like what Beowolf had attempted, people will critize it looking fake as long as they are notified of it being a CG movie before watching it. Haha..i bet if u shoot a movie with all real actors and backgrounds, but mention in the trailers that it is a CG movie, SOME retards will still go "ohhh some scenes looked fake"...
ProjectILT (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
after reading comments after comments made by non 3D program users(or just dumbasses who wants to sound like they can easily tell fake from real), i've come to a conclusion. No matter how real we can get something to look in 3D, some will think something looks fake. In this video for example...people say "oh her shirt looks fake" or "the background looks fake"...but..those ARE real...all that hard work on facial expression, and people critize the parts of it thats ACTUALLY REAL..LOL
RottenAppleSeeds (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
oh no, grammatical errors? you probably had to read your piece of shit comeback 100 times before posting it, faggot. in any case, you're still a fuckin idiot. at least i had the common sense to know that the only reason the light shines on her hair "so beautifully" is because of the conditioner she uses, not because of CG.
make sure you know what the fuck you're watchin before you post some dumb shit.
ramseph (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
ummmm..."how much of a bigger jackass": Incorrect. If you want to insult someone's intelligence, don't make any grammatical errors...asshole. I'm either a bigger jackass than you think or just how much of a jackass.
abigguitar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes, the eyes are also the second issue. The eye whites are also not convincing enough. If they are using Poser to render this face, and they might be, it would explain it. Poser has a difficult time rendering eye whites and teeth whites convincingly.
abigguitar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Of course, I've been working with Poser 7 for months now day in and out. I render faces and bodies of humans regularly. The hardest problem is the mouth and teeth. Specifically, the teeth. The sheen of the teeth just don't look natural. It's a dead giveaway.
grkbouzoukiplayer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wtf |
