Future of graphics?
Steve McDevitt
<che...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7onrhb$ajb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
> Cherko
Yes, without a doubt. Of course it won't be for about 15 years or so. Maybe
not even that long. I mean, just LOOK at games on the DC! And then there
will be PSX2, then something else, then something else! Graphics are getting
better literally by the day! Oh yeah, soon... very soon.
Steve McDevitt
www.gameassault.com
BoneDaddy
something, but I feel that 2D games are superior in many ways. I think games
were much better when people were less worried about how many polygons they
can use and more worried about gameplay. Not that 3D is bad, I just think
that certain types of games were never meant to cross over to 3D. Well, I
always have my SNES, Genesis, and emulators.
Dilbert
Go here and look at the preview of Final fantasy the movie. It's almost 10MB
but it's worth it. Eventually, this quality of graphics will be on console
as well. The holodeck is the ultimate video game.
--
I'm down with Bill Gates
I call him "Money" for short.
I phone him up at home
And I make him do my tech support.
It's all about the Pentiums!
-'Weird Al' Yankovic
"It's all about the Pentiums"
<che...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7onrhb$ajb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
> Cherko
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Avenger
Its called the NV10. Only on PC's, however.
It has a photorealism engine built in. Only 30 FPS, but hey, its
photorealism.
Lets hope they pull it off.
--
-Mike Evans
(Avenger)
mikea...@mindspring.com
-----------------
Steve McDevitt
used to prefer sprites because of the emotion sprites can express better
than polygons. However, with more detailed poly models you can display the
same emotion. I now realize that with Soul Calibur. The characters are sooo
detailed that you can just see when they are happy or hurting (mwa ha ha).
Sprites are finally becoming obsolete. They have about a good 2 years left
in them, but that's about it.
Steve McDevitt
www.gameassault.com
Joe Ottoson
<mak...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> While I agree that 2D sprites are great, the reasons are less and less. I
> used to prefer sprites because of the emotion sprites can express better
> than polygons. However, with more detailed poly models you can display the
> same emotion. I now realize that with Soul Calibur. The characters are sooo
> detailed that you can just see when they are happy or hurting (mwa ha ha).
> Sprites are finally becoming obsolete. They have about a good 2 years left
> in them, but that's about it.
I can't believe that any more than I'll beleive anime will be passe in
a year...
skco...@worldnet.att.net
Or that digital artwork will make painting on a canvas obsolete.
Who actually *paints* when they can digitally mip map anti-alias
polygonalize everything? ;)
Hasn't anyone else heard of *different mediums?*
There's no such thing as better when it comes to a matter of personal
preferences. Oh well...
-Tom
Jason E.K. Brown
>
>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>film is something that will happen in the near future?
It will take a while...but sure. Once HDTV comes out, they will have to be
able to put out quality graphics at HIGH resolution. Once they can do that in
real time, you'll have your "film" like graphics. I saw HDTV in action
recently BTW...I was salivating!!
>Not FMV or CG,
>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
Bigger and better graphics is always the goal!! =)
Jason
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Surf the www alot? Want to get paid for it? Sign up is free!
Join today!
http://www.gotoworld.com/getpaid/default.asp?rid=1017072207
-----------------------------------------------------------
che...@my-deja.com
but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
Cherko
Brian Osserman
>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
It's certainly a goal, and it's not so unimaginable as all that.
George Lucas was being silly when he said that the Playstation 2 will be
able to produce Star Wars quality graphics in real time, but at the rate that
graphics technology is improving, it's very dangerous to make a statement
like "this won't be possible in the next 10 years" :-)
To go into a little more depth, I think it's plausible that polygon power
will cease to become the primary issue after Playstation 2 arrives, and
people will start looking more at how realistic the overall effect is, with
things like perfect shadows, anti-aliasing, reflections, and better surface
effects in general taking the spotlight. Whether this will happen in a
scan converter setting or will require a shift to ray tracing strikes me as
an open question, though.
Brian
www.sega-dreams.com
Brian
post was concerning gaming graphics actually becoming as real as a live action
film. The NV10 will definitely be awesome, but no where near the level we're
discussiong here. That kind of power will happen, but not for many years.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
It's sometimes a goal. I think some games are better served by
non-photorealistic rendering methods, though.
--
Wow, a baseball made out of Secretariat!
-- Bart gazes upon the Spend Zone, "You Only Move Twice"
Andrew Ryan Chang
>will cease to become the primary issue after Playstation 2 arrives, and
>people will start looking more at how realistic the overall effect is, with
>things like perfect shadows, anti-aliasing, reflections, and better surface
>effects in general taking the spotlight. Whether this will happen in a
>scan converter setting or will require a shift to ray tracing strikes me as
>an open question, though.
Really? 3DS MAX's renders are mostly scan converted, and they
look fine. Isn't the system Renderman actually renders on also a scan
converter? Radiosity + Reflection hacks + special treatment of specular
light (which radiosity ignores) will look great, all without needing to
ray-trace.
Manu
> >but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> >you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
I've played the Shen Mue demo on DC... and that comes CLOSE already! They
claim that PSX2 and Dolphin will top that... seems so impossible.. but if
they do that... whoah.
[.......Manu / Pelikonepeijoonit.......]
[ nospa...@sci.fi ]
[ The Arctic Computer & Console Museum ]
[ http://zap.to/peijoonit ]
[......................................]
Alex Westley
right now all the hardware is set-up perfectly for polygons. When you
think about it, polygons are pretty simple. Calculate three points in
xyz space, fill the area of their combined vertecies, add textures,
effects, etc. The future might be voxels (perhaps millions in a scene,
like the PC game Outcast) or it might be NURBS (real NURBS, not
quadratic bezier polygonal surfaces) or it could be something completely
different (there are more theories on this than I can mention, really).
Ultimately it won't be so much the horesepower behind a system being the
limitation, but rather the modeling techniques. Even if you can render
reality, who can MODEL it? I think we'll have the ability to do a
reasonable facsimile of reality in about five years (at least on PCs),
but then it will take some real smart blokes to figure out how to model
something like reality...and how to interact with it. Not to mention
populating that world with interesting AIs and so on.
--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"
-Salvor Hardin
Alex "Kragma" Westley
Otaku and Perl hacker
Phoenix Gamma
~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
day at all.
-me
"Bow down to the Queen of Noise..."
Replies to sup...@usa.net - remove the "noway" spam block.
Icy Q#: 13246560 - Drop on by, cupcake...
crazeyface
impossible because its a render of real life so its actually a copy of real
life as in when you see Football in real life the players look diffrent
even the colors look diffrent then watching it on tv
even a photograph isnt perfect copy of real life the fact is anything else
that isnt "real life" will be a copy of it and as all copies are they suffer
from slightly less qualities.. but hey they will get perty damn close but i
hope they stay away from that there is a unique quality to making the
games look like "games"
Phoenix Gamma wrote in message <37b005d6...@news.intra.bt.com>...
Phoenix Gamma
<skco...@worldnet.att.net>:
~Or that digital artwork will make painting on a canvas obsolete.
~Who actually *paints* when they can digitally mip map anti-alias
~polygonalize everything? ;)
~
~Hasn't anyone else heard of *different mediums?*
~
~There's no such thing as better when it comes to a matter of personal
~preferences. Oh well...
MTE. It's the same with recording music (something I do in my spare
time).
Some people think analogue multitrackers are obsolete because digital
is all the rage, but that's not so at all.
Both digital and analogue mediums have their advantages and
disadvantages (I know, I use both myself). Roundabouts and swings.
The same goes for sprites and polys. Just because a new approach is
employed, it doesn't meant that the old has to be completely done away
with.
Montgomery
> You are indeed my pretty little bird, che...@my-deja.com:
> ~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> ~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> ~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> ~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
> When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
> games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
> day at all.
> -me
Something else... meaning, a dating sim? ;-)
--
<--[ Monty ]-->
[ "I like to show you wonderful things.
Let's go back to my place."
- Mr. Rogers]
Brian Osserman
> Really? 3DS MAX's renders are mostly scan converted, and they
>look fine. Isn't the system Renderman actually renders on also a scan
>converter? Radiosity + Reflection hacks + special treatment of specular
>light (which radiosity ignores) will look great, all without needing to
>ray-trace.
Well, it seems possible, which is why I left it as a question. Certainly
hacks will get you a long way, but whether a) they'll actually be as good as
real models and b) they'll eventually add so much computation to scan
converting that it removes any speed advantage over ray tracing, seem to be
less obvious.
Brian
www.sega-dreams.com
che...@my-deja.com
I agree that in some ways you wouldn't want photorealism in a game. I
kind of like that waxy look like the Silent Hill cut scenes. I would
love to see a game like that. That doesn't appear to be too far in the
future.
As far as the Final Fantasy movie and upcoming PSX2 games, Soul Calibur
etc, I don't see that as being even close to photorealism. It looks
great and is amazing, but it's not photorealism.
The whole photorealism thing isn't even attained in The Phantom Menace,
IMHO. They claimed you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
the computer generated characters and the real ones, but I don't think
it's true. When you see a still picture of Jar Jar, it looks pretty
good, but when you see him move it doesn't look quite real. Even
inanimate objects don't quite look real. I think it has a lot to do
with lighting. There's a lot more to getting film quality graphics than
just the visuals, it has a lot to do with the movemment.
The comment on 2D was interesting, and something that I didn't
consider. It would be a lot easier to make a photorealistic 2D game
first before jumping into 3D, and I would love to see this attempted.
That being said, I think *true* photorealistic games are several years
away, but I could be wrong since we're dealing with technology here.
Cherko
In article <7onrhb$ajb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
che...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
Mark Androvich
che...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7onrhb$ajb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
> Cherko
Considering how far we've come in the past 25 years, I think it would
certainly be possible for game graphics to someday look entirely
photorealistic. If I had been shown some of the latest DC, PSX, or N64
games when I was playing a blocky Atari 2600 game, I would have been blown
away! Of course, that doesn't mean that the games will necessarily PLAY
any better! Some of those blocky 2600 games are still fun today, and some
of today's empty eye-candy games will be soon forgotten.
As far as whether or not this should be the goal, the goal should always be
to make the best gaming experience possible. If photorealistic graphics
achieve that goal, fine. If 3D polygons or even 2D sprites achieve that
goal even better, designers should stay with them.
Mark
BoneDaddy
Steve McDevitt wrote in message <7oo149$45v$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>While I agree that 2D sprites are great, the reasons are less and less. I
>used to prefer sprites because of the emotion sprites can express better
>than polygons. However, with more detailed poly models you can display the
>same emotion. I now realize that with Soul Calibur. The characters are sooo
>detailed that you can just see when they are happy or hurting (mwa ha ha).
>Sprites are finally becoming obsolete. They have about a good 2 years left
>in them, but that's about it.
>
>www.gameassault.com
>
Yea, Soul Calibur is great and 3D works wonderfully on many different types
of games like driving, first person shooters, sports, and others, but games
like Mario, Sonic, Zelda and ESPECIALLY Castlevania play so much better in
2D. Not that their 3D counterparts are bad, but i'll take Mario All Stars
over Mario 64 anyday:) I just think that people in general are becoming more
concerned with graphics than gameplay in a lot of instances. I would still
like to see some 2D platformers in development, but I guess your correct in
saying those days are almost over:(
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
dna code throughout the universe instantly.
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:59:55 -0400, "crazeyface"
<cbre...@neo.lrun.com> wrote:
>once they get Toy Story Graphis I'll be happy Real life graphics hmm maybe
>impossible because its a render of real life so its actually a copy of real
>life as in when you see Football in real life the players look diffrent
>even the colors look diffrent then watching it on tv
>even a photograph isnt perfect copy of real life the fact is anything else
>that isnt "real life" will be a copy of it and as all copies are they suffer
>from slightly less qualities.. but hey they will get perty damn close but i
>hope they stay away from that there is a unique quality to making the
>games look like "games"
>
>
>
>Phoenix Gamma wrote in message <37b005d6...@news.intra.bt.com>...
>>You are indeed my pretty little bird, che...@my-deja.com:
>>
>>~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>>~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>>~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>>~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>>
>>When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
>>games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
>>day at all.
>>
>>
>>-me
>>
>>"Bow down to the Queen of Noise..."
>>
>>Replies to sup...@usa.net - remove the "noway" spam block.
>>
>>Icy Q#: 13246560 - Drop on by, cupcake...
>
anders0n
> You are indeed my pretty little bird, che...@my-deja.com:
>
> ~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> ~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> ~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> ~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
> When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
> games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
> day at all.
>
Aaaahhh a follower of the old addage:
Real is a four letter word!
Down with realism and up with surrealism, gosh dawgit or better yet..
super-realism..
Jason E.K. Brown
>
>> You are indeed my pretty little bird, che...@my-deja.com:
>>
>> ~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>> ~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>> ~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>> ~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>>
>> When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
>> games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
>> day at all.
I dunno...if we have holdeck type technology...a 3d "1st person shooter" might
be like being Reeves in the action scenes in the Matrix....sounds cool to
me...
Jason
Ed Stowell
two are talking about!!
sheesh!
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:21:50 GMT, i...@supremeex.com (||| ||||||| ||||
|| | | ||||||| | | ||||) wrote:
>i think real life will turn digital, as opposed to digital becoming
>more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
>will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
>transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
>dna code throughout the universe instantly.
>
>On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:59:55 -0400, "crazeyface"
><cbre...@neo.lrun.com> wrote:
>
>>once they get Toy Story Graphis I'll be happy Real life graphics hmm maybe
>>impossible because its a render of real life so its actually a copy of real
>>life as in when you see Football in real life the players look diffrent
>>even the colors look diffrent then watching it on tv
>>even a photograph isnt perfect copy of real life the fact is anything else
>>that isnt "real life" will be a copy of it and as all copies are they suffer
>>from slightly less qualities.. but hey they will get perty damn close but i
>>hope they stay away from that there is a unique quality to making the
>>games look like "games"
>>
>>
>>
>>Phoenix Gamma wrote in message <37b005d6...@news.intra.bt.com>...
>>>You are indeed my pretty little bird, che...@my-deja.com:
>>>
>>>~Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>>>~film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>>>~but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>>>~you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>>>
>>>When games start looking like that, they'll lose their appeal as mere
>>>games and will become something else. I do not look forward to that
>>>day at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>-me
>>>
>>>"Bow down to the Queen of Noise..."
>>>
>>>Replies to sup...@usa.net - remove the "noway" spam block.
>>>
>>>Icy Q#: 13246560 - Drop on by, cupcake...
>>
>
Phoenix Gamma
|||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||):
~i think real life will turn digital, as opposed to digital becoming
~more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
~will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
~transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
~dna code throughout the universe instantly.
Yeah, then one of the main computers gets a virus and we're all
screwed.
Technology has its place, but if we as humans become too reliant on
it, then we're in serious trouble.
Technology should serve us and not the other way around.
Phoenix Gamma
<ande...@geocities.com>:
~
~Aaaahhh a follower of the old addage:
~
~Real is a four letter word!
~
~Down with realism and up with surrealism, gosh dawgit or better yet..
~super-realism..
Hey, I like my games to be games, that's all.
Real life is around you every day. Why the hell would I want to
simulate it in a game environment when I could "live" the real thing?
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
Gamma) wrote:
>You are indeed my pretty little bird, i...@supremeex.com (||| |||||||
>|||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||):
>
>~i think real life will turn digital, as opposed to digital becoming
>~more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
>~will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
>~transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
>~dna code throughout the universe instantly.
>
>Yeah, then one of the main computers gets a virus and we're all
>screwed.
>
>Technology has its place, but if we as humans become too reliant on
>it, then we're in serious trouble.
>
>Technology should serve us and not the other way around.
sure if you so chose to go by the archaic, inept way of thinking.
merging with the binary code is inevitable. it can be argued that dna
is a program; that of authentic intelligence. only this is not a manga
by masamune shirow. this is the real. expect it. for dec. 23 2012
shall decide all. let's hope that genome project finishes so we can
upload...
-stink!
www.supremeex.com
Coke...just Coke
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | |||| <i...@supremeex.com> wrote in
message news:37b1376a...@netnews.netaxs.com...
> sure if you so chose to go by the archaic, inept way of thinking.
> merging with the binary code is inevitable. it can be argued that dna
> is a program; that of authentic intelligence. only this is not a manga
> by masamune shirow. this is the real. expect it. for dec. 23 2012
> shall decide all. let's hope that genome project finishes so we can
> upload...
Been playing a little too much Shadowrun?
------------------------------------------------------------
Call me Commander Soup.
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve McDevitt
types
> of games like driving, first person shooters, sports, and others, but
games
> like Mario, Sonic, Zelda and ESPECIALLY Castlevania play so much better in
> 2D. Not that their 3D counterparts are bad, but i'll take Mario All Stars
> over Mario 64 anyday:) I just think that people in general are becoming
more
> concerned with graphics than gameplay in a lot of instances. I would still
> like to see some 2D platformers in development, but I guess your correct
in
> saying those days are almost over:(
Also allow me this time to say that the death of the sprite will NOT be a
happy day in my book. I love 2D games much more than your average person,
but let's face it, this is the way things in the video game industry are
going whether we like it or not. Hopefully people will still be making 2D
games for years to come, but I doubt it. : (
Steve McDevitt
www.gameassault.com
Andrew Cox
> You are indeed my pretty little bird, anders0n
> <ande...@geocities.com>:
> ~
> ~Aaaahhh a follower of the old addage:
> ~
> ~Real is a four letter word!
> ~
> ~Down with realism and up with surrealism, gosh dawgit or better yet..
> ~super-realism..
> Hey, I like my games to be games, that's all.
> Real life is around you every day. Why the hell would I want to
> simulate it in a game environment when I could "live" the real thing?
Because, just like the holodec (sp?), it creates a realism for situations
that you would normally not be able to do. You could ski during the
summer, act out a Sherlock Holmes mystery (like that episode in ST:TNG),
or do anything else that is inaccessible. It doesn't even have to be real
stuff. You could be Mario looking for stars ... the possibilites are
really endless. It doesn't matter how realistic the graphics get, the
game will still be a game.
Andrew
Jeff Williams
Andrew Cox <co...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
> Because, just like the holodec (sp?), it creates a realism for
situations
> that you would normally not be able to do. You could ski during the
> summer,
...which you can do in any number of places in real life (snow never
melts over a certain altitude)...
act out a Sherlock Holmes mystery (like that episode in ST:TNG),
That's what we have the theater for.
> or do anything else that is inaccessible. It doesn't even have to be
real
> stuff. You could be Mario looking for stars ... the possibilites are
> really endless. It doesn't matter how realistic the graphics get, the
> game will still be a game.
Why simulate real life? By nature, "realism" denotes something that
*can* be done in reality. Reality is never "inaccessible."
If you ask me, all this realism crap is just an excuse used by people
who aren't gettin' any in real life.
--
// Jeff Williams
// ge...@nervhq.org
// "The one who survived is the one who had
// the will to make it happen." - Misato Katsuragi
PsychoKick
>In rec.games.video.nintendo Phoenix Gamma <sup...@noway.usa.net> wrote:
>> You are indeed my pretty little bird, anders0n
>> <ande...@geocities.com>:
>
>
>> ~
>> ~Aaaahhh a follower of the old addage:
>> ~
>> ~Real is a four letter word!
>> ~
>> ~Down with realism and up with surrealism, gosh dawgit or better yet..
>> ~super-realism..
>
>> Hey, I like my games to be games, that's all.
>
>> Real life is around you every day. Why the hell would I want to
>> simulate it in a game environment when I could "live" the real thing?
>
>Because, just like the holodec (sp?), it creates a realism for situations
>that you would normally not be able to do. You could ski during the
>summer, act out a Sherlock Holmes mystery (like that episode in ST:TNG),
>or do anything else that is inaccessible. It doesn't even have to be real
>stuff. You could be Mario looking for stars ... the possibilites are
>really endless. It doesn't matter how realistic the graphics get, the
>game will still be a game.
True. Good graphics don't necessarily make for a good game,
but they don't make for a bad game either. Most of the fun of a game
comes from its intangible, abstract "rules of play". Reality isn't fun
not because of its appearance, but because the rules are so damn
unforgiving and inflexible (permanent death takes a lot of fun out of
life).
*********PsychoKick********** "I have to dream big. I only have
**Mad Animator in Training*** time to get half of it done."
***And Professional Slacker** -Solomon Short
***************************** "A Season for Slaughter"
PsychoKick
|| | | ||||||| | | ||||) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 07:26:45 GMT, sup...@noway.usa.net (Phoenix
>Gamma) wrote:
>
>>You are indeed my pretty little bird, i...@supremeex.com (||| |||||||
>>|||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||):
>>
>>~i think real life will turn digital, as opposed to digital becoming
>>~more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
>>~will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
>>~transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
>>~dna code throughout the universe instantly.
>>
>>Yeah, then one of the main computers gets a virus and we're all
>>screwed.
>>
>>Technology has its place, but if we as humans become too reliant on
>>it, then we're in serious trouble.
>>
>>Technology should serve us and not the other way around.
>
>sure if you so chose to go by the archaic, inept way of thinking.
>merging with the binary code is inevitable. it can be argued that dna
>is a program; that of authentic intelligence. only this is not a manga
>by masamune shirow. this is the real. expect it. for dec. 23 2012
>shall decide all. let's hope that genome project finishes so we can
>upload...
Who's to say that we all aren't ALREADY in some sort of binary
network? And I'm not talking about some vast virtual-reality trick
like the "Matrix" movie, I'm talking about actual existence itself.
For example, every physical object is made up of positive (protons)
and negative (electrons) charges (with neutrons actually being a
combination of protons and electrons). That's pretty much the same as
computer programs being made up of 0s and 1s. Or the Eastern
philosophies that state that the universe is made up of two opposing
forces of Yin and Yang. People may scoff at it, but there are still
many working concepts based in such philosophies that modern science
still can't explain (ie: acupuncture); makes you wonder just how much
of them may be true.
Granted, I'm being VERY simplistic here (there are more
fundamental particals than protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the
Yin-Yang concept isn't as clear-cut as I've written it here), but
hopefully you get my gist. Basically, binary information can exist in
ANYTHING, be it chips and wires, or punched cards, or gears, or nerve
synapses, etc etc etc.
Yah, I'm insane. It's a lot of fun. ^_^
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
word!! the 5% nation of islam, although i am not a follower, has an
understanding of what is called "supreme mathemeatics". it states that
the world is governed by the laws of math and everything comes down to
an equation. i'll state it as such: energy is created by circular
movements. we rotate around the sun...atoms spin...your air
conditioner rotates around and around to heat your house, etc. math,
or more importantly PI is the ground level of all working systems as
we know it. pi is infinite. pi relates to circles and thus creates
energy. so in this method of thinking, anything is mathemeatical as it
is what all we know to be True is composed of. yea? nice
-stink!
www.supremeex.com
White Flame (aka David Holz)
news:37b1376a...@netnews.netaxs.com...
> merging with the binary code is inevitable. it can be argued that dna
> is a program; that of authentic intelligence. only this is not a manga
> by masamune shirow. this is the real. expect it. for dec. 23 2012
> shall decide all. let's hope that genome project finishes so we can
> upload...
So identical twins (who share the same DNA coding) are exactly the same, hmm?
DNA is only a starting point. Life is so much more than that, and isn't
encodable.
Hint: movies/videogames/anime sometimes aren't quite real. Get used to it.
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
http://fly.to/theflame
anders0n
Phoenix Gamma wrote:
> You are indeed my pretty little bird, anders0n
> <ande...@geocities.com>:
>
> ~
> ~Aaaahhh a follower of the old addage:
> ~
> ~Real is a four letter word!
> ~
> ~Down with realism and up with surrealism, gosh dawgit or better yet..
> ~super-realism..
>
> Hey, I like my games to be games, that's all.
>
> Real life is around you every day. Why the hell would I want to
> simulate it in a game environment when I could "live" the real thing?
I agree with you... I think Real is a four letter word when it comes to
video games... Why settle for real when we can go for super-real
(Ninja-scroll, the matrix, any jet li flick, pops into mind...).
Patrick C. Jones
>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>
>Cherko
>
What I'm interested in seeing is 3-D characters that look like 2-D cel
animation. The title character in "The Iron Giant" is a perfect
example, and is probably do-able now with DC-class hardware. It
certainly would be possible long before "synthetic reality"-type
visuals.
PCJ [blitz the second "r" to email]
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
no, you're completely wrong. a pair of twins may have SIMILIAR dna
patterns but not EXACT. and how do you chose to refference "life"? you
throw the word out but do not really follow up as to what context you
wish it to be regarded in? do you mean "spirit"? "soul"? "ki"?
elaborate...and who's not to say life is like a rubic's cube, only
with dna as your game piece? move the bits and pieces around into
place and 'CLICK!'....the puzzle is activated? i.e. "life" is granted.
we think, we reach and we achieve. thanks for your hint.
-stink
www.supremeex.com
David Ralphs
: On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 07:26:45 GMT, sup...@noway.usa.net (Phoenix
: Gamma) wrote:
: >You are indeed my pretty little bird, i...@supremeex.com (||| |||||||
: >|||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||):
: >
: >~i think real life will turn digital, as opposed to digital becoming
: >~more lifelike, and our dna will be encoded into binary form and we
: >~will upload our selves to the net and truly cybersurf. reality will
: >~transcend the apeman body and we will be able to transmit our binary
: >~dna code throughout the universe instantly.
: >
: >Yeah, then one of the main computers gets a virus and we're all
: >screwed.
: >
: >Technology has its place, but if we as humans become too reliant on
: >it, then we're in serious trouble.
: >
: >Technology should serve us and not the other way around.
: sure if you so chose to go by the archaic, inept way of thinking.
: merging with the binary code is inevitable. it can be argued that dna
: is a program; that of authentic intelligence. only this is not a manga
: by masamune shirow. this is the real. expect it. for dec. 23 2012
: shall decide all. let's hope that genome project finishes so we can
: upload...
Well Mr "I want to be digital", do you know anything about free-will?
Explain to me how a computer can have free will.
DNA is not intelligence. Its instructions to build something.
It happens that the thing that is built has the ability to be inteligent.
But it also important to realise that the building blocks
differ greatly from those of computers.
A computer is determanistic (its behaviour is pre-defined).
A human is not, we have free will.
And as for going binary... I hope that quantizing errors dont get you!
DN
--
F, is for fighting, R is for red
Ancestors blood in battles they've shed.
E, we elect them, E we eject them
In the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
D, for your dying. O your overture.
M, they will cover your grave with manure.
This spells out 'freedom', it means nothing to me,
as long as there's a PMRC.
D. Mustaine - "Hook in Mouth"
David Ralphs
: Who's to say that we all aren't ALREADY in some sort of binary
: network? And I'm not talking about some vast virtual-reality trick
: like the "Matrix" movie, I'm talking about actual existence itself.
: For example, every physical object is made up of positive (protons)
: and negative (electrons) charges (with neutrons actually being a
: combination of protons and electrons). That's pretty much the same as
: computer programs being made up of 0s and 1s. Or the Eastern
: philosophies that state that the universe is made up of two opposing
: forces of Yin and Yang. People may scoff at it, but there are still
: many working concepts based in such philosophies that modern science
: still can't explain (ie: acupuncture); makes you wonder just how much
: of them may be true.
: Granted, I'm being VERY simplistic here (there are more
: fundamental particals than protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the
: Yin-Yang concept isn't as clear-cut as I've written it here), but
: hopefully you get my gist. Basically, binary information can exist in
: ANYTHING, be it chips and wires, or punched cards, or gears, or nerve
: synapses, etc etc etc.
Binary can exist in those forms,
but that is not the same as these things being in binary.
I can encode 1 binary bit by having my mouth open or shut.
But that doesnt mean I can describe the state of my mouth
by using 1 bit. I would need many bits to allow for the
various shapes it can be.. smiling, pouting etc
Binary is a discrete form - it has a set number of states
according to how many bits you use.
It can never 100% accurately represent a single analog value.
There will be some quantising (rounding) at some point.
To represent the infinite possibilities of the state of just
a single particle - you need something that is itself infinity variable.
Quantum system can do this.
You can (in theory) represent the whole universe using
a system smaller than the whole universe.
: Yah, I'm insane. It's a lot of fun. ^_^
You are not insane - you are uninformed.
There is a difference.
DN
--
I'm lonely and abandoned
Washed up, left for dead
I'm lost inside the desert
Of every word you said
D. Mustaine - "I'll Get Even"
David Ralphs
: word!! the 5% nation of islam, although i am not a follower, has an
: understanding of what is called "supreme mathemeatics". it states that
: the world is governed by the laws of math and everything comes down to
: an equation. i'll state it as such: energy is created by circular
: movements. we rotate around the sun...atoms spin...your air
: conditioner rotates around and around to heat your house, etc. math,
: or more importantly PI is the ground level of all working systems as
: we know it. pi is infinite. pi relates to circles and thus creates
: energy. so in this method of thinking, anything is mathemeatical as it
: is what all we know to be True is composed of. yea? nice
Now this guy is a loon...
Show me a circle in the real world...
Just 1 example of a perfect circle where pi (and its infinite
digits) can be applied.
Mathematics is applied to the real world, but only so much as
it is interesting that the real world is modelled very well
by mathematics.
But there is no evidence that pure mathematical concepts (things such
as circles and pi) actually exist in the "real world".
Yes there are close approximations.
But nobody can say they have found a "straight line", let alone
a "perfect circle".
Probably the closest we have come to showing maths does represent
the real world is in checking the accuracy of the inverse square law.
They have done measurements to check how accurate the 2 is in 1/x^2
Does gravity (and electrostatic) attraction fall off inversely
to the square? Or is it more like to 2.000001?
So far measurements have shown that it is 2.0000 (lots of 0s)
for as accurate as we can measure.
DN
--
A conspiracy of silence
The only way out of pain
Is turn around, run through it man
Too wet to come in from the rain
Tell them...
I know they were doing it to you
But don't try doing it to me
D. Mustaine - "Family Tree"
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
wrote:
that's in assuming that this is the real world and not some 5 year
old's A.I. program...and i was focusing more on energy being spawned
by math (or vice versa?) than someone's ability to draw a straight
line and/or circle. and again, dna can and will be converted to binary
code. do you, mr loon, dispute this?
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | ||||
wrote:
hi mr. "i have a degree in blah blah and thou are measly"
i assume your "free will" means "soul" which i again will assume is
counteractive to your obvious scientific background? i propose this:
dna is a set of instructions. but if corrected/stablizied/arranged in
a certain manner, produces or catches a soul to whom it becomes host?
is that possible sir? does that fit into your text books? does some of
what i say dispute what you learned in skool? is that why you are so
aggressive? really....i question genuinely? are you a man of faith,
sir? is "free will" something granted or is it the true Self? the
overmind manifested?
when dna is encoded we will not become computers. we will use them as
a medium to transcend.
"hey honey, want to go to cornelius5467 on saturday?"
"sure baby, upload me and beam me through the hubble"
computers will be a natural extension of our being. and watch
out...man may posses what you call "free will" but many religions of
antiquity claimed the same things of ants, grass, wind and even rocks.
thoughts? this time a little less ecstatic with the "mr" and "loon"
references?
-stink!
sswift
>Yea, Soul Calibur is great and 3D works wonderfully on many different types
>of games like driving, first person shooters, sports, and others, but games
>like Mario, Sonic, Zelda and ESPECIALLY Castlevania play so much better in
>2D. Not that their 3D counterparts are bad, but i'll take Mario All Stars
>over Mario 64 anyday:)
You're crazy!
Mario 64 and Zelda 64 have FAR more gameplay value than their 2D
predecessors. You never had mario doing backflips in 2D.
Granted, many 3D platformers play like crap. And granted, Mario and
Zelda may be pretty damn good, but they're not perfect... but as time
goes on, 3d platformers will get better and better. It's pretty
obvious that the 2D platformer is dead, and 2d RPG's are going to go
away very soon.
>I just think that people in general are becoming more
>concerned with graphics than gameplay in a lot of instances.
The graphics are important to me, but the gameplay is also very
important. There's a lot of 2D RPG's on PC that I actually think
look a lot better than the 3D ones. Actually, there's not one 3D RPG
on the PC I'd want to play. It seems crazy, but I think their
graphics totally suck compared to Zelda... and the N64 has a fraction
of the power the PC has. Zelda's just got better art direction.
These stupid RPG's on PC... they like license the unreal engine, and
then they go and make the same square-block dungeons they've been
making since The Bard's Tale on the C=64!
sswift
>It will be hear in about a month or two.
>Its called the NV10. Only on PC's, however.
>
>It has a photorealism engine built in. Only 30 FPS, but hey, its
>photorealism.
>
>Lets hope they pull it off.
Hahaha...
Sorry, I have no idea what this "photorealism engine" is, but it's not
going to create photorealistic graphics, even if they say it will.
Even high end CGI systems have a hard time creating photrealistic
graphics. I think the most photrealistic stuff I've seen is the
stuff in the Phantom Menace. The pod racing scene... that
environement was all CG. But notice that it's a desert... You can't
really make something much more complicated that's all CG yet, even
for the movies. And even if you could do it RIGHT NOW in the movies,
it would still be 10 years before 3d accelerators got fast enough to
calculate all that stuff in realtime.
Maybe in 10 years we'll have pretty photorealistic looking jungles and
stuff. But there's another problem... even if the hardware has the
power to do it, who's gonna do it?
It took a lot of people to do the phantom menace, and game companies
don't have that kinda money to spend on their games. But maybe if
people license premade models and stuff to cut costs and time and
manpower... Trees and cars and coke machines... then maybe the better
than average game company will be able to pull it off
sswift
>it's true. When you see a still picture of Jar Jar, it looks pretty
>good, but when you see him move it doesn't look quite real. Even
>inanimate objects don't quite look real. I think it has a lot to do
>with lighting. There's a lot more to getting film quality graphics than
>just the visuals, it has a lot to do with the movemment.
I don't think it's the lighting. I think it's the fact that those
MORONS working for Lucas used hand done animation instead of motion
capture!
I'm pretty sure I heard ina documentary that instead of strapping
ping pong balls to some guy and capturing his motions for the
charactar, they had the animators hand animate him on the computer
like Disney would do. That's just totally moronic! Hand animation
can NEVER look as realistic as motion captured animation... there's
all sorts of movement nuances that the animators won't add.
The most annoying thing about Jar Jar is his walk... it's so obviously
wrong... didn't lucas SEE that? Why the hell didn't he fix it?
>The comment on 2D was interesting, and something that I didn't
>consider. It would be a lot easier to make a photorealistic 2D game
>first before jumping into 3D, and I would love to see this attempted.
Well if you wanteed to make a photorealistic 2D game it could have
been done years ago. Take a driving game for instance... photographi
all of new york from above, and then photograph a bunch of cars from
above. Instant "photorealistic" graphics.
The problem is, is that this would look totally cheesy... video, and
especially stills, of real stuff looks like crap when you're using it
for a game... I'm not sure why... but it just looks totally cheesy.
sswift
Oh, it's possible right now. It's REALLY easy to do. Could have been
done years ago on the PC, or in Mario 64 when it came out on the N64.
Why has nobody done it? I don't know. But I've heard there IS a game
coming out for some system that does it.
How do you do it?
Take your 3D charactar. Find all the edges where one polygon sharing
the edge is facing toward the camera, and the other polygon sharing
the edge is facing away from the camera. Then draw that edge with a
dark black line.
And of course, you'd want to make your textures appropriate to the
cartoon look... and they might have their own black lines.
And there you have a 3D charactar that looks 2D.
So as you can see, it's really simple. There's no major calculation
involved or anything.
I think people don't do it because the black lines are kind of
pointless in 3D. They use them in 2D so they know where to paint I
think. :) But in 3D, they're unnessarry. The charactars don't really
need to be distiguised from the background, unless you do a poor job
of making the charactars so they can be distinguished from the
background... even Mario doesn't have black lines.
Anothe rreason might be because it often looks weird. From what I've
seen of the Iron Giant, it looks okay... but I've seen 3D with black
lines that looks... odd, somehow. I'm not sure what it is, but it
just looks weird seeing perfectly smooth and correct movement/rotation
on a 2D-like drawn charactar often.
Steve Cutting
sswif...@SPAM.SPAMearthlinkSPAM.SPAMnetSPAM (sswift) wrote:
>che...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>it's true. When you see a still picture of Jar Jar, it looks pretty
>>good, but when you see him move it doesn't look quite real. Even
>>inanimate objects don't quite look real. I think it has a lot to do
>>with lighting. There's a lot more to getting film quality graphics than
>>just the visuals, it has a lot to do with the movemment.
>
>I don't think it's the lighting. I think it's the fact that those
>MORONS working for Lucas used hand done animation instead of motion
>capture!
>
>I'm pretty sure I heard ina documentary that instead of strapping
>ping pong balls to some guy and capturing his motions for the
>charactar, they had the animators hand animate him on the computer
>like Disney would do. That's just totally moronic! Hand animation
>can NEVER look as realistic as motion captured animation... there's
>all sorts of movement nuances that the animators won't add.
They did do motion-capture for Jar Jar and the other Gungans. I read
an interview with Ahmed Best, and he talked about how it took him ages
to get strapped into his motion-capture suit. There are parts in the
movie where you can really see it. Others parts do look more robotic
though, and it looks they've done it by hand.
I agree about the lighting comment though. Matching the
lighting/contrast of the CGI stuff to the live action is major part of
getting it to look "really there". Quite often with CGI stuff, it
appears washed out, because there is not enough contrast in it. This
makes it stand out from the live action, regardless of how well it's
animated. For instance Jar Jar at the dinner table. He looks/moves
brilliantly, but he appears slightly washed out compared to the other
characters at the table. He just needs a bit more contrast to make him
fit in perfectly. Watto on the other hand I thought was done superbly.
Darker or night-time scenes seem to be the easiest to match lightwise.
Probably because there's usually just a single light source which is
easy to match in the rendering process (ie the moon or an inside
light). Jar Jar looked much more "there" during the darker scenes,
such as inside the submarine thingy.
The other thing is motion-blur. Sometimes they got this spot-on, other
times they didn't seem to add any at all. Like the scene in the battle
where Jar Jar gets the droid stuck on his foot, which doesn't appear
to have any motion-blur at all.
>
>The most annoying thing about Jar Jar is his walk... it's so obviously
>wrong... didn't lucas SEE that? Why the hell didn't he fix it?
Probably just lack of time I'd say. I think with this movie they had
like 2000+ CGI shots to render. Chances are they just didn't have the
time to be able to sit down and tweak every frame to perfection. They
just had to do the best they could in the time they had. I heard they
only finished the movie a week or 2 before the release date anyway.
Steve
Ice Blue
original Donkey Kong for GB! It's pretty fun! The backflip is the highest
jump in the game!
zubnut
||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | |||| <i...@supremeex.com> wrote in
message news:37b3710e...@netnews.netaxs.com...
skco...@worldnet.att.net
>
> what the f... ?
>
That's nuts.. I was almost going to try to use reason, but now
I realize that it's not worth my time or effort, lol.
-Tom
> ||| ||||||| |||| || | | ||||||| | | |||| <i...@supremeex.com> wrote in
> message news:37b3710e...@netnews.netaxs.com..
White Flame (aka David Holz)
news:37b1fccc...@news.mindspring.com...
> What I'm interested in seeing is 3-D characters that look like 2-D cel
> animation. The title character in "The Iron Giant" is a perfect
> example, and is probably do-able now with DC-class hardware. It
> certainly would be possible long before "synthetic reality"-type
> visuals.
My copy of Animation:Master is arriving today! Should look nice, running in
2048x1536 on my computer. :) If you look in the stills gallery on their site,
on about the 8th page or so, there's an image with the word "3DCGI?" on it,
showing a wireframe anime girl, then the "toon" rendered version right next to
it. It looks _exactly_ like a 2D cel!
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
PsychoKick
wrote:
>PsychoKick (wy...@panix.com) wrote:
In other words, analog forms can only act as the medium on
which binary data is stored, eh?
>To represent the infinite possibilities of the state of just
>a single particle - you need something that is itself infinity variable.
>
>Quantum system can do this.
>You can (in theory) represent the whole universe using
>a system smaller than the whole universe.
Is it in any way related to fractals?
Know any good beginner's books/sources on the subject,
something like "Quantum Physics for Dummies"? I always wanted to look
into the subject, but never really had the time until recently.
>: Yah, I'm insane. It's a lot of fun. ^_^
>
>You are not insane - you are uninformed.
>There is a difference.
Maybe uninformed in this particular area, but I still think
I'm insane in general. And perhaps one day it may blossom into genius.
Either way it's still lots of fun. ^_^
Patrick C. Jones
>Oh, it's possible right now. It's REALLY easy to do. Could have been
>done years ago on the PC, or in Mario 64 when it came out on the N64.
>Why has nobody done it? I don't know. But I've heard there IS a game
>coming out for some system that does it.
>
>How do you do it?
>
>And there you have a 3D charactar that looks 2D.
>
>So as you can see, it's really simple. There's no major calculation
>involved or anything.
>
>
>Anothe rreason might be because it often looks weird. From what I've
>seen of the Iron Giant, it looks okay... but I've seen 3D with black
>lines that looks... odd, somehow. I'm not sure what it is, but it
>just looks weird seeing perfectly smooth and correct movement/rotation
>on a 2D-like drawn charactar often.
>
>
little more of it. Weird visuals shouldn't be a problem /if/ they're
wrapped around a /good/ game.
PCJ [de-rezz the second "r" to email]
Allan Liangco
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, 00:25:24 GMT, "Cherko" <che...@my-deja.com> wrote in
the article <7onrhb$ajb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
>film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
>Cherko
Heck, that can happen now! A computer game with graphics so realistic is
most likely possible right now w/ the technology currently available.
Games w/ photo-realistic still pictures have been available before, but
if 1 was to be made using photo-realistic motion images, then a game like
that can be produced now which can be played on a console like the 64-bit
Nintendo game system (given the adequate resources).
Weapon X <-Allan-> QSB...@prodigy.com
SORTI...@aol.com
Visit my Transformers webpages at:
<http://pages.prodigy.com/Spiders_Web/tf-web.htm>
<http://pages.prodigy.com/Transformers/>
Spider's Web(site): <http://pages.prodigy.com/Spiders_Web>
My Webpage of cool stuff: <http://pages.prodigy.com/Spiders_Web/al.htm>
"With great power comes great responsibility." - Spider-Man, animated
series
Jeremy Williamson
sswift wrote:
> rail...@mindspring.com (Patrick C. Jones) wrote:
> >che...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >>Do you think videogame graphics that are indistinguishable from live
> >>film is something that will happen in the near future? Not FMV or CG,
> >>but a playable game with complete free movement that would look like
> >>you're watching a movie or TV program. Is this even a goal?
> >>
> >>Cherko
> >>
> >What I'm interested in seeing is 3-D characters that look like 2-D cel
> >animation. The title character in "The Iron Giant" is a perfect
> >example, and is probably do-able now with DC-class hardware. It
> >certainly would be possible long before "synthetic reality"-type
> >visuals.
Its interesting that this topic came up since I just got back from SIGGRAPH
'99
in LA and quite a few papers at the conference addressed this issue. There
was also a presentation I attended with example taken from What Dreams May
Come and Tarzan (particularly the Deep Forest scene). There really seems
to
be a lot of recent effort towards creating a marriage between traditional
cell
animation and 3D animation primarily to reduce the amount of redundant work
cell animators have to deal with.
> Oh, it's possible right now. It's REALLY easy to do. Could have been
> done years ago on the PC, or in Mario 64 when it came out on the N64.
> Why has nobody done it? I don't know. But I've heard there IS a game
> coming out for some system that does it.
>
> How do you do it?
>
> Take your 3D charactar. Find all the edges where one polygon sharing
> the edge is facing toward the camera, and the other polygon sharing
> the edge is facing away from the camera. Then draw that edge with a
> dark black line.
>
> And of course, you'd want to make your textures appropriate to the
> cartoon look... and they might have their own black lines.
>
> And there you have a 3D charactar that looks 2D.
Well, that's a start but that's not quite good enough... What you're
implying
is that there is an automated way to perform the job at the hardware level
once all appropriate transformations have taken place and once non-visible
surfaces have been culled. +You're assumbing you can perform such
transformations with a minimal set of texture maps. While you can get a 2D
animated feel with this method and could perhaps work with certain
applications
you'll still be a long way from anything that looks or feels like Disney.
This issues are quite varied and far more involved. The basic issues
include
making it look like brush strokes, using view-dependent geometries (i.e.
the
rotation of a character doesn't necessary follow physical laws) and
providing
a meaningful interaction between the artist and the underlying 3D model.
> So as you can see, it's really simple. There's no major calculation
> involved or anything.
Actually, the making of Tarzan was anything but simple. These guys created
a method of recording as many nuances of an artists brush stroke as
possible.
So an animator would paint a scene (a single cell of animation) and as the
computer moved the view it would painstakingly repaint the scene pulling
from
the brush stroke database, culling out strokes that moved out of view and
allowing the artist to fill in surfaces that are no longer occluded (hidden
from view).
>
> I think people don't do it because the black lines are kind of
> pointless in 3D. They use them in 2D so they know where to paint I
> think. :) But in 3D, they're unnessarry. The charactars don't really
> need to be distiguised from the background, unless you do a poor job
> of making the charactars so they can be distinguished from the
> background... even Mario doesn't have black lines.
>
> Anothe rreason might be because it often looks weird. From what I've
> seen of the Iron Giant, it looks okay... but I've seen 3D with black
> lines that looks... odd, somehow. I'm not sure what it is, but it
> just looks weird seeing perfectly smooth and correct movement/rotation
> on a 2D-like drawn charactar often.
That's because you lose the exaggerations of the physical world
deliberately
used by animators (I'm referring to those of the basic cell animation
school
cartoon artists and such...) As a matter of fact, yet another paper at
SIGGRAPH '99 addressed this issue of "view dependent" geometry.
e.g., if you look at Bugs Bunny walking into the camera you'll see a more
side to side motion of the knees to accentuate the movement vs. a side shot
of Bugs where the movement is accentuated from front to back thru a longer
stride. Not to mention lighting is often entirely a product of the
animators
imagination to influence the way a piece of art is perceived...
(One presenter pointed out lighting discrepancies in the Sistine Chapel)
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to me to be much more than a brute force
keyframing method to perform the view-dependent "2d" character animation.
So, let's just say there's a long way to go, but people are hard at work on
the
problems...
.
Jeremy Williamson
White Flame (aka David Holz)
news:37babd9b...@news.panix.com...
> There's anothing 3D cartoon done 2D-style at
> http://www.redecho.com/workwithus/, though it's not done in Animation
> Master but LightWave 3D. Ignore the first picture on their site,
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahhh, that explains all of the nasty tesselation artefacts (what's with the
hair?!). Polygons? We don't _need_ no stinking polygons! ;) I really like
the 3d->2d style, though. It's quite a change seeing 2d-looking cels do a
perfect camera flyby and such. Hopefully they'll make a lot of good use of it
quickly, because it'll become mainstream shortly.
PsychoKick
<white-fl...@geocities.KillTheParrot.com> wrote:
>Patrick C. Jones <rail...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:37b1fccc...@news.mindspring.com...
>> What I'm interested in seeing is 3-D characters that look like 2-D cel
>> animation. The title character in "The Iron Giant" is a perfect
>> example, and is probably do-able now with DC-class hardware. It
>> certainly would be possible long before "synthetic reality"-type
>> visuals.
>
>www.hash.com
>
>My copy of Animation:Master is arriving today! Should look nice, running in
>2048x1536 on my computer. :) If you look in the stills gallery on their site,
>on about the 8th page or so, there's an image with the word "3DCGI?" on it,
>showing a wireframe anime girl, then the "toon" rendered version right next to
>it. It looks _exactly_ like a 2D cel!
There's anothing 3D cartoon done 2D-style at
http://www.redecho.com/workwithus/, though it's not done in Animation
Master but LightWave 3D. Ignore the first picture on their site,
though, it's based on their earlier models and really doesn't look
half as good as their newer designs.
sswift
>sswift wrote:
>> Oh, it's possible right now. It's REALLY easy to do. Could have been
>> done years ago on the PC, or in Mario 64 when it came out on the N64.
>> Why has nobody done it? I don't know. But I've heard there IS a game
>> coming out for some system that does it.
>Well, that's a start but that's not quite good enough... What you're
>implying is that there is an automated way to perform the job at the hardware
>level once all appropriate transformations have taken place and once non-visible
>surfaces have been culled. +You're assumbing you can perform such
>transformations with a minimal set of texture maps. While you can get a 2D
>animated feel with this method and could perhaps work with certain
>applications you'll still be a long way from anything that looks or feels like
>Disney.
Well duh. :) Like I said, it doesn't always look exactly like 2D
would look... because 2D geenrally does weird stuff like you mention
where the charactar doesn't look exactly how it would be if he were
actually 3D from a front and a side view.
>This issues are quite varied and far more involved. The basic issues
>include
>making it look like brush strokes, using view-dependent geometries (i.e.
>the
>rotation of a character doesn't necessary follow physical laws) and
>providing
>a meaningful interaction between the artist and the underlying 3D model.
But that's getting crazy... Sure, for a 3D modelling package, it would
be feasable. But for a game? No way. Way too processor intensive...
and even if it weren't... a company would be crazy to try to write
such an engine themselves... they'd have to license it.
The method I proposed works fairly well. I've seen a plugin for
lightwave which appears to use this exact mthod. And, Worms 2 has a
bunch of rendered animations which appear to use this plugin, and to
very good use. I don't think you could say the results of the
animation in Worms 2's opening videos weren't very good. I thought
they looked great... though they did use pretty low polygon models on
those worms... I can see the polygon corners in up close views. But
if they'd used higher poly worms, it would have been perfect.
>> So as you can see, it's really simple. There's no major calculation
>> involved or anything.
>
>Actually, the making of Tarzan was anything but simple. These guys created
>a method of recording as many nuances of an artists brush stroke as
>possible.
We're not talking about a movie. We're talking about a game, and
doing the stuff in realtime. You can go crazy with the special
effects for a movie.
I stand by what I said... Mario 64 could look like a 2D cartoon. Not
as good as Tarazan obviously, but cool nonetheless. And with high res
texturemaps and super detailed geometry, it would look really kick
ass. But no, it wouldn't look EXACTLY like it had been drawn, but I
don't think players who don't know what's behind it would even know it
wasn't drawn... I know most people couldn't tell worms 2's opening
animations were done with 3D models, and those weren't even very
smooth 3d models.
>So, let's just say there's a long way to go, but people are hard at work on
>the
>problems...
I still say you can do perfectly good 2D looking 3D in realtime. Just
because it's not tarzan, and just because it doesn't have every nuance
a 2D animator would put in doesn't mean it won't look like it was
drawn to most people.
Rodrigo Andrade
In my opinion, if ILM (NOT Lucas Arts--they're 2 different companies owned
by the same person) enters the gaming business, we could see some pretty
cool games coming.
--
RODRIGO
====================================================================
"You're gonna go beyond too, may pain and death bestow you." -- King Diamond
Graham Goring
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> writes
>There was an arcade game like that (some sort of Western), but it was FMV.
>
>In my opinion, if ILM (NOT Lucas Arts--they're 2 different companies owned
>by the same person) enters the gaming business, we could see some pretty
>cool games coming.
Why? They've no experience in writing games at all, just doing special
effects. I'm sure the FMV would be nice, but I can't see them doing a
great game straight off the bat unless they bring in a ton of outside
talent, in which case it wouldn't really be a game by ILM.
Graham Goring
--
/========================================================\ Cheeses That
| "And lo, it came to pass that The Evil One eventually | I Have Eaten
| uploaded his most despicable of web pages. And there | No. 03
| befell a time of much wailing and gnashing of teeth." |
| Book Of Brevelation - The New Toastament | A Nice Mild
\==== http://www.duketastrophy.demon.co.uk/index.htm ====/ Stilton
Henry Davidson
Steve Cutting wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:18:38 GMT,
> sswif...@SPAM.SPAMearthlinkSPAM.SPAMnetSPAM (sswift) wrote:
>
> >che...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>it's true. When you see a still picture of Jar Jar, it looks pretty
> >>good, but when you see him move it doesn't look quite real.
true
> Even
> >>inanimate objects don't quite look real.
yeah, that is a prob
> I think it has a lot to do
> >>with lighting.
not really... you can tell that I badly lit photo is real
> There's a lot more to getting film quality graphics than
> >>just the visuals, it has a lot to do with the movemment.
Not really, you can tell real pics from fake pics, ever jar jar ones
>
> >
> >I don't think it's the lighting.
it's not
> I think it's the fact that those
> >MORONS working for Lucas used hand done animation instead of motion
> >capture!
That is true, they are not too smart.
>
> >
> >I'm pretty sure I heard ina documentary that instead of strapping
> >ping pong balls to some guy and capturing his motions for the
> >charactar, they had the animators hand animate him on the computer
> >like Disney would do. That's just totally moronic! Hand animation
> >can NEVER look as realistic as motion captured animation... there's
> >all sorts of movement nuances that the animators won't add.
Yeah, pretty dumb.
>
>
> They did do motion-capture for Jar Jar and the other Gungans. I read
> an interview with Ahmed Best, and he talked about how it took him ages
> to get strapped into his motion-capture suit.
That is just plain silly. I invented a system that will just eliminate the
need for any gear,
ever...
> There are parts in the
> movie where you can really see it.
That is something new on me.
> Others parts do look more robotic
> though, and it looks they've done it by hand.
Yeah, they should use some fuzzy logic and real footage emulation
to make it look more real.
>
>
> I agree about the lighting comment though.
I don't...
> Matching the
> lighting/contrast of the CGI stuff to the live action is major part of
> getting it to look "really there".
That is true though, lighting does 'help', as do 1000 other things.
I have devised the ultimate system. Just copy the real world via
cameras and visualization software. They do it all the time with satellite
photos and for construction. We just need to make a real time chip that
can do it with several cheap digital cams...
> Quite often with CGI stuff, it
> appears washed out, because there is not enough contrast in it.
Any one thing does not affect the reality... there are tons of
things that make a pic look real or not...
> This
> makes it stand out from the live action, regardless of how well it's
> animated. For instance Jar Jar at the dinner table. He looks/moves
> brilliantly, but he appears slightly washed out compared to the other
> characters at the table.
true
> He just needs a bit more contrast to make him
> fit in perfectly. Watto on the other hand I thought was done superbly.
yeah, but not good enough... They need realistic gravity and physics via
simplfied connected objects linked with a fuzzy controller.
>
>
> Darker or night-time scenes seem to be the easiest to match lightwise.
> Probably because there's usually just a single light source which is
> easy to match in the rendering process (ie the moon or an inside
> light). Jar Jar looked much more "there" during the darker scenes,
> such as inside the submarine thingy.
>
> The other thing is motion-blur. Sometimes they got this spot-on, other
> times they didn't seem to add any at all. Like the scene in the battle
> where Jar Jar gets the droid stuck on his foot, which doesn't appear
> to have any motion-blur at all.
Motion blur in the movie was terrible. That is why I devised a system to
generate in between frames in real time. It could be applied to current day
film projectors to generate the missing frames and project them digitally as
you watch the movie.
>
>
> >
> >The most annoying thing about Jar Jar is his walk...
He walks like he is a stupid guy...
> it's so obviously
> >wrong... didn't lucas SEE that? Why the hell didn't he fix it?
>
> Probably just lack of time I'd say. I think with this movie they had
> like 2000+ CGI shots to render.
They need NEW TECHNOLOGY.
They need a system that is run by a fuzzy controller that uses analog
circuitry and can make 1 billion fuzzy decisions per sec. Then they need
to make hardware visualization. Simply make depth maps from two digital
camera.(I have done it, it is easy-with 100 lines of C code), then generate
polygons from the depth map(a little harder), then recognize the objects from
the
polygons they are constructed from and refine them from the current frame.
Tracks
any moving objects as they move so all this does not need to be computed ever
sec. Then simply tell the computer what angle you want everything shot from.
It could
easily recompute... In fact, if anyone is interested, send me money. LOL If I
can get my
hands on the SDK to make software for the dreamcast I could hook it to my PC
and
run the software linked to the dreamcast to present the final footage...
> Chances are they just didn't have the
> time to be able to sit down and tweak every frame to perfection.
Chances are they are wasting too much time using the junky computers
available today... They should make new systems, and write new software.
> They
> just had to do the best they could in the time they had.
That wasn't their best. They just wanna make money.
They don't really care how good it look. They wants the
best quality for the buck.
> I heard they
> only finished the movie a week or 2 before the release date anyway.
Because they took too long.
> Steve
--
Henry Davidson
phe...@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/phelkow
White Flame (aka David Holz)
news:37C150EA...@erols.com...
> Steve Cutting wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:18:38 GMT,
> > sswif...@SPAM.SPAMearthlinkSPAM.SPAMnetSPAM (sswift) wrote:
> > >che...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >>I think it has a lot to do with lighting.
>
> not really... you can tell that I badly lit photo is real
The problem isn't with the quality of the lighting. The problem is matching
the CG character's lighting to the live footage lighting. If the character is
brighter, more specular, more washed out, etc than the rest of the scene, it's
a big problem. SW:TPM had some problems with this.
> > They did do motion-capture for Jar Jar and the other Gungans. I read
> > an interview with Ahmed Best, and he talked about how it took him ages
> > to get strapped into his motion-capture suit.
>
> That is just plain silly. I invented a system that will just eliminate the
> need for any gear,
> ever...
The suit is by far the easiest motion capture device to use. It's just a pain
to get into! Any automated motion capture that takes a video shot of a 3-d
person moving around will need tweaking. Joint sensors on a suit are still the
best way, and they keep getting smaller and easier.
> > Others parts do look more robotic
> > though, and it looks they've done it by hand.
>
> Yeah, they should use some fuzzy logic and real footage emulation
> to make it look more real.
"real footage emulation"? What in the world is that? Isn't that what the CG
industry is all about? I've got software that will emulate film grain, bloom,
and all those film artefacts. What more do you need? We have the technology
to make anything on film; all that lacks is a _lot_ of truly artistic people
working together to make it look real, without concerns for budget or
timeframe!
> I have devised the ultimate system. Just copy the real world via
> cameras and visualization software. They do it all the time with satellite
> photos and for construction. We just need to make a real time chip that
> can do it with several cheap digital cams...
Why do you need real time for doing a pre-recorded movie? Also, the tweaking
involved in multi-view 3-d scanning is immense, especially for real-world
scenes. For any acceptable level of automation, the actor would have to get
into a special multi-colored suit, on a specific color background, etc, which
would be the same complexity as getting into traditional motion-capture gear.
> > He just needs a bit more contrast to make him
> > fit in perfectly. Watto on the other hand I thought was done superbly.
>
> yeah, but not good enough... They need realistic gravity and physics via
> simplfied connected objects linked with a fuzzy controller.
The gravity & physics systems I agree with. There's software now that will do
it, but for the magnitude of a model used for the movie industry, it would take
the most powerful commercial computer we have months or even years to calculate
a second of motion for the positioning of bones, muscles, skin, air/dust,
wings, sweat drops, etc.
btw, have you ever actually implemented a fuzzy controller of any significant
magnitude? It is _definitely_ not a cure-all, and would really not fit in this
situation.
> Motion blur in the movie was terrible. That is why I devised a system to
> generate in between frames in real time. It could be applied to current day
> film projectors to generate the missing frames and project them digitally as
> you watch the movie.
Tweening for motion blur is a horrible, brute-force, non-photorealistic way of
doing motion blur. Again, there's been software out for years that does true
logarithmic gradients over time, with options for different shutter types &
speeds.
But what you're talking about above seems more like interpolating frames to
create a higher frame per second rate. This is a problem because it makes
things look more "computer generated" because it moves too smoothly, and you
lose that real-world jitter & jerking that the eye is accustomed to.
> > >The most annoying thing about Jar Jar is his walk...
>
> He walks like he is a stupid guy...
This is more of an artistic problem than a technical one. Can't fix poor art
with better software.
> They need NEW TECHNOLOGY.
> They need a system that is run by a fuzzy controller that uses analog
> circuitry and can make 1 billion fuzzy decisions per sec.
Fuzzy controllers are fixed systems. They use them in stuff like anti-lock
brakes and controllers like that. Once designed, they usually cannot be
manipulated, and if they can, they learn very slowly over millions of
repetitions. Designing a fuzzy controller takes many man-years of work. What
the heck are you talking about using fuzzy technology for movie & computer
graphics?!?
> Then they need
> to make hardware visualization. Simply make depth maps from two digital
> camera.(I have done it, it is easy-with 100 lines of C code), then generate
> polygons from the depth map(a little harder), then recognize the objects from
> the
> polygons they are constructed from and refine them from the current frame.
> Tracks
> any moving objects as they move so all this does not need to be computed ever
> sec. Then simply tell the computer what angle you want everything shot from.
> It could
> easily recompute... In fact, if anyone is interested, send me money. LOL
Seriously, what would be the point of this? You're making a real-world model
which you take multiple camera shots of, to make a static 3-d model, which you
position your virtual camera around to render footage. Why not just move a
real camera around the model you just built?
> If I
> can get my
> hands on the SDK to make software for the dreamcast I could hook it to my PC
> and
> run the software linked to the dreamcast to present the final footage...
Surely your PC can do better graphics than a dreamcast.
> > Chances are they just didn't have the
> > time to be able to sit down and tweak every frame to perfection.
>
> Chances are they are wasting too much time using the junky computers
> available today... They should make new systems, and write new software.
Again, new systems & new software does not cure artistic problems.
> > They
> > just had to do the best they could in the time they had.
>
> That wasn't their best. They just wanna make money.
> They don't really care how good it look. They wants the
> best quality for the buck.
Star Wars is Lucas' baby, but it's also his job. He cares about the quality
and content, but he's not living in some dream world where everything goes
perfectly, animators can do anything correctly the first time, and a computer
can render 4096x4096 in realtime.
> > I heard they
> > only finished the movie a week or 2 before the release date anyway.
>
> Because they took too long.
Do you know why? Because they were tweaking and trying to make it look good.
Is there anything wrong with that?
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)