shimy said:
negative1 said:
shimy said:
here is a link to papers published on ratatuie
http://graphics.pixar.com/
yes, i know the papers are there..
again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,
it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars
techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....
go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...
later
-1
I also just want to point out, i have minimal experience with actual computer animation, and i can at least appreciate some of the stuff they are talking about in the abstracts. Did you even look at the abstracts?
yes, as i mentioned above, i did look at the abstracts..
so mister critic, if you have a minimal experience, what are you getting out of it?
(and yes, i see your comments below, but you're just parroting what pixar tells you)..
don't you think there are other companies that exist? didn't i mention that disney, dreamworks, et al
also made many cg movies, that intersect with the pixar timeline, don't you think other computer
animators have been using these techniques, and other in non-commercial films, advertisements,
and videogames?
pixar is not god, far from it.......................although granted in the commercial space, they HAVE had
a lot of success, which is fine.......................................and granted i don't work as a movie critic,
so i have my own qualms about what i like..........................esthetically judging art, and the intrinsic
beauty of (computer) art are two completely different things.............................and if you want to
judge the artistic integrity and factor in the technical accomplishments that's also a very hard thing
to do............
Wow did you just say that. i thought you had all this back ground in CG, you of all people should be able to appreciate that. what do you want thats revolutionary. hell if your standards of revolutionary are that high i should point out that thought toy story was the first animated movie of that length. they had been making short movies like that for a long time. so you could call that evolutionary too. What was so revolutionary in all the other movies then.
revolutionary to me, is something that has never been done before , that impresses me, and can also be technically innovative in
the sense that it enters into a new realm of thought/detail/complexity/process...
here's a short breakdown from memory, and using some web pages:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973 Westworld -the same year as the first SIGGRAPH conference - provided digitally processed, pixellated versions of motion photography
1977 star wars - vector graphics, other cg effects
1979 alien - cg landing of ship
1981 Looker - pixar short film used shading
1982 tron - ray tracing, rendering, lighting, shading
1982 star trek 2 - particle rendering
1984 the last star fighter - photo realistic rendering
1985 young sherlock holmes - first major cgi character (pixar)
1988 who framed roger rabbit - cg and live action
1989 abyss - cg water creature
1991 terminator 2 - liquid metal creature effects / morphing
1994 jurassic park - cg dinosaurs creatures effects
1995 toy story - first full length feature cg film effects
2001 shrek and final fantasy - more character effects, human renderings
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's a twenty part detailed series, (and note the LACK of recent pixar movies)
http://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects1.html
i'm not going to bore you with even more details...but the early work was critical
http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~matt/courses/cs563/talks/history.html
and of course, another timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_CGI_in_film_and_television
I am also curious what your opinion of a huge break through is going to be. Some of the stuff in that movie had huge breakthroughs. Techniques they used to develop ways to have object deformation due to impact is pretty big. As they talked about in the paper, In movies before directors and animators would try to avoid direct contact as much as possible because it was hard to make it look like you had actual contact, not floating objects.
did you notice that nothing (besides what pixar spouts as their own 'breakthroughs', isn't really
noted by too many others?
did you notice how much harder it is to actually figure out a new 'breakthrough' that hasn't been done before,
that isn't incremental?
no...............most techniques are just finer refinements of previous ones, as i stated before......
or they're implentations that are closer approximations to reality than previously existed,
but HAVE been approximated before...
i noticed you really had to go out of your way to point out what they are doing...
that's because there's less actions/features/abilities out there that aren't known..
so what does it come down to?
magnitude.........................................yeah, so the new star wars animated cg film won't
be breaking in anything new either........but maybe they are doing something new?
i can't tell..........................maybe they're rendering more efficiently, maybe they have
new shaders, or lighting techniques......
for something to truly amaze me, or consider it, it really has to be literally something that hasn't been
seen before.....and not just an improvement in a previous area..
I'm sorry but you just dont seem very credible anymore, you're making these blanket statements, using flash words like revolutionary, and Breakthroughs, but what exactly are your problems with the movies. Surely you are not just looking directly at the finished product and judging it on the broad aspects the overall look, and not paying attention to detail. Because as you said yourself your very interested in CG. It almost seems like you dislike the stylization as apposed to the actual computer graphics, and if thats your arguement. Then your critiziums need to be a little more accurate and not say things like "the graphics are ok" when really they are spectacular. because the CG style, vs the real word physics and the stimulation is great.
and your credibility is what? based on a few papers from one site?
please start providing more sources, more explanations, and more detail (as i've laid out above)
to prove otherwise...
there's no point in this being one sided one way or the other.....
i gave all my evidence....proof, descriptions, etc.....for my point of view,,,,,............(ie, what has pixar done lately thats so great?).
now i'd like the same from you , if you have the time or inclination...
later
-1