I thought CGI was now good enough to replace real actors and sets but after watching The Hobbit recently, I am not so sure anymore.The orc foot soldiers (which are actors in costume) look way better than the CGI leaders. The CGI movement looks slow and off putting and theres a distinct lack of detail. The lighting is also all over the place.Can CGI ever reach a level of realism where people don't realize what's real and fake? How many more years will it take?
CG can be near perfect and it often is, in the right hands. You've probably seen a ton of CG thinking it was live action. There are body doubles, set extensions, wire removal, FX etc done in almost every big Hollywood release. CG in Hollywood films are only going to suck if either the director doesn't know how to utilize CG properly (for example impossible camera movements that makes everyone realise they're not watching something real), or there is bad design (The Hobbit orc leaders) or a lack of time/money (also seen in The Hobbit, were the director would change things last minute, right before the release).The film Gravity is like 90% CG and no one complains about it, but because of The Hobbit and shit like that, everyone still believe CG sucks.Some things are of course harder to get right than others. Creatures, and in particular humans, are very difficult. With that said, take a look at what Lola is able to do in the Marvel films (Michael Douglas de-aging in Ant-man). Environments almost always convincing as long as the art direction or lighting design isn't outrageous. Vehicles too. Almost every time you see a helicopter or a plane in a film nowadays, it's CG.
>>541242right.also human brains and our perception is actually pretty good, it will take a while until CGI can create REALLY realistic people which hold up even very up close. The look itself is often not a problem, animation is. The moment something moves not according to physics (simply unnatural) our brain goes into alarm mode. There is a million year old survival instinct intrinsically linked to our perception of reality and it works well. >>541207totally agree that the VFX of The Hobbit triology was all over the place and had a distinct plastic fake look sometimes. I also dislike the CGI orks (and dwarfes).
>>541242Thanks anon. I will check out your examples. >>541245I also wonder why what we see in the real world is considered the 'highest standard' of graphics. I wonder if something can look better graphics than real life - maybe a nonsensical question.>The look itself is often not a problem, animation is. The moment something moves not according to physics (simply unnatural) our brain goes into alarm mode.Yeah, this is my biggest issue. The animations never look quite right. They're usually sluggish and weightless.My question is, can CG ever get to realistic levels? I thought there were problems with simulating irl physics.
>>541245>The look itself is often not a problem, animation is.Well if you're talking about humans, hair and subtle skin details can be a problem (there's been a lot of articles and work done recently about the problems of rendering extreme micro detail in faces from far away, making it look plastic and waxy), but yes, mostly it's animation. You can read this article if you want some insight in just what goes on when making high end CG eyes:https://www.fxguide.com/featured/the-eyes-have-it/>totally agree that the VFX of The Hobbit triology was all over the place and had a distinct plastic fake look sometimes. I also dislike the CGI orks (and dwarfes).It's weird, some of the work in The Hobbit is spectacular while some is subpar. There's a webm that's been going around where you can see Smaug looking extremely realistic, yet there's something off with the compositing or he's clipping through the BG or something like it. Very weird. Weta is one of the best studios around, and it shows, yet there's so much wrong in The Hobbit trilogy.
>>541267>I wonder if something can look better graphics than real lifeWell, of course it can to a certain degree. While everything is subjective, the world around you isn't art directed. It's just chaos. It's why films can look better than real life, because you can light and compose every shot, with though going in to every single prop. It's not a matter of technical limitations anymore though. It's about art. You just have to remember that no one's going to have the exact same opinion as someone else.>Yeah, this is my biggest issue. The animations never look quite right. They're usually sluggish and weightless.Never? Really? While it's a struggle to animate things at a certain level, I'm quite sure you've been fooled plenty of times with digital doubles, CG crowds etc.>My question is, can CG ever get to realistic levels? I thought there were problems with simulating irl physics.Again, it does in certain scenarios.
>>541207CGI has gotten better and better and will continue to get better and better. Some CGI from the 1990s that blew everyone away then looks downright cartoonish now.Remember, though, also, that CGI is a tool, and how well it works is going to depend in part on how well it's used. Consider that one director says "I want to blow my audience's minds and show them scenes that would be impossible to do any other way than CGI" and that another director says "Meh, we don't have the budget for wire-fu work for the final martial arts fight scene, I know a guy who does CGI work who will slap something together for us that will get the film ready on time and under budget for a sixpack of beer. He'll just phone it in but I don't care."
>>541276>"Meh, we don't have the budget for wire-fu work for the final martial arts fight scene, I know a guy who does CGI work who will slap something together for us that will get the film ready on time and under budget for a sixpack of beer. He'll just phone it in but I don't care."That doesn't happen, unless you're talking Sharknado tier crap. CG is expensive and most of it is carefully prevized. That doesn't guarantee it'll look great, but implying that any director would be that lazy is just wrong.
I can never have the same feels for a 3D model as for an actual actor, even tough both are fictional.
>>541207it's because you're really only noticing CG when it's not done well, that's what gives this impression.captain america civil war's airport scene was near full CG, im sure hardly anyone noticed. And in most of these comic book movies a lot of shots have cg body doubles. doctor strange as well - lots of body doubles, and lots of new york was CG.for a more fantasy example, the warcraft movie (despite some of the CG not being fully up to par) had a really well done orc main character.I think if you watch the new harry potter movie it's a good example where you can see a range of shitty CG creatures and very very well done ones. looks like they had to do such a wide range of creatures that some fell short.Another aspect you're missing is that movies are done faster and faster with more and more cg demanded, this sometimes limits quality. compare it to the past where you might have just had one cg character in an entire movie.I would say unless you're talking about fur though we can render pretty damn close to realism. The problem is often in the compositing, which makes the cg stick out, or the animation not feeling quite right (often too watery). Animation being what I personally notice the most because that's my profession.Anyway hope this helps.
>>541664Your exact post reminded me of this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
Modern CG isn't bad or worse, far from it. It's gotten so good so when there actually is something that isn't up to scratch, it sticks out. Almost every movie you watch today has a massive amount of work done post production.For example OP, were you aware that entire sets were completely CG in Gone Girl? That's how far and wide it is used today, that in slow talking movies like Gone Girl, CG is still used extensively.Heck don't even get me started on Neon Demon. EVERY shot has some sort of digital compositing or CG assets. They even went so far as to "fix" bricks in walls that weren't truly aligned or that stuck out a bit too much.
Honestly, the only reason I don't like modern cg is all the effects they have to place on top of the video to have it not look out of place.My god, the Hobbit had so many filters and shit on top of the video it was horrible. LotR was pretty clean looking, and then we get this overdone Instagram filter shit just to mask the CG.I notice this even with movies with "good" cg. Marvel does it a ton. It looks fine in some situations, but it comes off as overbearing.Its easy to notice the shit when it's overdone. And a lot of movies nowadays overdo it.I honestly wish we could go back to film.
>>541704Or go the other way and go full CGI animation. That way nothing should look out of place.
>>541704yep, that's what I was talking about in my previous post about compositing (and grading I guess). In a case like the hobbit a lot of the issue is the art direction makes it feel like a video game cinematic.I think marvel is an example where the art direction is definitely really colorful but it works most of the time.there are plenty of situations like set extension where the cg does not stick out and is composited in a way that you're probably not going to notice it unless you see a breakdown. Deadpool is a great example, there were a lot of full cg city sets, and even in medium shots, the full cg deadpool double was pretty good.
>>541854because Deadpool's director is the god of CG
Because studios have a 'close enough good enough' policy since bids are a race to the bottom in the industry the way it currently stands.
>>541207>Can CGI ever reach a level of realism where people don't realize what's real and fake? How many more years will it take?Make the entire movie CGI.