1974https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPMFhcC4SvQDo you think they also played with boob size parameters back then?
looks better than the Daz M3 a couple years ago, lol
I don't doubt it
>>570288 I also wanted to say that it looks kinda like daz
>>570286Better facial animation than mass effect Andromeda
>>570286>1975>First 3D porn made
>>570288>looks better than the Daz M3Michael 3 is literally a head scan of Dan Farr. I met him in 2011 and it's hilarious.
>>571323must be really strange to see a model of you in bad CG porn literally everywhere. reminds me of that voyager episode involving the hundreds of hologram clones of the programmer who created the EMH that ended up being used for mining and cleaning pipes.
>>571338>must be really strange to see a model of you in bad CG porn literally everywhere.Before I met him I did ask him in chat what his nice Mormon family thought about their son starring in so much gay porn on the internet and he said something about them not being computer savvy enough to find it. I decided not to remind him of that in person.Also, correction here: it was Michael 1/2 that was a headscan of Dan. But yeah for years we ALL said M1/2 had a goofy, implausible face until the website let the cat out of the bag. And, if you look hard enough at P4 Male you realize Chris Creek was using Dan as a model even before DAZ existed.
>>570286https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_wK74EjnqcAlso don't forget the 1981 movie "Looker," based on a Michael Crichton story about ad agencies replacing models with CGI for nefarious subliminal reasons (then murdering the models). I emailed the SFX guys who did this scene and this is what Gary Demos said. (I commented that Susan's very angular face was made for this kind of thing and asked if she were cast for that reason)------I am copying Art Durinski, who can give you the detailedanswers that you seek.Our first 3D digitizing of faces was Peter Fonda for "Futureworld"in 1976. We used three pin-registered Mitchell 35mm camerasat 0deg, 90deg, and 180deg, with grids project on Peter'sface.For Michael Crichton's "Looker" we used several mirrors anda single pin-registered Mitchell, to get multiple views ona single frame. Art and Larry Malone actually painted(or pasted) grids and reference dots on Susan Dey's face.The images were hand-digitzed on a 60" custom 2-cursor Talostablet having 200/in resolution (or maybe higher than that).Amazingly, the story line (which we helped with) showed anautomated version of this scan on Susan Dey. We werebasically predicting how this would eventually be done.Something you might not have guessed is that we usedsomeone else for the body and Susan Dey for the face.Mal McMillan helped us splice everything together, andhelped us compensate for lens distortion (a key issue indoing this).There was nothing special about Susan's features, althoughthey were clearly excellent in retrospect. Our job was todigitize whoever Michael Crichton chose for the lead actress.Susan Dey was a wonderful choice, and she was greatto work with.I think that Art Durinski has pictures of him and Larry Malonepainting reference points on Susan's face.-Gary
>>571402>Our first 3D digitizing of faces was Peter Fonda for "Futureworld" in 1976.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9sytPC1l0oI neglected to mention that this scene was the first instance of CGI in a motion picture. In the earlier parts, it reuses Fred Parkes' animation seen in OP, and the hand flexing is Ed Catmull's famous 1972 animation digitized off his own hand (quite possibly the oldest CGI recorded):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXw2PYvdN8
Tell me this hasn't aged well, I dare you m'fuckahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL0RH3x7Zzo
>>571635>11 minutes into computer dreams and chill and he gives you this look
>>571638Gonna fuck me a fish!
>>571402>>571405I love how they still had to use practical effects to get the quality level they wanted.Can you imagine seeing this for the first time?
>>571635>a 10 seconds spot was tenths of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of $ for 3D animation back then>it's a WHOLE HOURWhoever paid for this must have spent a FORTUNE on this.
>>571635It hasn't aged well at all it's just that the internet currently lives through a big wave of 80/90's nostalgia which 3D stuff of that time is a big part of and because of that it kind of seems fresh again but in reality it really isn't.
>>573551Ah, just saw it's just a compilation and not one thing... But yeah, was really expensive back then.
>>573551>tenths of thousands
Isn't this the first instance of people trying to animate something fappable in CG?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NpPeA-x6as
>>571635> imagine being Corbin Bernsen fucking Amanda Pays' face in its prime
>using Poser in 1972https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5seU-5U0ms
>>576387>>576387We're living in the fucking matrix.
>>576387How much time for render ? Omg 2, 3, 4 month ? + place the vertices point by pointsreally cool
>>576800not sure but I think the "modeling" or digitizing took more time than rendering.
still better than blender
>>576387The topology of that hand is absolutely horrendous.
uncanny v a l l e yncannyvalley
>>578520why don't you go back to 1972 and tell Ed how to do it right then
>>581004the difference in skill and knowledge needed to be competent in 3D in even just the 90s for videogames and in 2017 for just amateur work that isn't scoffed at is so vast, can you imagine if they went back in time and set 3D on the right path in the 70s? we'd need masters degrees to meet the visual standards
First ever meme video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Nn8JltYrI
>>573557I think it was also a student project compilation too. That's what the Mind's Eye series was, just a compilation of the best student animations.
>>570286That face was used in the music video for We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus
>>583167that video is postmodern as fugg
>>583167This shit is like a fever dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKpU0pnne8I like this primitive kind of 3D.
>>571635These are lovely, but "aging well" is a myth.Pretty stuff is always pretty, ugly stuff is always ugly, that's not something which magically changes with age.
>>587320I think it's just about being able to associate something with a particular time frame but yeah for some reason this is considered a bad thing often
>>571638>"Nigga I'm gonna' slam dat fish ass yo!"
>>583167I almost have no idea what the FUCK is going on
https://youtu.be/cCljXjwCzH0Europoor kids show from around 95. Fun fact: one of the lead actress started doing pron later.
>>583167>tfw you never got to use a multi-million dollar Cray XMP Supercomputer in the 80s to render memes
>>583167Bumping the thread for this amazing video
>>571405>(quite possibly the oldest CGI recorded)highly doubt it, people have been making electronic art since the 30s
>>587985those were too annoying to operate
>>583167did I stroke out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUgnUQAgmKwAnd they rendered it as ASCII art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHOpSrDwZNMI was surprised to find out that when production started on Star Trek the Next Generation in 1987, they were tinkering with the idea of going full CGI for the spaceship effects. Obviously this was a little premature, the capabilities of CGI at the time weren't quite good enough for them, and the industry couldn't really be relied upon for a TV show... but I'll be damned if these tests aren't way better than I would have expected...but then they cut to the actual footage made using physical models and it's like "oh right, CGI didn't even stand a chance against this"
>>592105These back-lit shots are particularly good, they almost pass for real.
>>592106It's crazy to think that hobbyists can now make their own photoreal renderings on their home PCs
>>592107looks horrible compared to physical models DESU
>>592108>less than 5 minutes to respond>on /3/Are you this quick to shit on everything you see? It literally looks better than any of the CGI efforts in the Trek TV shows, including the current one.Besides, I always felt the 6ft Enterprise-D model looked kind of uncanny. Legit thought it was CGI when I was a young and didn't know any better.
>>592115>Are you this quick to shit on everything you see?I've literally been watching Star Trek for longer than you've been alive kid.
>>592116You literally don't know that, you have nothing to base that statement on.And how long you've been watching Star Trek has no particular bearing on your ability to judge the quality of CGI. Why are you boasting about that like it means anything? Why are you whipping your dick out with every post you make? Keep it in your pants, dude, you'll embarrass yourself.
>>592107>tfw still having the tingly feeling of some SERIOUS SHIT about to go down just by seeing a tilted camera view on the Enterprise D
>>592106This is actually excellent for the time, considering stuff like ALIAS/1 was in use at that time and what most commercial work looked like. So my guess... custom tools and REYES.
>>592120ugh...brainfart. Forgot REYES was just one part of the RenderMan package.
>>571095This is stuff nightmares are made of.
>>592117Gonna have to agree with the other anon, physical models look better.Though considering what they were working with, holy shit that's impressive.
>>592598>Gonna have to agree with the other anon, physical models look better.no one has said otherwise
>>583167IT'S YOUR MOVE
>>570286why does this look more complex than mass effect andromeda
This is my jamhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_0zKVVGQw
>>594589Not too shabby for the time imo
>>595613Agreed. 200.000+ polys for that Gunstar model alone is pretty wild for 1984.
>>594585becuase it actually was, just imagine those university professors writing lines of code without a proper user interface
With both the late 80's and the 90's now being considered "retro" and the (although memeish) popularity of vaporwave, do you think that old looking cgi will become an accepted aesthetic style? low poly videogames are now starting to become popular and with the increasing number of people getting tired of photorealism in both movies and games, this seems likely to me.now a video that their creators hatehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpMFrOZGABU
>>592105That's actually a lot better than I was expecting for late-80s CGI. Can see why they still went with models until Voyager, though.Would love to know who made these tests, they feel like something ILM may have done.