[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 48 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Meta on /qa/ only.
All meta discussion of boards is to be redirected to /qa/.


1974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPMFhcC4SvQ

Do 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
>>
>>570286
Better facial animation than mass effect Andromeda
>>
>>570286
>1975
>First 3D porn made
>>
>>570286
>>
>>570288
>looks better than the Daz M3
Michael 3 is literally a head scan of Dan Farr. I met him in 2011 and it's hilarious.
>>
>>571323
must 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.
>>
>>570286
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_wK74Ejnqc
Also 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 detailed
answers that you seek.

Our first 3D digitizing of faces was Peter Fonda for "Futureworld"
in 1976. We used three pin-registered Mitchell 35mm cameras
at 0deg, 90deg, and 180deg, with grids project on Peter's
face.

For Michael Crichton's "Looker" we used several mirrors and
a single pin-registered Mitchell, to get multiple views on
a 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 Talos
tablet having 200/in resolution (or maybe higher than that).

Amazingly, the story line (which we helped with) showed an
automated version of this scan on Susan Dey. We were
basically predicting how this would eventually be done.

Something you might not have guessed is that we used
someone else for the body and Susan Dey for the face.
Mal McMillan helped us splice everything together, and
helped us compensate for lens distortion (a key issue in
doing this).

There was nothing special about Susan's features, although
they were clearly excellent in retrospect. Our job was to
digitize whoever Michael Crichton chose for the lead actress.
Susan Dey was a wonderful choice, and she was great
to work with.

I think that Art Durinski has pictures of him and Larry Malone
painting 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=G9sytPC1l0o
I 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'fucka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL0RH3x7Zzo
>>
File: eyyyy babeh.png (694 KB, 930x678)
694 KB
694 KB PNG
>>571635
>11 minutes into computer dreams and chill and he gives you this look
>>
>>571638

Gonna fuck me a fish!
>>
>>571402
>>571405
I 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?
>>
bump
>>
File: 4548469.gif (1.89 MB, 273x259)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB GIF
>>571635

>a 10 seconds spot was tenths of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of $ for 3D animation back then
>it's a WHOLE HOUR

Whoever paid for this must have spent a FORTUNE on this.
>>
>>571635
It 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.
>>
>>573551
Ah, just saw it's just a compilation and not one thing... But yeah, was really expensive back then.
>>
>>573551
>tenths of thousands
>>
moar
>>
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 1972

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5seU-5U0ms
>>
>>576387


>>576387
We're living in the fucking matrix.
>>
>>576387
How much time for render ? Omg 2, 3, 4 month ? + place the vertices point by points

really cool
>>
>>576800
not sure but I think the "modeling" or digitizing took more time than rendering.
>>
still better than blender
>>
>>576387
The topology of that hand is absolutely horrendous.
>>
uncanny v a l l e y
n
c
a
n
n
y

v

a

l

l

e

y
>>
>>578520
why don't you go back to 1972 and tell Ed how to do it right then
>>
>>581004
the 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
>>
File: v's waifu.png (135 KB, 278x297)
135 KB
135 KB PNG
>>570584
fucking this
>>
cool
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBjMRvOB5M
>>
First ever meme video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Nn8JltYrI
>>
>>573557

I 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.
>>
>>570286
That face was used in the music video for We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus
>>
File: 1505780730822.gif (172 KB, 466x625)
172 KB
172 KB GIF
>>583167
that video is postmodern as fugg
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWChhdIgT6Q
>>
>>583167
This shit is like a fever dream.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKpU0pnne8

I like this primitive kind of 3D.
>>
>>583167
legendary video
>>
>>571635
These 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.
>>
>>587320
I 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!"
>>
>>583167
I almost have no idea what the FUCK is going on
>>
https://youtu.be/cCljXjwCzH0
Europoor kids show from around 95. Fun fact: one of the lead actress started doing pron later.
>>
File: zZXCTjy.jpg (69 KB, 919x720)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>583167

>tfw you never got to use a multi-million dollar Cray XMP Supercomputer in the 80s to render memes
>>
>>583167
Bumping 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
>>
>>587985
those were too annoying to operate
>>
File: hly shit.jpg (4 KB, 202x150)
4 KB
4 KB JPG
>>583167
did I stroke out?
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUgnUQAgmKw
And they rendered it as ASCII art.
>>
>>591928
blyat
>>
File: digital enterprise 1.webm (2.94 MB, 950x720)
2.94 MB
2.94 MB WEBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHOpSrDwZNM

I 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"
>>
File: digital enterprise 2.webm (2.9 MB, 950x720)
2.9 MB
2.9 MB WEBM
>>592105
These back-lit shots are particularly good, they almost pass for real.
>>
>>592106
It's crazy to think that hobbyists can now make their own photoreal renderings on their home PCs
>>
>>592107
looks horrible compared to physical models DESU
>>
File: legacy-hd-060.jpg (181 KB, 1438x1080)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
>>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.
>>
File: captain's yacht.webm (2.77 MB, 1280x534)
2.77 MB
2.77 MB WEBM
>>592116
You 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
>>
>>592106
This 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.
>>
>>592120
ugh...brainfart. Forgot REYES was just one part of the RenderMan package.
>>
>>571095
This is stuff nightmares are made of.
>>
>>592117
Gonna 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
>>
>>583167
IT'S YOUR MOVE
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmLUs6mjs6Y
>>
File: 1511442271124.gif (240 KB, 320x320)
240 KB
240 KB GIF
>>570286
why does this look more complex than mass effect andromeda
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmPGuMGs8cg
>>
File: 1421282467922.gif (119 KB, 150x150)
119 KB
119 KB GIF
This is my jam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_0zKVVGQw
>>
>>594589
Not too shabby for the time imo
>>
>>595613
Agreed. 200.000+ polys for that Gunstar model alone is pretty wild for 1984.
>>
>>594585
becuase it actually was, just imagine those university professors writing lines of code without a proper user interface
>>
File: lensman.png (1.24 MB, 1444x1080)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB PNG
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 hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpMFrOZGABU
>>
>>592105
That'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.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.