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
>>570286
>>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?
bump
>>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
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 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
>>570584fucking this
cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBjMRvOB5M
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWChhdIgT6Q
>>583167This shit is like a fever dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKpU0pnne8I like this primitive kind of 3D.
>>583167legendary video
>>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.
>>591928blyat
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmLUs6mjs6Y
>>570286why does this look more complex than mass effect andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmPGuMGs8cg
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.
>>595596very nice
1991https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSJgsojhbs
>>597805cool
>>597805>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSJgsojhbsSome Alias and Symbolics S work in this video. Also a lot of proprietary stuff.
>>597805I kinda miss those old CRTs. But only a bit.
>>600156Still got my two old 21in CAD monitors. Shit used to cost $2,000 a piece in 1998.
important thread
>>592106>>592105that's actually fucking cool
>>597805ah the good old days, when computers with this kind of capability cost only 20k.
>>602956Your point?
>>592106Not bad for 1987. Looks better than the CG in the first season of Babylon 5.
I like how, even with the limitations, the fundamental principles of art theory still mean they can be quite good.
>>603883This also was a 100x more expensive.The makers of B5 had to choice of purchasing one or two really expensive workstations and figure out how to do 100 effect shots per week...or get a lot of (relatively) inexpensive computers, network them together and pull it off in time....or not at all.
Just look up anything from SIGGRAPH before the 2000s
>>603946
>>583167I’m a fan of the rotating boobs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_UqzLBFz4Y
>>603946looks like a meme
>>604657back when memes didn't have a lifetime of literal seconds
>>571402>help rape>it was just a joke :^)
>>603946can somebody make and sell shirts of these
stop talkin about ez money cucklet and enjoy the meme
needs crystal castles
>>607642What the fuck is a meme you fucking neet that is a work of art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCf3hiCSr_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV5obrYaogU
>>571635We need to do a computer dreams parody where the kid looks into the mirror and is transported into a fantastical world of cylinder cock with sphere balls first time renders and blender guru donut cups as far as the eye can see as he flies on an anvil.
>>610781This blenderfag has keked loudly.
>>610781fucking kek
>>592105Star Trek II - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XlyMbxxh8Genesis sequence was done in 1982 and it's awesome even today. If you google you'll find couple of articles describing the process. They wrote their own software to animate the effects.Back then physical models of the ships were still way more detailed than any computer graphics could achieve and ILM etc had so many years of experience using optical effects that doing the ships using cg would have been counter-productive. However as the processing power of computers increased the scale tipped over at some point.
Also one thing which creates an extra pass of magic is that back then (1980s) cg effects were shot back to film by photographing the CRT. This results in this color bleeding look which glows magically. Actual film printers which used laser to expose the film become common only after late 90s, like Arri etc.
>>574434The boob slider has always been there.
>2004 was 14 years agoFUCK
>>613304>Iray is still shit compared to this
>>613304>POVrayI nostalgicame
>>611344Simply not true. Film printers (35mm) were used since the very beginning of 3DCG. The cheap alternative were single-frame controllers with 34 in tape recorders. The late 80s saw the rise of frame buffer cards(TARGAs) and in the early-to-mid 90s you had PASs(personal animation recorder).Film printers were still reserved for studios only, with the cheapest models starting at $60k.
>>6142173/4 not 34 in, lel
>>570286SOY face at 1:10
>>603946I really like the platonic solids one- that shit is so meta.
what the fuck was wrong with CGI in 1988https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffIZSAZRzDA
>>592117>>592598That fucking lighting is great.
>>625712Agreed, looked just like the original old movie film stock and even the fade transitions and blur look from the era. How in the hell...
>>628131I'm wondering if Pixar put in a bid to do TNG. The high quality for 1988 stuff feels like their work.If not, then hot damn, I kinda wish we knew who did these tests then.
>>628160Sorry, didn't understand the context of your post.
>>628160Not sure what you're referring to because haven't read the thread, but if you're talking about TNG that you can see now on Netflix, or on Blu-Ray, it has all been heavily re-mastered and almost all the CG was redone from scratch a couple years ago.Luckily for us the show was filmed on beautiful 35mm film stock, so all this film was rescanned at hi resolution. The CG scenes, however, were printed out straight to video - they never made it onto celluloid- and so they would look like utter shit next to the hi resolution film scans. So they had to be completely recreated - they tried not to 'improve' any of the CG from back then, and instead just tried to copy the sequences exactly - but they are inevitably a bit better looking all round.Incidentally- there are one or two very occasional live-action shots on the bridge of the Enterprise that were for some reason shot on video. These sequences obviously couldn't be recreated so they just went into the remaster as-is and they look like absolute fucking dogshit when intercut between the 35mm scans. If you watch all of TNG on Netflix, you'll see these shots - you literally can't miss them.
>>595706I hope this becomes the case. I love low poly stuff, love old cg pokemon cards
>>628164True.They did a good job of not pulling a Lucas with the CG. Most casual viewers who haven't seen TNG in years would probably not realize the CG scenes have been updated - they're very faithful to the original but, in terms of resolution and sharpness the new scenes are far superior. If the old original CG sequences were just included alongside the newly scanned film footage they would have been unwatchable. This is the mark of a good remaster - you don't really notice that anything has been changed unless you look for it.
>>628201>>628161Forgot to include link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=bQHpfk4X-wc
>>628164I was talking about that BTS featurette talking about the process of the effects' production.
>thread is almost a year old
>>629304It's not titled "Old 3D" for nothing, son.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIfh0XMrg6wGod this ad is so cool
>>629329holy fuck that looks like Reboot on crackthanks for sharing!
>>629304Holy fuck, it actually is. I knew this board was slow as fuck but damn...
>>629304>he doesn't remember the blender question threadstarted out with a small inquiry but turned into nothing but shitposting and stayed up for way over a year. mods even removed some really bad spam so there was more headroom again until the post limit was reached. glorious shit.
>>629330This predates Reboot by 7 years
>>570286Gonna bump this thread because I find this shit really aesthetic for 1974https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOwRH4JpXc
Five more days until we can celebrate this thread's first birthday.
>>630190Tonight, you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lIlROWro8 I believe this was made by some people who went on to work at pixar in its really early days.
Not exactly CGI, but here's a video about how the sound effects for TRON were created using the greatest synthesizer ever made: The Fairlight CMI.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajXxr71l0rQ
>>630642I forgot to mention, these were probably rendered some time in the late 70s. Kraftwerk took forever to release the album it was for.
>>570286ayyyyyyyyyyyyyooooooooooo happy first birthday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwU3UARE6yc
>>630711few hours too early my guyTwo more hours from now, though.
Thread's officially a year old! Happy birthday, guys.
>>630732>celebrating your birthday on the hour you're born and not the dayits called birthDAY not birth hour, you mongo
>>630745>Let's ignore rounding rules!That's how planes crash, Anon.
>>630718Fucking morphing vertexes between keyframes is an annoying thing to do now, how the hell did they do it in the 70s?
>>630810>What are timezonesThat's how mistakes are made, Anon.
>>630875And that's why we aim for the precise time the thread was created a year ago. Then, it'd be 1 year old no matter where you are in the world.
>>630718Jesus France, just...
>>630190This is amazing. Light colour tv would have still been pretty recent right?
>>629329The original 'Monster'.
Can you physically deal with this much (original 1983, Japanese) A E S T H E T I C ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WlAnrdtGmg
>>631795Stop the shitty A E S T H E T I C meme
>>632662>implying one person can stop a meme
Not real old 3d but def got a early 3d vibe to it and the video is pretty neat.https://youtu.be/lf6ZBGO2jSw
>>632664They don't need to, its already old and tired. It was corny in 2012, when vaporwave died, and then got dragged out when normies discovered it, but even theyre sick of it. Now its just sad 30 year old boomers who still think its cool.
>>632717*hides in corner and cries*
>>632717It was completely ruined once pol adapted it to "fashwave"
>>632891Cry more normie
>>632891>baawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>>631795Waitaminute that musichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXioWKF5ig
>>632891fashwave is bad not because it "ruined vaporwave," It's bad because it's made by shit for brains who have tenuous grasp on any aesthetic principles
>>632929...says the salty bitch who never released one single track in his miserable life
>>632930I've played 10k seat venues. You chuds can't even get 10k views on youtube.
>>632947Sure you did anon, sure you did...
