So I just watched Disney Pixar latest movie, Coco.This is the state of the art of CGI animation in 2017, and all I can think after browsing /3/ for so long is that it's not that impressive and notice shortcuts and flaws...Fuck you /3/
What would you change homie
>>623691>What would you change homieThe gloss levels and skin subsurface scattering are badMany materials use cheap looking textures with bump maps instead of real detail (remember this is not a videogame, you just need higher render times)The biggest thing they have going for them right now is the lighting which is still mostly inaccessible to an amateur
>>623684For some reason her left hand reminds me of really bad CG from the early 2000s.
Western character design are pure shit. What a waste of technology
>>623684If anything, this style has reached the point of being simply appealing. Couldn't care less for all the "big & mainstream" western CG films.
>>623692>the lighting which is still mostly inaccessible to an amateurWhy inaccessible? (Haven't seen the film, thus not sure what you may have in mind.)
>>623684Imagine being so jealous of others success you have to make a "crab in a bucket" post for it.
>>623692RenderMan is publicly available and is only 1 version behind what Pixar uses. So the current version should have all the tools necessary to recreate the lighting of Coco.Go back 15 years and try to recreate the lighting of Monsters Inc or Nemo. Its all about the talent, not the tools.
>>623726Techncially you are right....but practically...Ever tried to light a scene in Blender with a hundred lights or do ANYTHING more complex? BRenderman shits the bed. If you want to work with Renderman you better take the Maya version, the blender version is not production-ready.
>>623738Who said anything about using Blender?
>>623739Yeah, you didn't, my bad. I somehow misread that.
>>623684you sure you're not sitting on mt dunning?
>>623749He is scuba diving in lake Krueger.
>>623749>>623763Never said I could do betterJust that I expect more from them at this point and can notice shit normalfags don't and now it's ruined
I laughed watching this because they literally used the glass cup scene that every new beginner shows off.
>>623836At least it wasn't a doughnut.
>>623684Pixar is no longer the most visually advanced film company anymore.Every day you see photoreal stuff uploaded on vimeo, game engine footage that fool most people and Pixar is stuck in the visual style defined in the 90s, based on the computing power back then.They are also in this weird position where most of the surrounding elements have some realistic quality to them, but the characters still look like rubber dolls.
I'm sure if Pixar really wanted to they can waste their time making bleeding edge render demos that's only purpose is to jerkoff tech fanatics. But they are more interested in making a fucking movie. Not melting 40 computers to make Mama Cocoa's pores hyper realistic that won't even transfer over on the average theater or TV screen.
>>624054I didn't know Pixar browsed /3/
>>624054that actually has sense, cutting expenses if they can get away with itnormies won't notice anyway and they are the primary audience. specialists are not.
>>624054Ever Pixar movie used to be a techdemo at Siggraph.toy story: hard surface reflectionsbugs life: sub surface scatteringmonsters inc: furnemo: waterincredibles: haircars: multi layer texturesand so on. It seems like they have given up on the tradition in favor of sequels.
>>624054Pixar movies (and Disney movies from Tangled onwards) actually have a long tradition of being bleeding edge siggraph tech demos. Like, for example, basically every renderer that does PBR follows the model established by Wreck-it Ralph, or all the stuff >>624094 said.Them not also being bleeding edge tech is a recent trend and symptomatic of a decrease in standards.
>>624115Who picked up a torch of bleeding edge though?
>>624118>Who picked up a torch of bleeding edge though?Blender Porn patreons
>>624115Because everyone can achieve hyper-realism/bleeding edge art at home. Same thing happened to music and studios. Now anyone can make an album/ep.I think it's a good thing though. It actually paves the road for smaller studios or individuals to achieve goals and dreams without the need for major studios. It's all a balance.
>>624123>Pop music is music
>>624118Weta (Avatar, Planet of the Apes)Framestore (Gravity, Doctor Strange)MPC (Godzilla, Jungle Book, BR2049)
>>624118Also Unreal engine, unironically. They are developing towards real time photoreal at break neck capacity.
>>624127PotA was a shit movie(s), but the CGI was top tier indeed
>>624129Apes is the current benchmark of photoreal character CG with today's tech.Thanos used better mocap tech, which helped them capture a lot more twitching and micro expressions, but Apes still comes out on top.
>>624123Making realistic CG has been possible at home ever since software packages left DOS and came over to Windows. The only thing holding everyone back is talent.What's your point?
>>624123>Because everyone can achieve hyper-realism/bleeding edge art at homeThe 3d packages you use at home are litterally based on the Pixar/Disney tech papers of the years prior so no, home was always a step behind and has no bearing on why Pixar's become complacent.>>624128Unreal's stuff is still based on finding ways of reimplementing Pixar's stuff in realtime, but they don't really do the research work themselves and actually most of the papers on which UE's new stuff is based are written by Crytek, of all things. Like, Crytek's really fallen behind in the engine war but tech's still quite driven by their papers.Well, for videogame stuff even programmers from small companies can have a huge influence, like that guy from Dontnod whose name I forget who's written foundational papers on PBR and reflections in games.
>>624152How does one go about publishing a paper at siggraph?Do creatives ever present papers or is it mostly graphics programmers?
>>624127I don't think that's a fair comparison? Those are CGI companies while Pixar is an animation company. I don't believe Pixar is focused on creating photorealistic scenes like those that you listed are.Anyway, related discussion:Which of the other animation giants do you guys think have surpassed Pixar? My money's on Illumination. Their stories are shit but man is their rendering genuinely really beautiful.
>>624205its clothing sims
>>624178"Papers" means academic papers. Researchers at Pixar who would be presenting these things have more in common with a computer science professor than a VFX artist.
>>624094The Disney/Pixar tech demo movie is still alive and well>Frozen: snow>Moana: water again>Inside Out: that weird fuzzy pellet shader on absolutely all the surfaces
>>624258Moana used Houdini's vaccum feature for the Sea character.Cars 3 showed off some new low light rendering techniqye. Not really a major innovation.Pixar has definitely gotten complacent in visual pioneering and storytelling both.
>This whole thread: Renderman sucks at photorealism>Meanwhile, in the real world: Renderman is used to create digital actors for feature films
>>624289Nigga we're talking about the visual quality of Pixar films, not Renderman itself.We know Renderman is a top3 render engine.
>>624289Stills of digital characters look amazing these days, but the very moment they need to show emotion it's over. It's still not there.
>>624339Character animators can't act for shit without hamming it up inthe name of exaggeration, then they blame motion capture actors for taking all the credit.
>>624339The still is from Blade Runner 2049. The scene relied on facial mocap of a professional actor. That's how you put emotion into a digital actor, and it works when done right.
>>624339>>624346PS. VFX breakdown and scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8ZnqCKZABY
>>6240941) Frozen's snow.2) Look up about Toy Story 3, they had to stop themselves because it was looking too realistic and thus losing the cartoonish look, there's a point where you either go for art style or realistic, do you seriously expect a Pixar Movie in 5-10-20 years to have people looking like real people?
>>624535How the fuck is renderman not available on Peers!?Where can you get it besides the NC version from their website?
>>624541No need for that, really
>>624541AFAIK there's no difference between what you can get out of the NC and the commercial versions.
>>623738Well there's your problem. You're using Blender like some pathetic, half assed faggot. Just pirate Maya and get good if you sand niggers are so desperate to get into Pixar.
>>624568Won't they get on my ass for using it on a paid project?
>>624569Quick question, but what if you can't git gud in Maya?Just give up then?
>>624575The software is never the hurdle. People make beautiful stuff on blender, maya, c4d, 3ds. Its only the talent that is holding you back.Depending on how much time you have put into it, you should consider other options and maybe keep 3d as a hobby.
>>624579>Its only the talent that is holding you back.Skill. Not talent. There's no such thing as talent anyway, unless you want to define it as how fast a person can learn.
>>624591Same shit. You got the point already.
>>623684come on to /3/ and complain about stuff.Write asinine comments and pretend to know what your talking about when really all you do is follow and comment on all those blender vs paid.How about STFU - but no, you won't do that because your just not that smart.
>>623684I think it looks p good, and everyone knows the point of Pixar movies is the animation not the tech demo aspect right? The tech (snow/water/hair etc) is secondary and just an aid to telling the story
>>624591>unless you want to define it as how fast a person can learnThat's exactly what talent is: being so adept at a particular area, that skills related to it are acquired quickly and with much less effort than an average person.Pic kinda related, it was painted by 15-year-old Picasso.
>>624637Not really. Talent's typically defined as the inherent natural skill a person has from birth.
>>624639I wouldn't buy that definition. Skill is acquired; talent is the predisposition to acquire a set of skills more efficiently than usual.
>>624647Well, what I did say is the widely-accepted dictionary definition. I understand where you're coming from, anyway. Let's not get into a pointless argument and derail the thread.
>>624127>not listing ILM These are companies that work on "smaller scales"Blur would be way closer to Pixar
>>624094They are working on new things, I had a sneak peek at the stylized renders they're trying to do, works really well. Pixar movies are not the showcase anymore, the short before are, like Piper.
>>624881Blur did such an amazing job that nobody knew the entire opening sequence of Deadpool was CG until the breakdown hit the internet.
>>624895That was obvious CG
>>624895>nobody>moviegoers are clueless brainlets
>>624094>implying that Pixar doesnt do R&D anymoreliterally look at all the shorts before the pixar films my dude, some insane shit is going on. Disney research still has a fuckton of Siggraph papers released each year
>>624341lmao ur saying that the original mocap is even used in the final film.100% of the time it is cleaned up by a team of FX artists