Yea, just saw the video on kotaku. It's pretty damn vague, but what is shown is impressive. Won't know about it matching their crazy ass claim about being out of the uncanny valley until I've seen more, but it is better than any other real time facial animation I've seen.
a company shows new technology and the ability to make games (and characters specifically) more expressive and realistic than any in history, and all you can do is hate and nitpick. Wah wah the skin isnt perfect. There isn't a single piece of art on our planet that doesn't have something in it you could nitpick, technically or otherwise. Someone a little insecure about their own realistic characters, maybe? Are you guys really that in love with unreal3?
This new tech is awesome, can't wait. Hopefully the tools enable us to create characters with this amount of expressiveness without spending 2 months on them.
If they say they've "crossed the uncanny valley" then they're setting themselves up for nitpicking, especially since that what the valley comes down to. Regardless of how impressive it is.
James, I've gotta agree with Ferg on this. There is a tonne of nitpicking and people are ignoring that there is some impressive tech being shown. Seems utterly rediculous to ignore something new and impressive because of a silly claim someone made.
Esspecially when this video is not hitting the uncanny valley so far as I can tell.
Dont want to turn this into an argument about who said what... just sayin, most of the posts before me were pointing out problems with the character, and that was it. The technology is really cool looking, and obviously capable of good stuff that we aren't currently doing. Someone had to step up and point out that, despite the fact that it's not the most absolutely perfect engine that will ever be made in the universe, it's still way cool and will give us artists a lot more power when it comes to creating expressive characters.
But yah, sounds like they've crossed through the valley of Romero on their way to the uncanny one
If you want to write an essay about how awesome the tech is, go right ahead. It's not my job. The title of the thread is in response to the "crossing the valley" comment, not about the engine.
Despite the extremely limited scope of the video, we already know the tech can allegedly do some cool stuff. If you want rants about how awesome the tech is, go to NeoGaf or post it yourself.
When people do nitpick, that means it most certainly is in the uncanny valley. That's the whole point.
Anybody see the Crytek GDC character presentation? The facial anim wasn't groundbreaking, but the eye-angle-driven eyelid-morph setup is using a nice control setup. I like where they're going with it. Dynamic eyes are much more interesting than pure mocap, since they can follow your viewing angle (or where ever you want). Really creates a connection.
Yeah... this is still nestled comfortably within the uncanny valley.
Tulkamir - when you saw this, did you think it was a real human? If you could tell it wasn't, then it is still in the valley.
Our brains are pretty damn good at determining what is a human and what isn't - claiming they've gotten around that was a pretty ballsy and, apparently, empty boast
This isn't nitpicking. The company made a claim this is easily refuted. For all I know, it's a cheap marketing strategy to advertise their game (interactive movie?). Looks great, but nothing amazing. The untrained eye says "omg they're right", and then it's all over the web for debate. Publicity. These days when I hear tech demo, it means "does not represent quality of final product at all". The view is very limited to a specific object using all available resources. Rendering two eyeballs in realtime is not the same as rendering an entire environment, and gameplay mechanics. Don't forget the previous realdoll image they released. I want groundbreaking news about GAMES!
when someone pops up and goes "ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL OUR MODELS FROM REAL HUMANS" they are asking to be nitpicked. i think it looks prety good.. but far from their claim
looks like a mocaped model with a pretty nice skinshader to me
honestly the term "real time environment" is kinda meh
we can shuffle around a gazillion of triangles and all kinds of really advanced shaders in frostbite but will they make it into the game with all that comes with it? nope..
what exactly is the tech here? seems more like some clever rigging to me.. assigning verts to bones is pretty old..and this is just eyes.. i see no tech here to warrant the term "tech demo", they would have to be showing off tech.. there is a skin shader, i guess thats tech but i have seen better.. i don't understand.. its some eyes.. personally i think the eyes in ids rage demo looked more convincing.. someone explain to me wtf is going on..
Mocapping eyes isn't very easy. They do have some eyesocket deformation going on, probably bones driven by mocap, or it could be blendshapes driven by bone angle. Kind of cool, but not groundbreaking IMO.
Agree with Arsh, what's the tech here, it's a close up of a head that may or may not be practical to be in an actual game. Like Sony rendering Doc Ocs head on a PS3... yeah good for you, you got a good looking head, maybe it can be a floating head and it has to eat floating popcorn coming towards them from all angles... yeah I dunno.
Either way I'm just hating because it doesn't look good regardless of what they are trying to do and thought their last game was brain dead stupid, hehe.
I actually think what they did in crysis looked better, even if their motion capture process is less sophisticated. Man, the original trailer for this looks horrific... really scary
What the fuck IS heavy rain?
While new technology for more "Cinematic" games is exciting, it doesn't compare to games with actual enjoyable gameplay.
...
Trespasser, anyone?
Graaarr, YOO FRIGGIN' PEOPLE. Sure, it doesn't hold up to suggestions of being entirely realistic, but it's pretty fuckin' good. If I made that and someone "meh"'d it, I'd be fairly annoyed.
a company shows new technology and the ability to make games (and characters specifically) more expressive and realistic than any in history, and all you can do is hate and nitpick. Wah wah the skin isnt perfect. There isn't a single piece of art on our planet that doesn't have something in it you could nitpick, technically or otherwise. Someone a little insecure about their own realistic characters, maybe? Are you guys really that in love with unreal3?
This new tech is awesome, can't wait. Hopefully the tools enable us to create characters with this amount of expressiveness without spending 2 months on them.
[/ QUOTE ]
They claim that they have crossed the uncanny valley, meaning that they have created some of the first photo real human characters. This is an extremely bold claim, for one, and secondly this is polycount.
To be clear, I'm as excited for new tech as anyone here, but last I saw, they were definitely stuck at the bottom of the unca
Hah, silly wording. Basically, by your logic bugs bunny is in the uncanny valley. He's not. Being out of the uncanny valley does not imply full realism.
Anyways, I don't really care either way. I don't think the tech demo was amazing, it was too short and vague for that. What it did show was more impressive facial animation than I've seen in any other game around, but whether that will hold up on a larger scale is yet to be seen. And whether it does or does not is not affected by any crazy statements made by it's developers. Although obviously in issueing a statement like that they have set themselves a high bar.
I like in the crytek video thing how they have this big mean lookin' black guy that they're messing with, and then at the end he has a really white voice
rediculous pic... for the record, in that scene, she's supposed to look insane and hysterical. I'd say they accomplished that. Nice work taking it out of context as just some randomly stupid, rediculous pose, though (it most certainly is)
[ QUOTE ]
rediculous pic... for the record, in that scene, she's supposed to look insane and hysterical. I'd say they accomplished that. Nice work taking it out of context as just some randomly stupid, rediculous pose, though (it most certainly is)
[/ QUOTE ]
I know the context, but I was just making a point with humor, Ferg... or should I say, Quantic Dream CEO DAVID CAGE??!!
this shits AWESOME!
thhank god its x360 aswell!
obviously though... i dont give a shit if the graphics are good unless its got a good long plot and some GAMEPLAY dammit!
[ QUOTE ]
what exactly is the tech here? seems more like some clever rigging to me.. assigning verts to bones is pretty old..and this is just eyes.. i see no tech here to warrant the term "tech demo", they would have to be showing off tech.. there is a skin shader, i guess thats tech but i have seen better.. i don't understand.. its some eyes.. personally i think the eyes in ids rage demo looked more convincing.. someone explain to me wtf is going on..
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the exact same thing. Is it some mocap face tech? My Logitech webcam tracks my face and eyes already and and interprets it into a little 2D/3D avatar on MSN if I have the feature enabled.
Here here to nitpicking. Its what makes Polycount the forum that it is!
The passing the uncanny valley doesn't mean that you can't distinguish the model from a real human. The uncanny valley is all about the initial reaction, the instinctive repulsion to the model/robot/whatever.
Crossing the valley doesn't mean it's indistinguishable from a human, it just means that you don't have the initial repulsion you do to say. . . this:
Original:
The Uncanny Valley relates to a feeling of repulsion towards something that looks like it should be real, yet isn't. Since this is an emotional response, it's inherently subjective.
If seeing the video makes you feel disgusted or disturbed, then it's in the uncanny valley. If all you thought was "hey that looks pretty good" then it either passed the valley, or hasn't even reached it yet.
The first comment in this thread was "creepy" and personally my stomach churns watching the video. Kudos to them for making it this far, but she does look like a moving corpse. Maybe they've passed the valley for some people, but obviously not all.
[ QUOTE ]
it just means that you don't have the initial repulsion you do to say. . . this:...
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really get the feeling of repulsion there. Maybe its offset by the disconcerting slantiness, but that character is working well enough for me.
one of the biggest mistakes artists make is that when the head rotates the eyes are locked in the same position relative to the head when the eyes should be locked to look at a certain point. doing it wrong resembles a dead or blind person which are both repulsive to us.
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
[ QUOTE ]
one of the biggest mistakes artists make is that when the head rotates the eyes are locked in the same position relative to the head when the eyes should be locked to look at a certain point. doing it wrong resembles a dead or blind person which are both repulsive to us.
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
[/ QUOTE ]
...or it was a feature that got cut because of performance issues, or because there simply wasn't enought time to impliment it, or it caused a ton of bugs at ship time or any other of a nearly infinite number of reasons that are completely unrelated to the desire or knowledge of the working programmer or artist.
Just because some thing or some feature doesn't show up in a game doesn't mean the artists or programmers were too lazy or ignorant to impliment it. Corners get cut in production, and often not by the people actually creating the work.
[ QUOTE ]
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its kind of simple to figure out once you notice it, and you can take notice of it if you have a well lit room and decently sized mirror. Just stare into the mirror and take not of a landmark on one of your eyes (like a collection of blood vessels, a dot, or your iris pattern). Then tilt your head to the side, slowly, while staring at your eyes. You'll notice that your eye doesn't rotate with your head until its past a certain point, and even then they're much slower to follow.
If you can get another person who doesn't mind being stared at too much, you'll notice that it works if they rotate their head to look left and right as well, while staring at a fixed point.
Replies
Glossy skin means she's not wearing make-up, yet there are no bags under her eyes. Creases between her eyebrows. How old is she?
Perhaps from a long distance, she'd look real. No extreme close ups!
Skin appears pale, airbrushed and waxy. Eyes are unnaturally vivid. No evidence of blood flow. She's dead, Jim.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
Also the claim of them crossing the uncanny valley... reminds me a little bit of a certain someone claiming to make you his bitch
a company shows new technology and the ability to make games (and characters specifically) more expressive and realistic than any in history, and all you can do is hate and nitpick. Wah wah the skin isnt perfect. There isn't a single piece of art on our planet that doesn't have something in it you could nitpick, technically or otherwise. Someone a little insecure about their own realistic characters, maybe? Are you guys really that in love with unreal3?
This new tech is awesome, can't wait. Hopefully the tools enable us to create characters with this amount of expressiveness without spending 2 months on them.
If they say they've "crossed the uncanny valley" then they're setting themselves up for nitpicking, especially since that what the valley comes down to. Regardless of how impressive it is.
Esspecially when this video is not hitting the uncanny valley so far as I can tell.
But yah, sounds like they've crossed through the valley of Romero on their way to the uncanny one
Despite the extremely limited scope of the video, we already know the tech can allegedly do some cool stuff. If you want rants about how awesome the tech is, go to NeoGaf or post it yourself.
When people do nitpick, that means it most certainly is in the uncanny valley. That's the whole point.
(Edit: Yes, I am angry. Blame it on Mental Ray.)
Tulkamir - when you saw this, did you think it was a real human? If you could tell it wasn't, then it is still in the valley.
Our brains are pretty damn good at determining what is a human and what isn't - claiming they've gotten around that was a pretty ballsy and, apparently, empty boast
honestly the term "real time environment" is kinda meh
we can shuffle around a gazillion of triangles and all kinds of really advanced shaders in frostbite but will they make it into the game with all that comes with it? nope..
nice job though, now go make a fun game
IIRC, algorithms analyze the reflections off the cornea to reverse-track the eye lookat vector. Cool idea.
Agree with Arsh, what's the tech here, it's a close up of a head that may or may not be practical to be in an actual game. Like Sony rendering Doc Ocs head on a PS3... yeah good for you, you got a good looking head, maybe it can be a floating head and it has to eat floating popcorn coming towards them from all angles... yeah I dunno.
Either way I'm just hating because it doesn't look good regardless of what they are trying to do and thought their last game was brain dead stupid, hehe.
While new technology for more "Cinematic" games is exciting, it doesn't compare to games with actual enjoyable gameplay.
...
Trespasser, anyone?
agree with all the above posts saying meh
Tulkamir - when you saw this, did you think it was a real human? If you could tell it wasn't, then it is still in the valley.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. That would mean that any stylized character is in the uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley is that little something that makes a character feel wrong as it gets close to realism. It's not a character appearing to be real.
moves like a chicken!
*twitch* *twitch* *twitch* *stop*
*twitch*
needs more subtlety!
the art is nice but i thought this was a thread about tech claims
MEH <- just couldnt resist one more
The uncanny valley is that little something that makes a character feel wrong as it gets close to realism. It's not a character appearing to be real.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you just agreed with me
you guys are rediculous
a company shows new technology and the ability to make games (and characters specifically) more expressive and realistic than any in history, and all you can do is hate and nitpick. Wah wah the skin isnt perfect. There isn't a single piece of art on our planet that doesn't have something in it you could nitpick, technically or otherwise. Someone a little insecure about their own realistic characters, maybe? Are you guys really that in love with unreal3?
This new tech is awesome, can't wait. Hopefully the tools enable us to create characters with this amount of expressiveness without spending 2 months on them.
[/ QUOTE ]
They claim that they have crossed the uncanny valley, meaning that they have created some of the first photo real human characters. This is an extremely bold claim, for one, and secondly this is polycount.
To be clear, I'm as excited for new tech as anyone here, but last I saw, they were definitely stuck at the bottom of the unca
Anyways, I don't really care either way. I don't think the tech demo was amazing, it was too short and vague for that. What it did show was more impressive facial animation than I've seen in any other game around, but whether that will hold up on a larger scale is yet to be seen. And whether it does or does not is not affected by any crazy statements made by it's developers. Although obviously in issueing a statement like that they have set themselves a high bar.
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHA
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHA
[/ QUOTE ]
simply qft
amazing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHA
[/ QUOTE ]
simply qft
amazing
[/ QUOTE ]
rediculous pic... for the record, in that scene, she's supposed to look insane and hysterical. I'd say they accomplished that. Nice work taking it out of context as just some randomly stupid, rediculous pose, though (it most certainly is)
Huh Huh? Come on
rediculous pic... for the record, in that scene, she's supposed to look insane and hysterical. I'd say they accomplished that. Nice work taking it out of context as just some randomly stupid, rediculous pose, though (it most certainly is)
[/ QUOTE ]
I know the context, but I was just making a point with humor, Ferg... or should I say, Quantic Dream CEO DAVID CAGE??!!
now complain!
this shits AWESOME!
thhank god its x360 aswell!
obviously though... i dont give a shit if the graphics are good unless its got a good long plot and some GAMEPLAY dammit!
even still... the graphics are awesome! no doubt!
what exactly is the tech here? seems more like some clever rigging to me.. assigning verts to bones is pretty old..and this is just eyes.. i see no tech here to warrant the term "tech demo", they would have to be showing off tech.. there is a skin shader, i guess thats tech but i have seen better.. i don't understand.. its some eyes.. personally i think the eyes in ids rage demo looked more convincing.. someone explain to me wtf is going on..
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the exact same thing. Is it some mocap face tech? My Logitech webcam tracks my face and eyes already and and interprets it into a little 2D/3D avatar on MSN if I have the feature enabled.
Here here to nitpicking. Its what makes Polycount the forum that it is!
-caseyjones
Crossing the valley doesn't mean it's indistinguishable from a human, it just means that you don't have the initial repulsion you do to say. . . this:
Original:
The Uncanny Valley relates to a feeling of repulsion towards something that looks like it should be real, yet isn't. Since this is an emotional response, it's inherently subjective.
If seeing the video makes you feel disgusted or disturbed, then it's in the uncanny valley. If all you thought was "hey that looks pretty good" then it either passed the valley, or hasn't even reached it yet.
The first comment in this thread was "creepy" and personally my stomach churns watching the video. Kudos to them for making it this far, but she does look like a moving corpse. Maybe they've passed the valley for some people, but obviously not all.
it just means that you don't have the initial repulsion you do to say. . . this:...
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really get the feeling of repulsion there. Maybe its offset by the disconcerting slantiness, but that character is working well enough for me.
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
The actress that is in the Heavy Rain actor demo.
one of the biggest mistakes artists make is that when the head rotates the eyes are locked in the same position relative to the head when the eyes should be locked to look at a certain point. doing it wrong resembles a dead or blind person which are both repulsive to us.
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
[/ QUOTE ]
...or it was a feature that got cut because of performance issues, or because there simply wasn't enought time to impliment it, or it caused a ton of bugs at ship time or any other of a nearly infinite number of reasons that are completely unrelated to the desire or knowledge of the working programmer or artist.
Just because some thing or some feature doesn't show up in a game doesn't mean the artists or programmers were too lazy or ignorant to impliment it. Corners get cut in production, and often not by the people actually creating the work.
i'm wondering if artists and programmers are aware of this eye phenomenon and just can't be bothered to implement it or if they actually were not aware how eyes tend to behave.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its kind of simple to figure out once you notice it, and you can take notice of it if you have a well lit room and decently sized mirror. Just stare into the mirror and take not of a landmark on one of your eyes (like a collection of blood vessels, a dot, or your iris pattern). Then tilt your head to the side, slowly, while staring at your eyes. You'll notice that your eye doesn't rotate with your head until its past a certain point, and even then they're much slower to follow.
If you can get another person who doesn't mind being stared at too much, you'll notice that it works if they rotate their head to look left and right as well, while staring at a fixed point.