Realistic Human Graphics Look Creepy 650
WellHungMonkey writes "A really interesting read on Slate about how realistic human faces in games and on robots and so on, are not necessarily the way to go -- the brain isn't fooled, it attaches itself easier to Snoopy-like simplicity... Or Lara Croft attributes, but I'm not sure that's the brain talking."
Realistic Human Graphics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another take on Dr. Mori's paper... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a bit in there about how Aesop's fables are more effective because he used animals rather than people for his characters... interesting stuff.
That'd explain... (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at the South Park show! The characters are like 3 inches tall, but people watch it for the slapstick humor and such.
Reminds me of another article (Score:5, Interesting)
Similar Story on Discovery Channel (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought the same (Score:3, Interesting)
This might seem a bit bizaar, but disney's anamatronics, while always looked fake, had UNCANNY mouth movements and facial expressions. They were so on par, to this day I am still amazed... and wonder why no one else can get that close.
True of physics engines as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Americas Army (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uncanny Valley (Score:4, Interesting)
The general premise is that has things move towards looking more life like, at a certain point they end up in the "uncanny valley" if they aren't perfect. This is where things look real enough, but the brain sees something wrong with it.
The human brain (and I'd suspect a lot of other species) is very good at picking up the "attractiveness" of something and a lot of it is subconcious. This obviously has developed for mating as a way of choosing the best possible mate. An example would be looking at a girl, being attracted to her and having no idea why i.e what specific features makes her attractive to you?. The counter example would be looking at another girl and finding her repulsive for one little flaw , say a limp or a mishapen nose, even though the rest of her is fine.
The reason cartoons and classic animation don't cause this is because we don't take them seriously.
Re:Americas Army (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:examples? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if WETA tried to re-model Gollum as a human how realistic it would be. The technology has clearly advanced to the point where they can pick up many of those subtle clues, but since it was still non-human, I wonder how much of that is our projection of emotion into it.
Too symetrical (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:True of physics engines as well (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I lacked the programming skills--and still lack the mathematics skills--to do it.
Re:examples? (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't Freud talk about this in his examination of the unheimlich? We're freaked out by stuff thats almost-but-not-quite human.
Add your own jokes here
Re:True of physics engines as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Shrek (Score:4, Interesting)
Or something.
The brain recognizes ERRORS (Score:2, Interesting)
That's for robots. For games, we're not being watched, so the problem is not the same. We are not made to feel uncomfortable, but rather, just disturbed. It's the same disturbing feeling/reaction we get when we see people with deformities. Because that's exactly what we're seeing in less than perfect game characters: Deformities! AKA: the unexpected.
So it's really the responsibility of the 3D modellers and animators to improve their craft. How hard is it to make 3D characters BLINK? And also make the eyes move around? It's that blank, blinkless stare that makes characters look "dead". Shinyness of the eyes is also important. That's something taught in even the most basic "life drawing" art classes. Without that shine on the eyes, you get the dead fish look.
To me what bugs me most is human animation that is just plain bad or cartoony (and there's more of that than not. I think animators who truly understand human motion are very rare). Silent Hill 2 and 3 did an excellent job with the 3D humans. They don't look 100% real, but they don't look "uncanny" either, because they don't have obvious facial "deformities".
Re:Shrek (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I remember it is that they said she looked so realistic she looked out-of-place in contrast to the intentionally cartoony/exaggerated sets and other characters.
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if people "know" something, and that it is common knowledge. If that knowledge isn't fully tested, then it may not be true.
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:5, Interesting)
"but really, are very realistic paintings of people creepy?"
Never seen a movie with a picture with cut out eyes so people can "spy" on people in the room? Yes, that looks creepy.
New reiteration of an old theme... (Score:3, Interesting)
Final Fantasy film and simulated humans (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to see a remake of the Matrix films, in which all of the "in the Matrix" sequences were done with computer animation, like the excellent "Flight of the Osiris" short by the Final Fantasy team. In that context, I think this "problem" would become an asset.
Style (Score:5, Interesting)
The most effective games for me were the ones that were not trying to be photorealistic. Early games developers really were on to something employing anime for graphical sequences and character charts.
Robotech was one of the most realistic playstation 2 games I've played. Not because the planes and robots looked like actual real-world weapons. It was because they looked and acted like the weapons from the cartoon series I remembered as a kid.
The animation sequences in Dungeon keeper 2 were absolutely believable. The same animation quality applied to Blizzard's Starcraft was not. Why? Dungeon keeper didn't try to look real, and employed a lot of tongue in cheek cartoony elements. Starcraft tried to be entirely too serious.
And don't get me started on Squaresoft...
Polar Express (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Speilberg's AI would happen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are we really to the point where we begin to talk about human-machine interfaces in terms of RACIAL relations? "Nonthreatening", where have you heard that before?
Still, if C3P0 was a PERFECTLY human-looking android, that same wide-open look would creep you the fuck out, like someone walking around with no eyelids.
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this important? well because with the technique, you track the motion of the bodymass of the actor, along with his skeletons, you don't track the motion of the texture of the human. Our minds are used to tracking the motions of even the blood inside a moving human body, to identify intent as well as capacity to threaten, so even seeing the sway of the body hairs of an opponent can contribute or detract from realism. That noone made a motion capture suit that can track that much detail(indeed most motion-capture suit obfuscate some of those, as they enclose the human in question, not even allowing sweat to escape) means that all motion-tracked(my word, you are free to trade me a better one) games will lack those telltales as muscles shifting, lipid flow, blood derivation or sweat traces, and those are all used by our instinctive mind as proof of "real human threat, approach with caution" or "woohoo matable member of the opposite sex, approach with caution if weapon is in view, otherwise, strut a bit" as opposed to "something fishy, alert alert alert". The last case has a bad effect in games because:
it prevents suspension of disbelief by engaging suspicion reflex
it leaves the primitive brain without a preprogrammed response, which makes the gamer somewhat uncomfortable (it's going improv without a script after all)
our higher brain functions may be unaffected, but they are pretty far from our pleasure centers, so pleasing the higher brain functions exclusively doesn't work as well as exciting the higher brain functions and eliciting survival/reproduction/lower brain reflexes or pleasure
As for the roomba, anyone notice how most cars also end up having super-deformed puppy faces on them? We thrive on the familiar, so using pet shapes, which are familiar and reassuring, works better than super-futuristic shapes, which is why the 60's fashion of "spaceclothes" never caught on since.
Re:Sad case (Score:5, Interesting)
In these posts there's been alot of discussion about symmetry and its associations with beauty, but I think that simplifies things too much. I like to look at inverse reactions to beauty...horror. A misshappen human figure we natural recoil against. Its probably an biological protocol that evolved to have us avoid diseased members of our species that are not viable partners for procreation.
Think of the grotesequely repulsive reactions you have.
1. Burn victims and disfiguring diseases like leoprosy or facial cancers (victims of which who deserve tremendous sympathy and support)...
2. Misproportinate artistic representation (think "Black Hole Sun" video)...
3. Botched or excessive body manipulation (e.g. excessive weightlighting, or breast impants/face lifts). Think Michael Jackson.
There was a pastiche diagram I once saw, comprised of pictures of reaslitic human female body parts compiled together in the proportions of Barbie. It was so creepy i have shivers up and down my spine.
I am hoping that HDTV and its realism will have a calming effect on our air brushed, perfectionist, image-perfect culture. I think women have a much more difficult time with body image due to our media than men (although Calvin Klein has been trying to change this for years, fark you CK). Once people realise how heavily made up Catherine-Zeta Jones is, or how Jennifer Aniston always has a soft lense used, maybe people will be more comfortable with their own selves.
Re:examples? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hollywood Beware! (Score:3, Interesting)
And here is why. Animation artists are far more expensive. You don't NEED an a-list actor to make a movie. You can assemble a respectable cast for a movie from a local community theater. Scratch that. Americans aren't used to people who can actually act.
Which brings me to point 2. Actors in movies don't "act". They are charactatures bumbling through a plot while reciting lines. Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise in all of his movies. Keanu Reeves plays Keanu Reeves. Characters a made up of all the subtle gestures, inflections, and involuntary ticks they make while performing.
Yes, a computer could synthesize quirks. But keeping it consistent enough to build a "star" would take far more effort than simply hiring an actor. (Note that all animated blockbusters until now DID use real actors to generate voice and gestures.)
Give people some credit. The star system aside, we are cheap to make, and we can make stuff up on he fly that leaves a team of artists working on the world's most powerful computers in the dust.
Re:Most realistic looking render you've seen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not-shiny is hard (Score:3, Interesting)
To do it correctly requires ray tracing not just a single ray (ray tracing is done backwards from eye, off surface, to other surfaces if appropriate, etc.) to the light source, which is computationally expensive already, but at each surface you have to multiply the number of source rays coming from many angles, to approximate the diffuse reflection of light contributed from all surfaces the scene. So each ray can explode into a large number of additional contributing rays. This quickly starts to look a lot like a render-wall problem.
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:5, Interesting)
And the reason is... Your point
There is just so much to do when animating a human. If we're talking about the absolutely perfect ideal animated human... then we're talking about levels of detail like no other... Because of the very reason you point out.
So animating them is much harder... because people will notice the difference.
Animation is hard no matter what. A slight change of anything can evoke a mood or attitude that you dont want.
Animating humans IS HARD. In animation you judge the level of difficulty by what you can get away with... This is true. But animating a 3d snoopy, vs animating a 3d realistic human is so much harder because of the level of refinement, detail and what you can and cant get away with.
Snoopy can spin his ears like a helicopter and no one will question it.
When animating a human... If the ears dont move just right when they're required too... Does the character evoke a supid emotion? A state of dumbness? Shock? horror, cartoony? A human can go so wrong so easily when animating one.
Chuck Jones is considered one of the worlds BEST animation directors/animators...
He never animated a realistic 3d human... Could he have? Not without an army.
Its not a question of skill... its a question of detail and the work load.
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:4, Interesting)
Life-like images are not exactly new. We're quite use to them because they do get so life-like.
The problem is entirely in MOVEMENT of those life-like objects. Eyes twitch or blink the wrong way, certain areas skin on the face move too little or too much as the lips move. The gait, or posture of the walking figure just doesn't look right.
We're so use to seeing humans that we never pick up on these subtle things that we instantly recognize as "human".
When you're presenting an animated or toon-ish character, you're mind easily accepts it because you understand it's a parody of a real object.
When presented with life-like objects, you're mind is trying to accept them, not as parody, but as the real thing. This touches completely different areas of the brain. An area use to seeing ONLY humans. Now something that doesn't act human is trying to be passed off to this area of the brain. It instantly says "no ufcking way" and thus.. we get all those creepy feelings because we've got no idea how to react. Up until this point, we hadn't been subjected to non-human objects trying to be passed off as human. That area of the brain has no clue how to react.
* 'area of brain' is not meant as a physical area. i do not claim to be a brain-tologist. hah.
Re:examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
Weta did have digital doubles for their actors. Of course they wouldnt have the level of detail that Gollum requires for upclose acting. But from a far, even Legolas and the other digital doubles looked fake due to their actions.
Legolas tackling that elephant creature... it just doesnt move or look real in any manner at all. Its unbeleivable from just about every angle and to top it off, the animation wasnt natural.
Even Spider-man who is basically a human form without the expressive face... was animated poorly in spider-man 1.
Now take Jackie Chan from 94 and earlier... (when he could move) There is a real human being doing amazing things. Infact hes surrounded by a whole team of human beings doing amazing, REAL stunts and fight scenes.
Occasionally they'll use a wire here and there for effect in Jackie's movies and yet its still beleivable, and its strengthed by the fact taht you actually beleive that is Jackie doing all of those things.
Its almost a magic trick... You're expecting a real person to do these things, then they do it, and wow.. amazing. What you missed is one of the shots had a stuntman doubling Jackie. You missed it because 95$ of the films stunts was infact Jackie.
Slide of hand. Movies have always been about tricks, the biggest factor is.. what can we do to get your mind willing and able to accept the very thing we want you to beleive.
Re:Americas Army (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously. Take your average paintball geek, and tell them that they have a half-hopper to last them the entire game...let's say fifteen minutes worth. Likewise, take your average frat-boy toughguy, and see how well they do against an amateur, junior-grade boxer who is two weight classes below them. In either case, they will likely get pounded.
Kids who have grown up on movie combat seem to think that bullets rarely strike, and that you can take kicks to the head with no ill effects as long as you know Kung Fu, and it just doesn't work that way; getting shot hurts. A lot. Yes, I know by experience, and that's just because I was an idiot[1] at the time, not because someone wanted me dead. Getting punched hurts. A lot. One good solid right cross to the jaw, and it's lights out.
Okay. I'm done now.
[1] Richochet from a
Re:outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Curve (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, games that I dub "classy" - Splinter Cell, Hitman, etc, benefit from their crisp graphics. They have an inherent cool factor that simplicity would take away from.
On the other hand, games which you play purely for the fun, not for the "experience" are often better off simple. For example cube, and as the sibling stated, tetris.
As an example, I once saw a Hitman game of "Anathema." 47 opened a door, someone was behind it and, without pausing, shot him three times in the gut, stepped over the body and continued.
This purely cinematic moment was like something straight out of a thriller movie, and the realistic(ish) graphics added immensely.
Re:Final Fantasy film and simulated humans (Score:3, Interesting)
Final Fantasy - no what killed the final fantasy movie was a really bad, hippy-earth-love drenched, plot. The movie is gorgeous. The emotions, sure, aren't there. But it was the bad reviewsb that kept people away.
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about the other guy, but I used to be a paramedic. This causes problems when I go to movies or watch TV. The blood and gore almost always looks fake and I start this bizarre giggling.
Needless to say, I did not go to see "The Passion of the Christ."
Getting further off topic... (Score:2, Interesting)
Grimwade's Syndrome (Score:5, Interesting)
Not much in Doctor Who turns out to be startlingly prescient, but that certainly did. Grimwade's Syndrome is the best way to describe what the article is talking about - the discomfort of interacting (even one-way, via movie screen) with a "thing" that looks human while every intuitive sense in your brain screams not human.
There's a lot that can be talked about here. I watch our pet bunnies interact with our cat - the cat doesn't try to eat them, which is interesting in itself, but more interesting is how the bunnies respond to the cat. They are confused by her. She is, to them, an only slightly funny-looking bunny, but frustratingly she does not "speak" their language. She doesn't make bunny body language, nor does she respond to it when the bunnies try to communicate with her via body language. I imagine what the bunnies are experiencing is similar to our notional Grimwade's Syndrome, they're interacting with a creepy simulacrum of a bunny that doesn't act quite right.
Or consider this. Because we actually have an "FPU" (Face Processing Unit) in our brains, we pick up on degrees of subtlety in faces - we have perhaps a too-strict sense of beauty, in terms of which faces we find pleasing (ever stop to think how important symmetry is in a face?) - and we see faces anywhere there is even a remotely facelike shape, including the Moon. (I suspect it will come to be the defining characteristic of the human species that we can see a human face there - machine vision systems and alien intelligences will both stare at it and say "I still don't see it".)
Humans therefore tend to react very strongly (understatement) to anything that makes the "FPU" work too hard. If it's sorta like a face but has big things wrong with it, it's "ugly" - maybe even to the point of being a "monster", be it an eyeless skull, a Grey Alien, or a person with a deformity or disfigurement. What IS an ideal, simple thing for the FPU to play with? We may describe an attractive person as "easy on the eyes" but I'd also make a case that the face detector also has an easy time with Hello Kitty, and Hello Kitty looks nothing like Jennifer Connelly. And people tend not to be scared of the "faces" found on the fronts of some cars (unless the driver is a maniac or the car is a Cuda) or of the man in the Moon for that matter, who is greatly distorted and asymmetrical at that. But hey, it's a complex and poorly understood system.
What's interesting is what happens to people who've had damage to that part of the brain. Did anyone else catch the show - mighta been Scientific American Frontiers - where they profiled a guy who had a head injury and now believes his family have been replaced by clones? The kicker was that when they CALLED him and spoke to him over the phone, he believed it was really them, but in person he was certain, despite all better knowledge, that these were not his parents, these were replicants of some kind. Something to do with the part of his brain that considers a person familiar, was malfunctioning, and something at a higher level in his brain was getting uncomfortably confused between people who LOOK like his parents but do not register lower-level feelings of recognition like his parents would. The compulsion to believe this overrode all his better sense: he KNEW these were his real parents, but couldn't make it real in his head.
We're ALL in that boat now with CGI. Our brains are confused: our FPUs are satisfied that the faces look real, but everything else is wrong, the movement is wrong, the behavior is wrong. We process what we're seeing as some kind of weird painting or a reanimated corpse. (And yes, Michael Jackson does trigger this response now that much of his face doesn't move normally when he speaks.) That creepy
Re:Getting further off topic... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sad case (Score:3, Interesting)
I was recently working on a video shoot, and during lunch break, the subject of HDTV came up. Both the actor (an attractive, though aging 50ish gentleman) and the make-up artist expressed considerable concern over the negative side of HDTV. The ability to see right down to the pores of the actors skin scares the bejeesus out of some people. Though I could see the other side, that it makes the make-up artist, especially really good ones, even more important. My take is the same as yours, that by exposing so much that it will become clear that the actors really aren't perfect--and that will maybe cure a lot of society's problems. Then again, never understimate the vanity of Hollywood--maybe it just means plastic surgeries, more make-up and optical and digital effects will become even more widespread and required.
Re:Style (Score:5, Interesting)
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention,
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,
Assume the port of Mars; and at his heels,
Leash'd in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire
Crouch for employment. But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder:
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts;
Into a thousand parts divide on man,
And make imaginary puissance;
Think when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times,
Turning the accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass: for the which supply,
Admit me Chorus to this history;
Who prologue-like your humble patience pray,
Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.
God I love that speech.
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OT: and just out of curiosity.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't take a FPS to do that. Before we had computer graphics, Generals would act out upcoming battles on massive game tables, using chance to simulate complex components of battle. Both sides in WWII used this technique with pretty good success. Well, when they used it. The Nazis stopped using simulations when Hitler got it in his head that he was some sort of Napolean.
In the Art of War, Sun Tsu writes: Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat, how much more no calculation at all!
Not exactly on topic...
Re:Umm. They aren't *that* realistic. (Score:3, Interesting)
that's a good point.
And precisely what the article says.
i think my main issue with the article is that it claims that we think of animations/robots that are less human-looking as more human, when there is no evidence to support that idea.
There's plenty of evidence to support exactly what the article says. Whether it says what you're saying here depends on what you mean by "more human". We're certainly not fooled into thinking something is human by a lack of realistic details. On the other hand, we're less distracted by the inhumanity of something when it has less detail. We're not constantly being reminded "it's not human" because our brains don't make an issue out of it. Perhaps "more life-like" would be a better term. We more easily project into something we see as living than into something inanimate (it's more easy to anthropomorphize a car than a picnic table, for example -- easier still to anthropomorphize the pet dog). My pet cat seems "more human" in this sense than the animated characters in a modern video game. And, indeed, she is "more human". At least she's a warm-blooded mammal rather than a pattern of dots on a CRT. Anything that an animated character does to draw my attention to the fact that it's not flesh and blood drags me away from the illusion.
The more details you throw in, unless you get them precisely perfect, the more opportunities you get to spoil the illusion. I've seen perfectly realistic seeming characters in a game suddenly become jokes when they start walking in some scene. Real people can walk, so a sprite that can walk is more realistic than one that stands perfectly still throughout a scene, right? Technically, yes, this is true, but if it hadn't started walking, I wouldn't have been suddently and jarringly reminded of how unreal it actually is. I was buying it until it started walking.
The most realistic, more believable, "most human" characters I've seen were in books, and they were nothing but words on paper. They seem a lot less real when you can recognize them as Brad Pitt on the screen. Am I saying words on paper are "more human" than Brad Pitt? Well, in the sense of "more human" that this article is talking about, yes, precisely.
It boils down to this -- if your brain is better at filling in the details than the animators, the animation will be less jarring with less detail, and the less often you are jarred by the animation, the less often the illusion is spoiled. OTOH, if the animators can capture detail better than your brain and recall every last detail of a thing, then the reverse will be true, and you'll actually appreciate the quality of the animation. In our minds, we may have only a sketchy idea of what a picnic table looks like, so a fine bit of texturing and bump-mapping will knock our socks off with it's realism. But our minds are extremely well tuned for noticing details about human beings, so the same quality of animation that seems so damned real for the picnic table is jarringly unrealistic for the character.
And the more unrealistic detail you throw in, the more often you jar the viewer's senses. More (in quantity) accurate details will improve the realism. More (in quantity) inaccurate details will take away from ther realism. If you agree with these two statements, it follows that an animation with less detail, assuming the missing details would have been inaccurate, is "more human" than the one with more (but inaccurate) details. Adding inaccurate details, whether it's adding eyebrows that don't move properly or adding extra arms, doing this makes something seem less human, not more. Both leaving off the eyebrows and leaving off the extra arms will make the character seem more human, and for the same reason. However, if you're really good at drawing and animating arms, the character will the extra arms will seem more lifelike and be easier to swallow...
Perceived Invulnerability (Score:4, Interesting)
In a game, you invariably respawn or reload from an earlier point. Sure, some people play "iron man" games where there is no saving, but that's rare, I suspect. Heck, most FPSes will currently save your game automatically before you run into a dangerous spot.
I can personally attest to the odd mindset that can leave. I was working with some electronics at one point, shortly after a long gaming session. As I was reaching for some components, I realized I'd better first check to be sure everything was turned off and unplugged. THe thought right afterwards of, "Eh, I can always restore a save point" caused me sober up immediately and put off that work until I'd some sleep under my belt. *shrug* Or maybe I've just got a weak grasp of reality.
Far Cry (Score:2, Interesting)
Another point scored by the makers of Far Cry : makes some players cross the mental line between fun-filled slaughter fests and the notion of killing human beings.
Not Fooled? Did they SEE the Final Fantasy movie? (Score:3, Interesting)
So I think empirical evidence has already disproven this article. It's premise was undermined before it was even written. While games may not yet have reached that level of sophistication, I believe it is only a matter of time... and games like Half Life 2 are the ones leading the way.
Raven
Uncanny Valley and Asperger's...? (Score:3, Interesting)
If many (most?) geeks have some level of Asperger's, do they react differently to human representations (even those close to, or in, the "uncanny valley") than those who do not have Asperger's? Do they react more favorably to these images, less, or the same - as toward real-life humans? Do "artistic geeks" with Asperger's create "Asperger-like" CGI human representations (that is, does a person with Asperger, who is also a CGI artist, project their viewpoint onto their CGI humanoid constructs)?
I get this sense that they do - some here are proclaiming that "this doesn't look right, that doesn't, etc" (like discussion over FF:The Movie) while other geeks are saying "OMFG, it is beautiful, so well done - w00t!" (ok, that was a little over the top) - why the difference? Was the former non-Asperger's, and the latter was? Thus, that individual is better able to relate to the imperfect CGI? Furthermore, how does this relate to other examples of the "uncanny valley" - do individuals who purchase Real Dolls (for either sex, "dress-up", or collecting - yeah, there are collectors, strangely enough) have a higher incidence of Asperger's?
Thoughts...?
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:4, Interesting)
This should get it's own Slashdot article: do they ever get ANYTHING right in the movies? I may have to see if it's ever been done on Slashdot....
Aircraft Control Tower Simulator (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like, the most stressful job in the world. Why anyone would want to simulate that is faaaar beyond me.
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:3, Interesting)
Points for creativity, but I think there are some vets out there that would call you to the carpet.
The rub with weapon jamming is that you can't tell by looking at it (most times) if the gun is fouled or not. At least not in a "holy shit they are coming over the hill" scenario. If players picked up a gun, and it didn't fire, or heck, blew up in their hands, that feature wouldn't make it through play testing.
It's not that you can't simulate the gun jamming. You can't simulate the feeling of absolute helplessness on the part of the soldier who now seems to have brought a club to a gun fight.
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't care how realistic the figures look... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:examples? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Final Fantasy film and simulated humans (Score:3, Interesting)
Then the guy said that the old man appeared to be real because older actors often wear excessive amounts of makeup in movies, and people are used to seeing unrealistic light reflection on them. So the `death mask' on the Alias character is kind of like the makeup on old people in movies; she looks old and that is weird.
Re:Sad case (Score:4, Interesting)
America's Army teeth (Score:5, Interesting)
Graphics versus Animation (Score:3, Interesting)
At the core of the issue is that graphics by nature are an intermediary art form; the artist manipulates a medium, and the audience sees the final product, created over many hours of work and to the artists' satisfaction (Or the insistence of the one paying the artists.)
Animation of the human form extends from this familiar territory into that of performance art, where the medium is the artist's body, and the audience sees the result of many hours of practice and performance.
We expect cartoons, even realistic ones, to have at least some exaggeration in motion, if not form. Until recently computer graphcis fell into this category and thus our minds allowed them to bend the rules, but that time has passed. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is an example of this, however I think that the animation issues present in the movie are resulting more from financial and time crunnches than a lack of understanding and expertise on the part of the artists.
Not only are animators responsible for believable body physics, but now they must produce realistic facial expressions and body nuances, because the brains of those watching are identifying the characters onscreen as human in appearancee, but not in motion, and that descrepancy can only be remedied by the puppeteers commanding ten thousand strings.
If you think that's creepy... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think it's quite so bad when you don't personally know the character, but you really notice it on faces/bodies you're used to seeing on a regular basis in real life.
Seriously though, I do recommend those of you with any 3D artistic talent take a moment to try modelling one's own body or head... it's a totally surreal experience playing around with what is esscentially an electronic version of your own corpse.