Leaving the uncanny valley
October 1, 2014 1:06 PM Subscribe
Ed, by illustrator Chris Jones. Ed's eye. Ed's eyeball. Making of.
From the artist: Well, there's Sigma 2 subsurface scattering on the sclera, which blends into a Dielectric shader (not my preference, but that was the only way I could get a transparent blend working with Sigma 2). The SSS dulls the veins image map, so to counter that I had to crank the map contrast up and the gamma down and add a second veins image in the "Scattered Colour" channel . The iris is just a plain image/bump map, and there's a bump on the sclera of course. That's the main gist of it...
From the artist: Well, there's Sigma 2 subsurface scattering on the sclera, which blends into a Dielectric shader (not my preference, but that was the only way I could get a transparent blend working with Sigma 2). The SSS dulls the veins image map, so to counter that I had to crank the map contrast up and the gamma down and add a second veins image in the "Scattered Colour" channel . The iris is just a plain image/bump map, and there's a bump on the sclera of course. That's the main gist of it...
this cat is so moist
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:29 PM on October 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:29 PM on October 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Combine an artist friendly, slightly future version of this with Machinima filmmaking techniques and goodbye hollywood.
posted by sammyo at 2:05 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by sammyo at 2:05 PM on October 1, 2014
That is a very juicy eyeball.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 3:37 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by Mister Moofoo at 3:37 PM on October 1, 2014
Hmm... the eye rendering is excellent, although there are noticeable rendering artefacts when the camera pans/zooms. And the animation is pretty "jumpy". Video of a real eye for comparison. Notice how the eye seems to slide, rather than jump, around. It's quite good, but I wouldn't say it's left the uncanny valley yet.
posted by tybeet at 4:46 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by tybeet at 4:46 PM on October 1, 2014
Still uncanny to me.
I think the biggest challenge ahead might not be how cgi looks, but how it moves. Take any one still from this and it might be believable. But as soon as it moves, the spell is broken.
posted by Flaffigan at 5:00 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think the biggest challenge ahead might not be how cgi looks, but how it moves. Take any one still from this and it might be believable. But as soon as it moves, the spell is broken.
posted by Flaffigan at 5:00 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
That eye animation is truly horrifyingly uncanny. You cannot just make a centerline of the eyeball and just drag it around at whatever speed you like, and whatever direction you like. At one point, the eye is looking straight at the bridge of the nose. You just can't do that. Also the fixed position of the face is completely unnatural because:
any shift of gaze larger than about 20° is accompanied by a head movement
This is an animator who does not know the function of muscles or how they move. This is how CG modellers end up in the uncanny valley. This is some CG geek with a mirror next to his computer screen, staring at himself for hours and hours while trying to model a head. He looks but he does not see. He does not even notice what happens when he turns his head. He becomes enchanted by his own creation, putting in more and more surface nodes until the eye is almost correct, pushing bend and displacement mapping to the limit of his tools, but the overall result is incorrect in every single way. I call this the "Jar-Jar Effect." The animators were entranced by Jar-Jar's floppy ears and how they now had the technology to animate it, they stared at it on their screens for so many hours that they failed to notice that the character itself was loathsome.
This is crap. Computer geeks like this guy will never be artists.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:28 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
any shift of gaze larger than about 20° is accompanied by a head movement
This is an animator who does not know the function of muscles or how they move. This is how CG modellers end up in the uncanny valley. This is some CG geek with a mirror next to his computer screen, staring at himself for hours and hours while trying to model a head. He looks but he does not see. He does not even notice what happens when he turns his head. He becomes enchanted by his own creation, putting in more and more surface nodes until the eye is almost correct, pushing bend and displacement mapping to the limit of his tools, but the overall result is incorrect in every single way. I call this the "Jar-Jar Effect." The animators were entranced by Jar-Jar's floppy ears and how they now had the technology to animate it, they stared at it on their screens for so many hours that they failed to notice that the character itself was loathsome.
This is crap. Computer geeks like this guy will never be artists.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:28 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
At one point, the eye is looking straight at the bridge of the nose. You Goyim just can't do that.
FTFY. I grew up thinking everyone could see their nose at all times...
posted by Strass at 6:36 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
FTFY. I grew up thinking everyone could see their nose at all times...
posted by Strass at 6:36 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I actually never really felt the "uncanny valley" until seeing this video. I knew in some abstract sense that it was something people felt when they saw CG people, but this finally helped me understand it in a visceral sense.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:18 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:18 PM on October 1, 2014
I Am Joe's Wireframe.
posted by hwestiii at 10:31 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by hwestiii at 10:31 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ugh. I just took a video of myself looking from left to right to check out the "20 degree head movement" thing, and, looking back at my own video...it looks super unrealistic. It's an actual video of me, and I wasn't trying to do anything goofy with my eyes, but yet it looks so...wrong.
posted by Bugbread at 11:43 PM on October 1, 2014
posted by Bugbread at 11:43 PM on October 1, 2014
I think the biggest challenge ahead might not be how cgi looks, but how it moves.
Or come to the realization that hyperrealism is not the only aesthetic that should be driving work in the medium, which is a conclusion that every aspect of the visual arts including photography has already reached.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:26 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or come to the realization that hyperrealism is not the only aesthetic that should be driving work in the medium, which is a conclusion that every aspect of the visual arts including photography has already reached.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:26 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, if he could see what you have seen of his eyes...
posted by Devonian at 5:41 AM on October 2, 2014
posted by Devonian at 5:41 AM on October 2, 2014
CBrachyrhynchos: "Or come to the realization that hyperrealism is not the only aesthetic that should be driving work in the medium"
The people working in the medium have already realized this, long, long ago. Look at the top selling CGI movies. Count how many of them go for hyperrealism. The "biggest challenge" being discussed is not "the biggest challenge to achieving good looking CGI" but "the biggest challenge to achieving hyperrealistic CGI".
It's kinda like telling someone who says "I'm having a hard time getting this chord on this guitar" that they should just come to the realization that they should stop trying to play guitar and play piano instead.
posted by Bugbread at 6:42 AM on October 2, 2014
The people working in the medium have already realized this, long, long ago. Look at the top selling CGI movies. Count how many of them go for hyperrealism. The "biggest challenge" being discussed is not "the biggest challenge to achieving good looking CGI" but "the biggest challenge to achieving hyperrealistic CGI".
It's kinda like telling someone who says "I'm having a hard time getting this chord on this guitar" that they should just come to the realization that they should stop trying to play guitar and play piano instead.
posted by Bugbread at 6:42 AM on October 2, 2014
Bugbread: The people working in the medium have already realized this, long, long ago.
Animators get this because Chuck Jones could humanize geometric forms. My experience is that the people teaching game aesthetics seem to suffer from a serious case of cinema envy. That said, commercial animation seems to be in its own commercial rut.
In my view, it's more like asking why someone would want to make a guitar sound like trumpet rather than trying to be a Hendrix.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:03 AM on October 2, 2014
Animators get this because Chuck Jones could humanize geometric forms. My experience is that the people teaching game aesthetics seem to suffer from a serious case of cinema envy. That said, commercial animation seems to be in its own commercial rut.
In my view, it's more like asking why someone would want to make a guitar sound like trumpet rather than trying to be a Hendrix.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:03 AM on October 2, 2014
You can make a guitar sound like a trumpet, if you're using a MIDI guitar hooked up to a synthesizer. It still doesn't really sound like a trumpet. Now they make MIDI trumpets. You might as well play a real trumpet.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:43 AM on October 2, 2014
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:43 AM on October 2, 2014
« Older Charlie and the Zuckerlwerkstatt | Before The Law Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rebent at 1:28 PM on October 1, 2014