A Photorealistic CGI TV Series Coming Real Soon Now

ziggy_zero writes "SoulPix has revealed their project named "SoulFire", a photorealistic computer-generated TV series created entirely with 3ds max. Here's a trailer (it's in German). Looks pretty cool, better than those CGI cartoons I've seen - although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality. Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players, so you might be better off getting the Quicktime version."

Comments

photorealism

[MJArrison]

I just watched the trailer (thank god for slashdot articles "from the future") and noticed that not a single one of the charcters blinked in the entire preview. Whether it's blinking, or speed of limb movement, or A/V sync, minute body motions are going to continue to seperate live action from CGI for a few more years to come. Photorealism exists only in still frames for the time being.

Re:photorealism

[outsider007]

actually humans are easier to pull off than most animals because you don't have fur to deal with. it's really hard to make good looking fur, and it takes about 100 times the resources to render a furry creature than a human.

Re:photorealism

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Fur has been all-but-trivial for several years now. Hell, Maya Complete comes with fur presets. Or maybe it's Maya Unlimited. I forget. Silly names. Either Complete isn't, or Unlimited is. I can never keep them straight.

The grandparent's point still stands. We've seen 3D renderings of animals, including furry animals, that are good enough to stand up to moderately close inspection. We have never seen a 3D rendering of a human face that could pass even the most cursory glance.

Re:photorealism

[Prof.Phreak]

...CG complete rendered at 1/2 (and soon to be 1/10) the cost...

Hmm... If not using a top model for your shots, it will be a long while before a 30 minute photographing session (with some Photoshop touchups later) will be more expensive than months of meticulous work in creating these 3D models.

Using life human actors is still, for the most part, a lot cheaper than CG.

Re:photorealism

[nurbman]

Here's the best one I've ever seen. Notice he's wearing a hat though and not moving. :)

Our brains are wired to recognize faces which makes recreating one especially difficult. The limits to doing a face now are mostly artistic. Most of the professional software these days has passed the point where it limits the artist. (Whether it can do it in time for a production deadline is another matter.)

Things that make a face not work are:

-Perfect symmetry. (check out Cameron Diaz's nose for how far you can go and still look beautifull)

-Not enough articulation in the forms. (Poser people are getting better but still look like mannequins - too much symmmetry also)

-The eyes and mouth look dry. No meniscus of water at the lids or on the teeth.

-Simple skin textures. The values and color of real skin have quite a range and more variation than most faces are textured/colored.

If you want to see how subtle expressions are, try doing a portrait in paint or pencil and change the shape of the mouth by 1mm or 2. See this link for a really cool article on how subtle and complex facial expressions are. (Bill Clinton makes a guest appearance)

What's the point...

[rsilvergun]

...not to troll or anything, but what makes cartoons and simular endevors neat is that they don't look real. There's a lot to be said for stylized animation. On the other hand when these techniques are used to make shots posible that otherwise wouldn't be (like about half of Episode II) then I appreciate it.

The details

[Spytap]

...are the reason CGI from Pixar, although less than photorealistic (and with a definite cartoony primary-colored look) can feel more photorealistic than projects where a company tries to fool the eye using computers.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality

[Telastyn]

Odd, I'd assume that serieses would be done much better than a movie as far as nuances go. Being in a series, you'd get more feedback about what works, what doesn't... You'd also have the experience of learning some 'tricks' for certain characters/situations.

It wouldn't be immediate, but the Simpsons started out looking terrible. Even South Park has had noticable improvement over time.

Re:Final Fantasy Quality

[Torgo's Pizza]

Thin plot? No, it was a Japanese writer and a Japanese director trying to get an eastern concept across to a western audience. It takes several viewings to get the "plot" of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, but it's there and very deep. The majority of the people watching it just didn't get it.

Re:BitTorrent Mirror

[joe_bruin]

awesome. i've been looking for a good reason to try bit-torrent, and it looks like this is it. thanks for setting it up (currently at 57 kbps and rising). perhaps slashdot integration (as a slashdot effect solution) would be a good idea.

I still prefer Blizzard North...

[Jezral]

Having watched this trailer, it's still far from what Blizzard North did with the WarCraft III movies.

The Soul Fire characters aren't nearly polished enough. Stiff limbs, odd walk, no blinking...

Nay, my breath is held for if (when?) Blizzard North makes a full-motion picture.

-- Tino Didriksen / ProjectJJ.dk

Re:Final Fantasy Quality

[Erwos]

Definitely true. I was waiting for someone to say it.

My girlfriend is not a sci-fi geek, doesn't play videogames, isn't interested in fantasy at all. She was easily able to grasp the FF plot, and thought it was really quite good. The critics might not have gotten the plot, but if you tried to put it in a Japanese context, it made a lot of sense. Gaia, life force, spirits - not Western concepts, but if you know of them, the story made lots of sense.

I own the DVD, and it is one of our favorites. I don't regret the buy at all.

-Erwos