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

[indiigo]

Except for still shots. Watch closely in mags in the next year. Cover shots? Ads? No little sidebar saying so-and so is wearing Gap--no sir-- that is a CG complete rendered at 1/2 (and soon to be 1/10) the cost. And you won't know.

Models revolting, although a model hunger strike wouldn't be very fruitful.

Re:photorealism

[visgoth]

The problem with attempting photorealistic humans is that the closer to "real" you get, the lower the tolerances for what is acceptable are. A creature that is only 50% human looking will be far more "real" looking than a 99.9% accurate looking human. Why? Because each and every human is hardwired to know exactly what a person looks like and moves like. It'll take some time until we get to the point where flesh and blood actors are out of a job.

That being said, cgi is great for things like Gollum, dinosaurs and other such stuff. It's also great for stunt doubles, where some things are just too damn dangerous to pull off with a real live human.

Re:photorealism

[lingqi]

I remember reading somewhere that there is a chasm when the models gets too near "realistic." Like from no resemblance to real world (cartoon networks' toonami robot) to "100% human-like" models, the "realism" would scale linearly until you get to about 95%, which the realism just falls because the models simply "don't look right," or something. of course, eventually it would be possible to climb back the chasm to reach 100%, but I suppose that's really hard. =)

I read this in wired a while back, I believe; and no blinking is not a fault of the CG tech, but rather that of the guys doing this stuff - in better CG things (final fantasy for one - heck even in games they put in blinking characters now), they put in the details.

Btw, FF (movie) seemed weird and creepy but you CAN'T explain what's no "not real" about it - a good example of the "chasm."

And for another example - for anybody who seen the promotional video of Final Fantasy X-2 where there is a comparative track between the real singer doing her song and dance number, and cutting to the CG (Yuna) doing the same, you can see how strangely unreal the CG version is - though looking at CG version alone does not necessarily give you the idea.

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

[Thorgal]

Well, it lacked subsurface scattering, which is pretty important thing when rendering stuff like human skin. Check it here.

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.

No anime... no support ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but this TV series is not anime. As a member of the geek community, I believe we should stand up and say "NO!" to the non-Japanese people who wish to animate stuff.

--M. Oshii

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.

Can't wait to see...

[smittyoneeach]

...the actor's guild on strike against beings that do not exist.
That will be a triumph of surreal/dada-ism.

Uh-oh...

[yozzle]

Soon we'll have to deal with a computer generated version of Friends.

Final Fantasy Quality

[phorm]

although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality

Many fans' primary beef with the FF movie was the thin plot, not the lack of impressive CGI. For a movie, a lot of effort can be invested in minute details etc to render with realism.
For a TV series, I would expect less quality simply because there is less time to rollout, and continuous rollouts as opposed to one big event.

interesting, but awkward

[thadeusPawlickiROX]

Don't get me wrong, the visuals are nice and all. But the motion seemed really forced and awkward. I don't mean to put the show down, but realism is more then a pretty picture; details that are left out seem blatently obvious. Lack of skin texture gives it a nonrealistic feel, the sense that the mouths and words didn't match up well, and the way that the characters moved seemed very strange, almost like they were staggering around (especially in the concluding shot of the trailor). I think that the animation definately is good, and could be really successful in creating a good show. It's unfonate that a few things could detract from well done CGI images, but that seems to separate the average CGI animation from the extremely realistic.

My question is, why?

[sheetsda]

Why are we shooting for photorealistic CG TV shows? I can understand the use of CG technology for putting characters in dangerous situations where actors can't be used, or creating shots that would be difficult or impossible to attain through other means. But why have total shows created of it, are actors *that* much more expensive than the combined cost of the brilliant artists and voice actors? Sure its a cool use of technology, but why is this going onto TV rather than staying on a geek's drawing board somewhere? As someone else already pointed out, they haven't got it quite right yet, with lack of blinking and other minute movements. What's the motivation behind this type of project, aside from the "cool hack" factor?

I'll stick with real cartoons, thanks

[BitHive]

Like Invader Zim, South Park, and Futurama, where they use 3D effects for effect, not as a central element of the show.

I like low tech cartoons

[cyber_rigger]

It's probably just me but I like the low tech cartoons.
They seem to have more character.

I like the hand drawn style of Betty Boop, the claymation style like Wallace and Gromit, paper cutouts (or Sgi computer simulations of) like South Park, and the puppet animations like the works of George Pal.

BitTorrent Mirror

[nstrom]

I managed to get the file, so here's a mirror using BitTorrent. If you don't know what BitTorrent is, first go to the BT site and download and install the client (Windows/OSX/Unix versions available).

Please keep your BT window open for as long as possible (at least an hour or two) after your transfer completes. Thanks!

BT link for DivX (35MB file): http://cobaltnine.net/bt/FINALTRAILER_720_divx.avi .torrent

Be gentle...

[heli0]

I am mirroring the video: www.btrig.com/share/FINALTRAILER_720_divx.avi [35MB; Divx5.0.3]

rendering vs. modelling

[lingqi]

I don't know what you refered to by "it," but:

I don't think the lack of realism really came from the redering technologies, but rather the modelling technologies.

Take the comparison between the real-actress and the CGI (Final Fantasy X-2 promotional video) for example, the lighting and such are all perfectly fine; but you can notice how "rigid" and un-natural the CG character's body moves.

I think, personally, that during movement, any fancy rendering effects are lost, but the actual movement themselves are the critical "realism" that needs to be addressed.

For one, human limbs move on a
1) feed-back system, which would be hard to simulate its complexities simply by dragging the block that says "arm" from here to there,
2) the feed-back is also has a lot to do with balance, another thing difficult to simulate properly, with such a complex system as the human body.

Interesting enough, Final Fantasy (the movie) is completely shot with the little humans too; I think it has to do with the fact that we cannot track the positions of the dots perfectly, though.

It should be possible eventually to do a GPS-esq system where the room has "location transponders" and each "dot" on the actor/actress's body would calculate it's location and send it out wirelessly to a computer somewhere nearby. I think after that, we can see some very good reproduction of human motions.

just my arm-chair thoughts after watching CG generated stuff for a long time.

Wallace and Grommit are more lifelike

[Michael Snoswell]

Just discussing this at work yesterday and we all agreed the stunning realism of Feathers McGraw just as he walked into the house for the first time and looked at Grommit was a pivotal moment. How they make a lump of plasticine (clay) act so lifelike is a true art. There's a lot to do with the timing, camera angle, script, etc etc that's missing from things like FF (movie, cutscenes etc).