Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How 'The Jungle Book' Made Its Animals Look So Real With Groundbreaking VFX (inverse.com)

Posted by msmash on from the pushing-VFX-to-the-limits dept.

An anonymous reader shares an article on Inverse that looks into how The Jungle Book movie was made. Following are some of the interesting tidbits from the story: Directed by Jon Favreau, this version of The Jungle Book, which borrows from both Disney's 1967 cartoon and the original Rudyard Kipling novel, sets a new standard for life-like CGI animals. Shot entirely on a soundstage in downtown Los Angeles, it is sort of a hybrid of Avatar and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, with one human performer surrounded by animated creatures -- the difference being that every effort was made to trick the audience into believing the animals were real. [...] For the most complicated scenes, the computational power required was astounding. "It would take 30-40 hours per frame, and since it's stereo [or 3D], it requires two frames to produce one frame of the movie -- at 2K, not even 4K," Oscar-winning visual effects director Rob Legato said. "So you can tell how much the computer has to figure out, exactly what it's doing, how it's bouncing, how much of the light is absorbed, because when it hits an object, some gets absorbed and some gets reflected." The math there is mind-boggling; it takes a full 24 frames to make up a single second of the movie, and most shots are between five and ten seconds. That required "literally thousands of computers," Legato said, and eventually, some creative solutions. "I think they started using the Google cloud, which has tens of thousands of computers, and sometimes it would take two or three days to render a shot, he said, exasperated at the mere thought of the process. As powerful as the computers were, they ultimately were just taking cues from the human innovators who spent years on the film. "In all this," Legato said, "there's no real computer that replaces the skill of the operator, of the person who is pushing the buttons."

152 comments

  1. That's nice. by Krishnoid · · Score: 0

    How's the story?

    1. Re:That's nice. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Ask Kipling.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:That's nice. by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you like Kipling?

      I don't know, I've never kippled.

    3. Re:That's nice. by markus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I feel, this is probably one movie I don't need to watch. As you said, the story is likely to take a back seat to the visual effects.

      And maybe, it's just me but seeing the previews, it felt extremely jarring. The visual effects are so much on the wrong side of the uncanny valley. It is glaringly obvious that all the animals and a lot of the background is CGI rather than real objects. And to me it feels very disturbing and distracting. Of course, if there is no story to distract from, then maybe that doesn't matter as much...

    4. Re:That's nice. by iotaborg · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's good, according to critics and users?
      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

    5. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kippled. He was a rough lover, and mistakenly called me Mowgli multiple times.

    6. Re:That's nice. by Phics · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't about the quality of the story, the human actors, or the script itself, it's about the tech being used to solve a problem. You can, on occasion, have a technical masterpiece which has nothing to do with the value of the actual project it was meant to accommodate.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
    7. Re:That's nice. by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

      I hear the script only took one brain-dead writer a few hours to render.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:That's nice. by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, what takes 30-40 hours/frame to render has changed significantly since I was peripherally involved in the field almost thirty years ago. Rendering is one of the few areas that really need all the computing resources you can provide and fortunately it's able to leverage parallelism.

      I don't know how much cleverness is used -- things don't change that much in 1/24th of a second -- but I'm guessing there's still a lot of brute force computation. Directing becomes more critical in these efforts as the actors are essentially digital automatons -- hence the "human innovators".

    9. Re:That's nice. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Didn't they try that with Avatar?

      Back then everyone decided that special effects be dammed, a big blockbuster movie does actually need a (non-plagiarised) story.

    10. Re:That's nice. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't they try that with Avatar?

      Back then everyone decided that special effects be dammed, a big blockbuster movie does actually need a (non-plagiarised) story.

      No, the lesson of Avatar was exactly the opposite. The story was completely unoriginal (except for Pocahontas being ten feet tall and blue), but it grossed nearly $3 Billion, and was the most financially successful movie ever. That was purely because of the spectacular (for 2009) special effects. If the eye candy is good enough, the story doesn't matter.

    11. Re: That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better since they added the car chases and shoot-outs.

    12. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exceedingly good.

    13. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [It's glaringly obvious that all the animals aren't real.]

      You mean aside from when they talk?

    14. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The visual effects are so much on the wrong side of the uncanny valley.

      If it looks off-putting to you, then it isn't on either side of the uncanny valley. You'd know this if you weren't a walking example of dunning-kruger effect.

    15. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic cartoon joke from Playboy magazine, a few decades ago.

    16. Re:That's nice. by Jamu · · Score: 0

      If it can use parallelism, then the time per frame is set by making the film in a timely manner while spending as little money as possible. So the ratio of computer time to actual film time will be about 10k on average. Whereas 30-40 hours/frame is about 5,000k! I'm guessing that rate was per computer, and that's why they needed thousands of them. Was the entire film animated?

      --
      Who ordered that?
    17. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plagiarized is more original than a remake.

    18. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean aside from when they talk?

      I know. I felt the same thing while watching the version from 1967. The animals look so fake.

    19. Re:That's nice. by GTRacer · · Score: 3

      Here's my datum. Saw it Saturday afternoon. Expected a lot of CGI. No glaring cases of cringey animation I can recall. Mouths seemed to be in sync.

      BUT - at no time did I expect 100% CGI. Several times I looked at an animal - mainly the wolves - and said to myself the bodies were likely real wolves, with the heads CGI-ed for acting purposes. The hair, musculature, movements, etc. were just... wolfy. When Bagheera (panther) chases Mowgli through the trees, I assumed most of the running action was a stunt animal, and the up-close conversation was CGI.

      I guess my "review" is that, unless you're there just to nit-pick, most everything just looks... natural. Oh, and the story? You already know it. But it's a fine implementation of the reference spec. A little more savage than I expected honestly!

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    20. Re:That's nice. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      So, I herd u liek mud kipling?

      Err... Let me just apologize in advance for that. I'm sorry - but not sorry enough to not do it.

      On a more serious note, I bet the rendering farm for this was AWESOME!!! Holy crap... I've seen some previews for the movie and the first thing I thought of was the rendering farm. Wait, no, the first thing I thought of was the original. The second thing I thought of was that I was singing "The Bear Necessities" aloud. The third thing I thought of was probably the rendering farm. I actually went looking to see if anything had been put up online about it but, alas, I found nothing at the time.

      That must have taken some serious horsepower. It probably used enough electricity to power a small city for a while. As wasteful as that might be, or seem, it's still very awesome.

      As an aside; As a marginally old dude, it's great to have witnessed the vast changes that have taken place during my lifetime. It really is. I don't think it's quite on par with seeing the phone, electricity, powered flight, automobiles, and that sort of stuff - in one lifetime... But, damn, it's kind of close. From a man on the moon to a supercomputer in our pockets. I wonder what my kids will say when they're my age and looking back.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've long thought that Avatar should have been called "Pocahontas 2: Journey to a New World". Stunning that Disney took that name first.

    22. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going by TFA they started with an in-house solution, found it wasn't enough so switched over to GCE

    23. Re:That's nice. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      There's a reason some call it "Eye Porn". Those things are never really lauded for their story either.

    24. Re:That's nice. by kmoser · · Score: 1

      It goes back farther than Playboy.

  2. Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That required "literally thousands of computers,"

    Thank goodness it didn't require any figurative computers. I'm not sure how you'd get those.

    1. Re:Literally by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A modern effects-heavy movie made with thousands of computers doing the rendering? Wow, that's totally unlike every other modern effects-heavy movie. Ever wondered why there are so many Dell computers in action movies with closeups of the Dell logo? Dell either loans, or gives a very steep discount on, the computers for the renderfarms in exchange for product placement.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attempt at making fun of a misuse of the word "literally" has failed, because as long as at least 2000 computers were used, then "literally thousands" is correct usage.

    3. Re:Literally by Falos · · Score: 1

      >grammatically correct usage
      Wasn't challenged. GP was just snarking in an "as opposed to?", also as a legitimately structured observation. It only rustles your jimmies if you know the intent behind the words.

      Feel free to declare "intended meaning was retarded". GP found a subtle way to do the same.

    4. Re:Literally by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Dell either loans, or gives a very steep discount on, the computers for the renderfarms in exchange for product placement.

      The cost of the computers is not much. The expensive part is the GPUs. An NVidia Tesla K80 costs $4000. The computer to host it costs only a tenth of that.

    5. Re:Literally by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      then "literally thousands" is correct usage.

      There is no difference between "literally thousands" and just "thousands". The "literally" is superfluous. He is using the word "literally", not as the opposite of "figurative", but as an intensifier. That is considered by many to be sloppy English, and should be avoided in both speech and writing ... or suffer the wrath of the Grammar Nazis.

       

    6. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's obviously a Weird Al fan, cut him some slack!

    7. Re:Literally by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      The "literally" is superfluous. He is using the word "literally", not as the opposite of "figurative", but as an intensifier. That is considered by many to be sloppy English, and should be avoided in both speech and writing ... or suffer the wrath of the Grammar Nazis.

      That's because a good Nazi uses "doch" as an intensifier, but English lacks any useful equivalent. All of our intensifiers are adverbs, and they emphasize the wrong thing. Consider "They really used thousands of computers." Doesn't convey the same meaning. I vote we bring back doch.

    8. Re:Literally by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      I guess that actually works if you count Virtual Machines as "Figurative" computers.

    9. Re:Literally by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is no difference between "literally thousands" and just "thousands".

      There is if you consider that "thousands of" often gets used metaphorically as a synonym for "many."

      I've told people about this thousands of times, but they literally never listen to me.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:Literally by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      He is using the word "literally", not as the opposite of "figurative", but as an intensifier.

      True, it fits in perfectly with this generally dumbed down and content free puff piece.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Literally by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you'd get those.

      It's called "docker".

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    12. Re:Literally by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Right, and Hyperion doesn't (currently) use GPU acceleration. Extremely heavy SIMD acceleration, of course, but no GPU yet.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    13. Re:Literally by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Virtual machines, obviously.

    14. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      justifiably

  3. This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movies made with special effects and electrical box thingies... computers, I believe they are called.

  4. Groundbreaking means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incremental improvement?

    1. Re:Groundbreaking means... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      About the same computational time (for some definitions) as Tron

    2. Re:Groundbreaking means... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Moore's Law has slowed, but Blinn's Law has not. Render times will only get longer in the near term.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  5. Breathless "report" ran out of breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of computers. Very impressive. The dog says "wow".

  6. Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just curious. We as human are so intune to relate with humans, that a CG Human would look lifeless and fake, especially when animated. Non-Humans not so much so, as we don't relate on the same level. But would a bear watching it have a uncanny valley when seeing another bear?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Probably depends on the bear.

    2. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by rilister · · Score: 2

      That's an interesting question - going by my experience with my dog and FaceTime, he doesn't have the ability to process a 2-D image as a representation of a living 3D thing. That's not a trivial thing - very young children can't do it either. Figuring out that a flat image at the wrong scale, with perspective distortion, lighting artifacts, reflections etc is equivalent to a real creature is (I think) a learned skill.

      When it comes to dogs (and maybe bears) I always assumes that partly because although we are creatures where our visual sense is our primary sense (if it looks like a thing, I'm prepared to ignore my other senses), for dogs smell is much more important. Obviously, a flat screen image smells nothing like the thing it represents, so I suspect a dog will discard the vague similarity easily.

      Still, I think other people have different experiences with their pets and Skype, so maybe it's possible. But dogs live in our world and have lots of opportunities to learn (eg. to recognize our voices). But it's a complex cognitive challenge.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    3. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Most animals aren't as visual as we are. For example, a dog's concept of "doggyness" comes from other dog's anal glands, if animals don't have that scent, they are considered non-dogs.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      But you probably don't want to piss it off, regardless. Still, I'm sure they could find *some* way to get along.

      (Sorry about the self-reply)

    5. Re: Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      That might depend on what the TV smelled like.

    6. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Maybe most bears might be subject to it, but for one who is not your average bear it would be a different thing.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. 100% this. When I got my dog from the local shelter, my wife and I sniffed all their asses to find the one with the most doggyness.

    8. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know dogs that, when they see another dog on TV, start barking at that dog. Whether that supports what you are saying or not, I'm not sure.

    9. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I've had one dog that would watch TV. She enjoyed dogs and horses in particular, as well as R2D2 due to his sounds. The 'evil' horses in Fellowship of the Ring got growled at. For the horses and dogs she would walk around to look behind the TV when they ran out of frame, when she was younger. When she was older she seemed to figure out they weren't really there but enjoyed it if there were dogs interacting with one another on the screen. Other dogs I've had were only interested in the sound the TV made, so being able to process the images is certainly not universal among dogs.

    10. Re: Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Easy. Just smear some dog shit over your monitor.

    11. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by swb · · Score: 1

      My dog will occasionally raise his head and look around if there's dog sounds on TV, but only if he's been sleeping or otherwise not alert.

      And maybe I just think it's the dog noises on TV, but in fact he's hearing something happening 4 houses away in the back yard that I can't here and the TV noise is just a coincidence.

    12. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by halivar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure my dog Gus thinks "Bear" from Person of Interest is a real dog, and if he just barks loud enough, he'll jump through the TV and play with him.

    13. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by geantvert · · Score: 2

      Also, the Red, Green and Blue components used to reproduce colors are finely tuned to match the absorption rates of the 3 types of cones found in the human eye.

      Simply speaking, the colors in our movies and photographs are probably quite unrealistic for most non-human life forms.

           

    14. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      I had a dog once that would bark like mad and run to the front door when a doorbell rang on TV. It was amusing when I got a PVR to see how many times in a row she would fall for it.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    15. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I think I read somewhere that the framerate might have something to do with it as well. Back in CRT days, you were really watching flickery still after still, whereas a modern TV gives a much permanent image, and in some cases it's automatically interpolated to be smoother, as well.

      Not sure if that makes a difference to the mogs and mutts.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    16. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dog looked up at the TV while a pack of wolves attacked a deer.

      She bristled up, growled and approached the TV. Then sniffed at it, and relaxed, then laid back down and went to sleep.

      If it doesn't smell, it's not real.

    17. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But would a bear watching it have a uncanny valley when seeing another bear?

      Something tells me their brain will simply put it into one of 4 categories:

      1. Screw-able
      2. Delicious
      3. Hogging my territory
      4. Ignore

      "Real" versus "fake" is not something they can contemplate. Perhaps if something looks off, they may take it as a hint it could be injured or sick, but only in terms of the above categories.

      Hunting animals often are keen to notice sick/injured because those are the best targets. Thus, "moving funny" may make them curious to probe its agility, especially if surrounded by "normal" targets.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    18. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Unlike humans, animals don't all depend as heavily on their sense of sight to interpret the world around them. Witness that wild animals will attack a decoy that is not at all realistic-looking. I suspect that a live bear being confronted with a realistic CG bear would be more confused by the lack of smell than by any visual imperfections.

    19. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      My buddy has a French Bulldog, loves people but a real bitch to other dogs.
      Any central barking sound from the TV she'd run up to it and start barking like mad, if the sound came from a side, she'd run to the window on that side and do the same.
      If it went on for more then a few seconds, she heads to the dog entrance and runs around the yard for a while (with a few barks).
      Some of the time she'd set off their other dogs and they'd all run around outside. This is on an acreage outside the city, so maybe it's just doggy cabin fever.

    20. Re: Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing to consider are birds. Many bird species will respond to human whistling if it is "close enough." One might argue bears are smarter than most birds, but, I would not count out the idea that if it is "close enough" you might trick the bear.

    21. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by clovis · · Score: 1

      In addition to the possibility of uncanny valley problems when serving content to animals is the problem is that animals need a much faster fps to perceive continuous motion.
      Dogs need about 70 fps or faster or it looks like a series of static pictures much like 5 fps might look to us.
      Birds need over 100fps.
      Older TV's were probably annoying as all get out to them. I know my dogs from long ago disliked being forced to watch "The Smothers Brothers" with me. Now I know it was due to the fps being to low.

      Thanks to advances in TV technology, we can now better serve our canine companions' need for media.
      http://sciencenordic.com/do-do...

      One unanswered question is how much variation is there among the breeds of dogs.
      Do smart dogs, such as Australian Shepherds, need a faster or slower frame rate than, say a Borzoi or Basset Hound?
      Consider that humans are easily fooled with a rather low fps.

    22. Re:Would a bear detect the uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he would, but it would be the result of not being able to smell the CGI bear....
      LOL

  7. the Jungle VIP by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i want to identify as a man, man-cub

    1. Re:the Jungle VIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does bring up a good point. In a world of self-identification (except about skin color for some reason), can anyone truly say that Mowgli was not wolf, bear, monkey and more before he decided he was just another horny human boy?

    2. Re:the Jungle VIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sartre would say that the only force that imposes an identity on a person is other people. Of course, he was also French, so nobody cares.

      Most people would say that your species classification is a matter of the genetics you inherited, and not so much the company you keep (nor even your self-image).

      So, there you have it.

  8. Looked fake to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try again PR people.

  9. No-one tell him about advanced raytracing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "So you can tell how much the computer has to figure out, exactly what it's doing, how it's bouncing, how much of the light is absorbed, because when it hits an object, some gets absorbed and some gets reflected."

    He's so in awe of this you probably shouldn't mention that reflected light can hit another object and keep reflecting... possibly mixing with light from a complete different source in the process.

    MIND == BLOWN

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No-one tell him about advanced raytracing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you didn't actually just blow your own mind trying to come up with something funny to say?

    2. Re:No-one tell him about advanced raytracing by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I bet it's done with a real lion and a bunch of mirrors.

  10. Wag The Dog by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    So we're, say, about five years away from no longer having any way of knowing what we're shown is true or total fiction...

    Then what?

    1. Re:Wag The Dog by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure President Trump will have a clear, workable answer for us by then.

    2. Re:Wag The Dog by zlives · · Score: 1

      time to re-land on the moon :)

    3. Re:Wag The Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just show the old tapes as reruns. Kids today won't know the difference anyway.

    4. Re:Wag The Dog by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Having a way to know the difference between truth or fiction is already irrelevent these days. Far too many people gullibly believe whatever photoshopped stuff they see, and react accordingly. Truth no longer matters. Only truthiness.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  11. The right tool for the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't understand this. If you want a movie to look as real as possible, then why not use as many real components as possible? It's great and all that you used a butter knife to dig that hole, but maybe a shovel would have been the more intelligent way to do things. If you want something to have the specific visual style of CGI, then definitely use CGI. If a certain animation style is what you're after, then use that animation style. I get it, you want to have animals do things that they can't, but you want it to look live action. Why not save yourself the bother and only do the animals, why the background as well? Maybe try to use live animals and just animate the mouths? The right tool for the job. In any other world, if somebody pointed to a super carrier they built with a spoon, the world would laugh at them, but for some reason when a movie does the equivalent, everybody ooos and ahhhs. Will I get the same reaction next time somebody asks me to write some code and I pull out some magnetized needles?

    1. Re:The right tool for the job? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Yes but fewer child actors get eaten this way.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:The right tool for the job? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Maybe try to use live animals and just animate the mouths?

      That doesn't work for a few reasons:

      *) Animals can only rarely be directed, and many films with large animal casts tend to be expensive boondoggles because real animals cause delays. Real animals don't do what the writer/director wants. Real animals put together on set can attack and kill each other. Real animals are extremely difficult to film. Given the sheer number of animal shots used in the Jungle Book, as well as the -type- of shots they were able to get.. yeah. That was not going to happen with real animals, not unless the budget ballooned from its already-high value.

      *) Remember that Conan O'Brien skit (many others have done this as well) where they show a picture of a celebrity's face, and super-impose a different person's speaking mouth on them? Sure, it was intended to look bad, but it also illustrates a truth: speaking is more than just lips and jaw moving. Animating just the mouth has never been convincing. You need the body language as well. If you want a "performance," a real animal is just not going to give it to you.

    3. Re:The right tool for the job? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      From TFA

      They were a bit hamstrung when it came to replicating the animalsâ(TM) movements. Disney is no longer permitted to bring exotic animals into studios to help animatorsâ(TM) research

      If they can't bring them in for research then I highly doubt they could bring them in to film

    4. Re:The right tool for the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say that like it's a good thing, I have two words as rebuttal;

      Jake Lloyd

  12. cool CGI, but looks like it has no soul by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

    all the characters look dry and boring compared to the racist original. the monkey who's supposed to be a cool black guy. baloo the irish drunk. the uptight british elephants. forgot who else

    1. Re:cool CGI, but looks like it has no soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was not racist. That was culturally diverse.

    2. Re:cool CGI, but looks like it has no soul by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "monkey" was actually voiced by Louis Prima (a Sicillian) who was actually a pretty famous jazz musician and singer. He wrote and composed Sing Sing Sing, probably the most widely known swing song.

    3. Re:cool CGI, but looks like it has no soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to IMDB: "Jazz singer Louis Armstrong was originally set to voice King Louie but another jazz singer Louis Prima was cast instead after Walt Disney feared that the idea of Armstrong who was African-American to play an ape would make the audience find the film racist."

    4. Re:cool CGI, but looks like it has no soul by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That's true. But I still don't think that the King Louie that Louis Prima voiced was "supposed to be" a cool black guy, unless Louis Prima was trying to be a cool black guy, even though King Louie was originally "supposed to be a" cool black guy (Louis Armstrong), in a different sense of phrase "supposed to be".

  13. is this sarcasim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But... they dont look real. They look like crappy cgi. Is this a joke article?

  14. at 24fps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it takes a full 24 frames to make up a single second of the movie

    24 frames per second you say? tell me more about that unique and novel concept

    1. Re:at 24fps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so last week. With my new NVIDIA ATI Mega SuperForce XL GT-886 Core12 graphics card, I get around 4000 frames per second on my movies.

  15. advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this paid-for content on /.?

    1. Re:advertising by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be, I recall reading a similar article about Titanic and how it was rendered on thousands of linux boxes and how this was one of the ways linux broke into Hollywood as inexpensive server farms.

  16. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitter, are we? Lighten up. It's a movie, eye-candy.

  17. What happened? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Disney ran out of other people's intellectual property to rip off, so now they're ripping off their own? This movie will run into all the same traps that all movies which anthropmorphicize wild animals run into. My favorite is Zootopia: what exactly do all the carnivores eat, when ALL animals have evolved into hominids?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:What happened? by zlives · · Score: 1

      humans

    2. Re:What happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meat from Kroger.

      And for your first question... that's what Disney does, rip shit off. Then, it's on to release, re-release, and re-re-release the same shit over and over....

      Now available on DVD.. then DVD Special Edition, DVD Collectors Edition, DVD Special Collectors Edition, Blu-ray, Blu-ray Extended Edition, Blu-ray Special Edition, Blu-ray Special Extended Edition, Blue-Ray Special Extended Collectors Edition, Blu-ray UltraSpecial 3D 4K Extremely Extended Collectors Edition with Commemorative Popcorn Tin, etc.

      And I STRONLY suggest spending the extra $150 on the commemorative popcorn tin. When you're done with the popcorn, you can use it to hold all the other obsolete discs you bought for the same movie.

    3. Re:What happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insects.
      But they cut that out of the film.

    4. Re:What happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not ALL the animals, just mammals. So I'd assume they eat birds, fish, insects, etc...

      Also, it's a children's cartoon.

    5. Re:What happened? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Disney ran out of other people's intellectual property to rip off, so now they're ripping off their own? This movie will run into all the same traps that all movies which anthropmorphicize wild animals run into.

      That trap would be the $1 Billon gross in first-run theatrical release for Zootopia? The 98% Fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes?

  18. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Phics · · Score: 1

    Or, maybe they are just proud of the tech and want to showcase a particularly challenging and interesting component of the film. Are you saying a good movie wouldn't talk about their 'breakthrough' special effects?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
  19. Typical, $175 million on effects, $0 on plot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical, $175 million on effects, $0 on plot.

  20. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> Are you saying a good movie wouldn't talk about their 'breakthrough' special effects?

    I'm saying its 2015 and we're so used to CGI powering fantasy movies that no one cares about "breakthrough" special effects - they're expected. And, if they're your main story about your movie, your movie probably sucks. (What was the last "good" movie you know that was primarily marketed on its special effects?)

  21. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct sir! The distributor must be running if fear. The film only made $291 million at the boxoffice worldwide on opening weekend and scored 94% on the Tomato Meter.

    Polish that turd!

  22. Re: Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avatar. And it was awesome.

  23. thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Ball park numbers:
    35 hours per frame
    120 frames per second (2x 60 fps)
    7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie
    = 30,240,000 hours to render the movie
    = 3452 years

    I'm sure they have a cluster of computers dividing up the workload, but still...

    1. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They mentioned thousands of computers, and it's at 24fps not 60.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:thats a lot of computing power by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all that computing power went into mining bitcoins instead...

    3. Re:thats a lot of computing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is not very precise. It says 30-40 hours per frame. Using what? a RaspberryPi? a single recent Haswell core? a Haswell socket with 16 cores or a node with multiple sockets? It could also be that they used GPUs to speed up the process. There is probably a ratio of at least 100 between the slowest and the fastest of those configurations.

    4. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Film is traditionally 24 fps, but I a lot of stuff coming out now is 60, especially stuff shot in 3d. Even if some might want to view the film in 24 fps, "shooting" at a higher framerate gives you the option of a high framerate release.

      There are jungle book trailers that are 60 fps.

    5. Re:thats a lot of computing power by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      There are jungle book trailers that are 60 fps.

      No, there are people on YouTube who think they can run a 24fps film through an interpolating filter and get something that's on a par with native 60fps.

      You can't.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:thats a lot of computing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article actually mentions the framerate being 24fps.

    7. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that someone could take a clip of the trailer and stretch it out to 120fps if they really want to, but the movie was still actually produced using 24fps. That fact is in both the summary and the article. Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?

      They don't need to do anything this. They don't need to make it so realistic. They don't need to make a 3d version. They don't even need to make a movie. Why would they do any of this?

    9. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, exactly, fantastic reasoning. They should just produce everything at 1,200 fps for that matter, right? Let's really future-proof what we're doing and just set 12,000 fps as the standard. Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?

      Assuming that neither of us are completely retarded, if they have an expected workload measured in tens of millions of computing hours, why are they going to increase that workload for little to no benefit? The producers decided that 24 was right for this project, so why have you decided that they should have used 60?

      The budget for this was $175 million, but fuck all that noise, let's produce 2 and a half times as many frames and require 2 and a half times as much computing power to get the thing done in roughly the same time frame, right? Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference, but it makes everyone feel better, right?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?

      Are you blind?

      VR headsets are trying to bump up the standard video game rendering rate to 60 to 90 so people don't get motion sickness

      If you don't think people can tell the difference between 24 fps and higher frame rates, you must have some pretty severe vision problems.

      Yeah there are frame rates high enough where human beings can't differentiate them anymore, it's just not anywhere near 24.

    11. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim? You should rework your ballpark numbers. You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is. If you're not going to bother to use the actual time or the actual frame rate then might as well make it so that it just feels right.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim?

      I *never* made that claim.

      In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).

      The claims I am making are regarding the utility of shooting in higher frame rates, and the history of modern movies (especially those focusing heavily on VFX/CGI) being shot/rendered in higher frame rates.

      Even if a director wants to present their movie in 2d 24 fps film, there may be a market for IMAX 4k 3d 60 fps, blah blah blah version. You can always downgrade form higher quality source material.

      You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is.

      If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.

      I notice you did not make any sort of response to my claim that you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24. Does that mean you conceding this ridiculous point?

    13. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.

      That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?

      You had this:

      35 hours per frame
      120 frames per second (2x 60 fps)
      7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie
      = 30,240,000 hours to render the movie
      = 3452 years

      Let's adjust for reality:

      35 hours per frame
      48 frames per second (2x 24 fps)
      6300 seconds (105 minutes) per movie
      = 10,584,000 hours to render the movie
      = 1208 years

      There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!

      you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24

      Is that where I said this:

      Because if people can really only detect 24 fps

      or this:

      Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference

      Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:

      In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).

      That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?). So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.

      In other news, this thread is stupid.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?

      Do you not know what guessing is? Does it ever make sense to guess when you know the answer to something?

      There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!

      except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.

      Is that where I said this: "Because if people can really only detect 24 fps"

      yes

      Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:

      The difference being that I have admitted from the beginning the things I am guessing about, and you've apparently just started now

      That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?).

      It matters because I am suggesting that it's possible the movie will actually be rendered at a higher framerate than 24 even though that specific number was casually mentioned in the article.

      So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.

      I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it. And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).

    15. Re:thats a lot of computing power by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.

      The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.

      And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).

      Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.

      I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it.

      Welcome to Slashdot.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:thats a lot of computing power by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.

      This was a criticism of the accuracy of your accuracy number.

      Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.

      According to you it was was within a factor of 2.85x. So the prediction appears to have exceeded expectations.

      Welcome to Slashdot.

      I am under no illusions that people like you are uncommon on slashdot.

  24. Re:how much of the book survived? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing after I read about a public debate where people, SJW's, were arguing whether the movie had to be banned or not. The conclusion was that it is OK to ban Kipling's work because he is a racist defender of white male supremacy, but the film is okay since it has been adapted to 21th century's "Ministry of Truth" standards (this was in an European country).

    I thought the debate and/or article was a satire, but apparently that are the things left wing 'hippies' debate about these days. These are the type of activists who condemn people who say "I'm no racist, but ...", but don't hear it when they say "I'm for free speech, but ...".

  25. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the trailers and advertising sculptures I've seen, this movie is not primarily being marketed on its special effects. The crew that did the effects is bragging, but that is to be expected if they did a good job (or merely think they did). However if your entire link to the rest of humanity is Slashdot, you will only be subject to the tech side of the pre-release hype.

    Also, it's 2016.

  26. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> The film only made $291 million at the boxoffice worldwide on opening weekend

    It's out already? Guess I missed the advertisement.

  27. Re:how much of the book survived? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    conclusion was that it is OK to ban Kipling's work

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  28. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leaving aside this guy's awe at these newfangled computer things and the time they take to do their business, (seriously editors? I get it they pay you to promote this crap, but couldn't you at least turn it down a bit?) I just watched the trailer in HD out of curiosity.

    I can definitely see the computing requirements for all that fur, fog, particles, detailed background with translucent vegetation, and so on. In fact, the backgrounds and lightning look awesome.

    But the animal movements still look fake, their facial expressions are ugly (there's a reason traditional cartoons weren't anatomically precise) and IMHO the acting or the choice of voice actors is very poor. The voices don't "look" the part at all. These studios should spend more time studying the original Walt Disney (the man) productions and Japanese animation and less time losing themselves and their purpose in modern CGI.

  29. Slow rendering is a good thing now? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    Making a slow but accurate rendering engine is easy. The equations are relatively simple, the rest is simply a lot of iterations on crazy detailed model.
    Making a fast but good looking and sufficiently accurate engine is fucking hard.

    From the summary, it looks like the team went with the bruteforce approach, which is fine, but not something to brag about IMHO. They even imply that it takes twice as long to render from two very close viewpoints (stereo). I'm surprised they can't manage to exploit the correlation between the two.

    1. Re:Slow rendering is a good thing now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making a slow but accurate rendering engine is easy. The equations are relatively simple, the rest is simply a lot of iterations on crazy detailed model.
      Making a fast but good looking and sufficiently accurate engine is fucking hard.

      From the summary, it looks like the team went with the bruteforce approach, which is fine, but not something to brag about IMHO. They even imply that it takes twice as long to render from two very close viewpoints (stereo). I'm surprised they can't manage to exploit the correlation between the two.

      oreng and spider studio http://www.onsdstudio.com/
        is the elite interior designing company.

  30. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Phics · · Score: 1

    Except that doesn't seem to have been their motive. You are right, a lot of people don't care about "breakthrough" special effects, but they do tend to be dismissive about yet another film where talking animals prevent an audience's suspense of disbelief.

    Have a quick read of this article for more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...

    --
    There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
  31. Five years ago, or five years from now? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I think we crossed that mark in the past. At this point we're just reducing the turnaround time for the fakes.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  32. Jealously is so unbecoming by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Says the person who was so afraid I'd see what they wrote they posted AC...

    News flash : A post as funny as mine took LITERALLY no effort to compose.

    MIND == DOUBLE BLOWN

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. $0 on plot because of public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what public domain works mean, right?

  34. A waste of computing power by Kakao · · Score: 1

    No matter how much computing power they throw at rendering the result has always sucked.

    --
    2011. The year Gnome decided Linux will never be on the desktop.
  35. Yawn by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Yawn. All that effort, and yet it's still the same basic story as fifty years ago. Lots of tech... zero creativity.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Yawn by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You left out that Disney waited for the Jungle Book to enter public domain before they made the first movie.... Under the old rules of course.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Yawn by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'm not sure Disney has had a truly original concept since Steamboat Wille. Disney, an entire entertainment empire built on a single cartoon.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    3. Re:Yawn by tbq · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'm not sure Disney has had a truly original concept since Steamboat Wille. Disney, an entire entertainment empire built on a single cartoon.

      Steamboat Willie was based heavily on the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill Jr. which came out earlier that year. It was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon to get a distributor, since Disney couldn't find a distributor for the two earlier Mickey Mouse cartoons.

  36. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I'm saying its 2015 and we're so used to CGI powering fantasy movies that no one cares about "breakthrough" special effects - they're expected. And, if they're your main story about your movie, your movie probably sucks. (What was the last "good" movie you know that was primarily marketed on its special effects?)

    Inception. The commercials all seemed to focus on the impossible dream sequence special effects. They weren't incredible, but that's how the movie was marketed. What's the last movie marketed on its special effects that actually had impressive special effects for the time? TRON.

  37. Avatar showed an alien forest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Avatar, they showed an alien forest in high resolution, with plants and animals people have never seen. For The Jungle Book, lots of people have seen bears, tigers, and all sorts of Earth animals and plants. Why should I see familiar creatures tell a familiar story? (many people have already seen the animated movie) Sort of like the first Transformers movie, my god that CGI porn was beautiful, and the story wasn't horrible.

    1. Re:Avatar showed an alien forest by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      For The Jungle Book, lots of people have seen bears, tigers, and all sorts of Earth animals and plants. Why should I see familiar creatures tell a familiar story?

      Because you've never seen them exactly how the director wants you to see them.

  38. I prefer the hand drawn animation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new stuff has absolutely no "character" or heart in it.

    1. Re:I prefer the hand drawn animation by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 1

      The new stuff has absolutely no "character" or heart in it.

      The ASCII art version has plenty of characters in it.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
  39. Depends on two factor by DrYak · · Score: 1

    But would a bear watching it have a uncanny valley when seeing another bear?

    It depends on two factor:

    - which sense does the considered animal use to perceive the world and other individual of the same specie?
    As mentioned, we human are quasi exclusively visual, with some auditive perception (voice) thrown in too, whereas other animal rely on other sense or other interpretations of sense. (e.g.: some snakes have infrared perception and use it to recognise other animal. They would not recognize a mouse if it were cold)

    - how is the social structure of the animal, how much does it need to recognise others and does it have a concept of "Uncanny valley".
    In humans, it plays (among other) a role of instinctive/inate xenophobia (due to the "US vs Them" mentality that played an important role back when we were living in small packs/tribes) : if it looks almost like us but not quite exactly, chances are that it comes from another pack/tribe, therefore it is a direct competitor to us and we must hate it/fight it.
    (Side note: sadly some of our stupidest contemporary brethren seem not to have evolved much since then and still believe racism is a thing, even now when the society has evolved and globalised to the point where "tribe" now covers nearly all the few billions humans on the planet, which should all stick together if we want to still have some hope to survive as a specie)

    So it all boils down to:
    - will the considered animal recognise the CGI representation as another animal of the same specie?
    - and does is have an inate "uncanny valley" mechanism?

    e.g: House cats.
    - House cats are enough visual (nearly like us) so they will also recognise movie depiction of cats as "cats" (and also other felidae, due to the scale on the TV screen. They will also recognise movie depiction of lions).
    - Cats have complex behaviour which, among other depends on the availability of resources. When there's enough shelter and food for everyone, they'll tolerate other individuals without excessive fuss. (That's how feral cat colonies form). They'll even collectively raise kittens (probable evolutionary explanation: due to the reproductive patterns of cats, when there are kittens around, chance are high that they're somewhat related, and helping raising them helps proliferate more copies of the same genes).

    So house cats are likely to try calling movie representation of cats to play with them (in my experience) (they'll also try call lions).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  40. Workplace Jungle by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    As powerful as the computers were, they ultimately were just taking cues from the human innovators..."there's no real computer that replaces the skill of the...person who is pushing the buttons."

    Yeah, that's what H-1B's are for.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  41. It did? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > How 'The Jungle Book' Made Its Animals Look

    The trailers I've seen look terrible. As is too often the case, the kinematics are just *wrong*.

  42. Re:Box office turd polished - film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er it hasn't been 2015 for quite some time

  43. OSD studio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oreng and Spader D Studio Private Limited,http://www.onsdstudio.com/
      is a leading interior designing company