Everyone seems to focus on how far ahead movie quality CG is, and how realtime will always be lagging behind, and even Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within wasn't convincingly realistic, so how could a GeForce card keep up?
However, does that really matter? Isn't art more than just technical concerns?
I've recently seen a import copy of Xenosaga for the Playstation 2, and let me tell you, it's a truly gorgeous looking 3D anime. (It has some RPG elements, too, but back to my point:) )
I know I'd be happy to sit down and watch a Xenosaga TV series, if it looked just as good as that, and even if it didn't look any better.
Inferior CG quality? People happily watched Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Shaky looking motion capturing? I've watched puppet shows before, and I'll watch them again. CG with unrealistic motion capturing is just like a puppet show to me. Heck, wasn't Thunderbirds (with SuperMarionation!) a cult hit?
An effect you want, but can't get it out of the GeForce card? Roll with it. If a poet can write in iambic pentameter, you can get by the occasional artistic limitation yourself.
Now, I'm not all that interested in the idea of improv'd realtime animation. But I do want to point out that there's a role for scaling back your ambition when it comes to animation - in favor of getting your ideas out cheaply and getting your ideas out quickly. A lot of the more insulting posts I see in this thread seem to be overlooking that viewpoint.
Ha! As if DNS-and-BIND had never heard of change, and had to be taught the concept like a child. Trying to lord over a person you're arguing with is a worthless tactic.
Anyway, you shouldn't just sit back and let change roll over you - you have the same power as any other person to dictate future English. Will *you* start using 'alot' from now on? Do you *like* 'alot'?
The word 'another' actually has different meaning from 'an other': the phrase focuses on an object being different from the first object, while the word focuses on an object being the next one after the first object.
People may want to start making a distinction between 'a lot' (where you park cars) and 'alot' (casual synonym for 'many'), but frankly, between 'its/it's' confusion, and 'lose/loose' confusion, and the corruption of 'hee hee hee', it's a bad time to be permissive about changes to the English language.
Some interesting questions:
-Are you obligated to watch advertisements for products that you aren't able to buy? (This often happens to Canadians who watch American shows.)
-If you are incapable of purchasing that which is being advertised (i.e. cars, when you're just a poor student) or are a minor, are you obligated to watch commercials?
-Would it suffice to just acknowledge the sponsors, rather than watch the commercials in full? ("Okay, *hovering over the PVR buttons*.. Applebee *blip* Hyundai *blip* Datek *blip* and there's the show. Well, that was nice of them to sponsor this program.." *bows head in respect for a moment*)
I understand the idea of being obligated, even if there's no law involved sometimes. However, I think the above questions bring up the point that advertising really *is* a gamble, more than a contract. There's a virtue known as grace - making allowances and giving people freedoms instead of holding them to every little exchange in their lives. Just as much there's an implicit contract that customers should watch advertising, there's an implicit (societal) contract that advertisers shouldn't try to hold people to it.
If the television industry or advertisers push too hard on this morality issue, they'll find out that society will push back - and that it's society which, in many ways, dictates what is right and ought to be in this world.
Slashdot Mirror
That's more an example of plagiarism than copyright infringement.
That sounds truly impressive. It throws this whole topic into a whole new light..
So, an Nvidia GPU that cuts down a 90-minute frame render to less than a second? Surprising to hear what a bottleneck custom vertex shading can be.
Imagine if Square had held off on making their movie for a few years. They wouldn't have had to take such a hit to their assets. :)
-Sean Givan
Everyone seems to focus on how far ahead movie quality CG is, and how realtime will always be lagging behind, and even Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within wasn't convincingly realistic, so how could a GeForce card keep up?
However, does that really matter? Isn't art more than just technical concerns?
I've recently seen a import copy of Xenosaga for the Playstation 2, and let me tell you, it's a truly gorgeous looking 3D anime. (It has some RPG elements, too, but back to my point :) )
I know I'd be happy to sit down and watch a Xenosaga TV series, if it looked just as good as that, and even if it didn't look any better.
Inferior CG quality? People happily watched Rocky and Bullwinkle.Shaky looking motion capturing? I've watched puppet shows before, and I'll watch them again. CG with unrealistic motion capturing is just like a puppet show to me. Heck, wasn't Thunderbirds (with SuperMarionation!) a cult hit?
An effect you want, but can't get it out of the GeForce card? Roll with it. If a poet can write in iambic pentameter, you can get by the occasional artistic limitation yourself.
Now, I'm not all that interested in the idea of improv'd realtime animation. But I do want to point out that there's a role for scaling back your ambition when it comes to animation - in favor of getting your ideas out cheaply and getting your ideas out quickly. A lot of the more insulting posts I see in this thread seem to be overlooking that viewpoint.
-Sean GivanHa! As if DNS-and-BIND had never heard of change, and had to be taught the concept like a child. Trying to lord over a person you're arguing with is a worthless tactic.
Anyway, you shouldn't just sit back and let change roll over you - you have the same power as any other person to dictate future English. Will *you* start using 'alot' from now on? Do you *like* 'alot'?
The word 'another' actually has different meaning from 'an other': the phrase focuses on an object being different from the first object, while the word focuses on an object being the next one after the first object.
People may want to start making a distinction between 'a lot' (where you park cars) and 'alot' (casual synonym for 'many'), but frankly, between 'its/it's' confusion, and 'lose/loose' confusion, and the corruption of 'hee hee hee', it's a bad time to be permissive about changes to the English language.
-Sean GivanDidn't you have this conversation already?
Some interesting questions:
-Are you obligated to watch advertisements for products that you aren't able to buy? (This often happens to Canadians who watch American shows.)
-If you are incapable of purchasing that which is being advertised (i.e. cars, when you're just a poor student) or are a minor, are you obligated to watch commercials?
-Would it suffice to just acknowledge the sponsors, rather than watch the commercials in full? ("Okay, *hovering over the PVR buttons*.. Applebee *blip* Hyundai *blip* Datek *blip* and there's the show. Well, that was nice of them to sponsor this program.." *bows head in respect for a moment*)
I understand the idea of being obligated, even if there's no law involved sometimes. However, I think the above questions bring up the point that advertising really *is* a gamble, more than a contract. There's a virtue known as grace - making allowances and giving people freedoms instead of holding them to every little exchange in their lives. Just as much there's an implicit contract that customers should watch advertising, there's an implicit (societal) contract that advertisers shouldn't try to hold people to it.
If the television industry or advertisers push too hard on this morality issue, they'll find out that society will push back - and that it's society which, in many ways, dictates what is right and ought to be in this world.
-Sean Givan