[SAM]

I am writing an essay about the history of the film industry in regards to computer grahics, and was wondering what you - as professionals - hope/think of the future of CGI in motion pictures?

[Sumaleth]

Easier, faster, better.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[Lunatique]

And cheaper.

[Drew]

More.

Then a backlash where nobody wants to use them for a while.

[SAM]

ok... thanx for the input guys.

So my essay focus a bit on the current problems and possibilities CGI has today and here are some of the key factors I've identified:

1a. Memory/Space and rendering time limitations - it's still impossible to build huge models with lots of detail with CGI. In fact miniature models are still used today because modeling on the computers would not be possible.

1b. New algorithms, new hardware. No one knows what super-rendering-alghorithm some mad mathematician may invent next month so how does one predict the future in this sence? Can we assume that some break-thru is around the corner or is everything of significance allready invented? In which case the only hope the industry has for getting beyond problem in 1a is to get better hardware...

2. Interaction between actors and CGI - acting in a green room with a guy dressed in a green jump-suit wearing a T-rex head is not quite the same as "traditional acting". I know actors are getting more training in this form of acting today, but are there alternatives or technology beeing developed to solve this problem? Holographic projection maybe? (ugh... if I include that last thought in my essay - do you think my professor will think I'm tripping?)

3. Particle animation. This part I'm not too sure about. I mean I've seen some pretty amazing stuff done with this but my teacher claims it's still in it's infancy and not used much as it's much more belivable to just use real fire and smoke and edit it into the image with billboards.

4. Procedural modeling and animation and AI. Used to some extent today. For instance in the Lord of the Rings - AI is used so there is no need to animate each and every orc individually in the huge battle scenes. Procedural modelling is nice for organic stuff such as trees... but where else is it used? Could it maybe be used togheter with AI to build cities?

comments on the above?

[Sumaleth]

1a:

I think physical models are still used because it's easier, not because of technical limitations. There's something about having your hands on a piece of plasticine that is still preferable to a lot of people than digital alternatives.

ZBrush has been one big step in overcoming this gap. ZBrush is used everywhere now, on tasks that would not so long ago have been done with physical marquettes.

The next big breakthrough will probably be in the form of some sort of hands-on (with real tactile feedback) modelling accompanied by a virtual display, so the object has dimension.

1b:

Everyone excepts technological advances in this industry. There's one every month, whether it be in hardware or software, and that's unlikely to stop any time soon.

2:

Until someone gets an idea how to create decent holographic projection that does seem a little far fetched. Though that doesn't mean it's not inevitable.

Another approach might be to fit the actors with special contact-lenses that places the virtual character in their view. Again, a ways off.

3:

With more hardware it's possible to get higher fidelity with particle animation, but other than that I'm not sure what new it offers.

4:

Procedural techniques are almost certainly going to become huge in the industry. The more detailed that digital imagery becomes, the more time it takes to create content. And procedurality is going to be one of the most important answers to that growing problem.

There will almost certainly be tools in the near future that allow you to "dial in" content that would currently take animators weeks/months. It'll start with things like City Builder and Environment Builder, and end with completely procedual (and realistic) human animation.

Check out the forthcoming Indiana Jones game for a very early example of procedural human animation. It's a bit funky at this point, but shows some exciting potential.

Addendum:

Independant file makers already have access to CG technology. There are dozens and dozens of low-budget animated projects in the works, and even low budget film projects can afford digital effects these days.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[SAM]

thank you very much for your imput, much appreciated!

[Drew]

[michalczyk]

I think eventually (in 20-30 years), the ability to easily make CGI movies with Hollywood quality content will be perfectly doable on home computers by a few student individuals doing it all at their parents home in a few weeks time. As technology gets better and easier to use, it also becomes cheaper and more widespread. The side effect of that is devaluation - it will be less and less valuable/impressive since anybody will be able to do such things. It will be like what radio is now, compared to what it used to be before TV came out. It's just there, nobody cares about it the way people used to when it was the big, modern and popular media thing.

I guess until the next big thing hits us, (I suspect it will be virtual reality) the movies with CGI will continue to be top entertainment for many people, despite the increasing bloat.
_________________
Fantasy art, Sci-fi, Surreal, Space and Abstract art - check out my gallery!

[Affected]

I doubt there will be a worldwide abandoning of cg at any point - things are too fragmented for really strong, widespread trends like that. There might not even be any trend at all, but certainly some directors will, and already do, become frustrated with the troubles CGI brings with it, and intentionally make more "traditional" films.

[Exclamation]

Your point above about particle animation, did you mean in terms of creating things like fire and smoke? If so, particles are dead. It's all about voxels now, which are the reason why CG smoke and fire is photoreal nowadays. Instead of creating geometry onto which you put textures and whatnot, voxels are like clouds of data that describe the various characteristics of any given point in space, like temperature, wind, density, etc.

The only instances where we still find particles in serious use are video games and movies you'll find in the 99cent bin
_________________
Freelance Illustration & Design | A Portrait of Envy

[Drew]

[michalczyk]

[Drew]

[michalczyk]