Kered

[www.argaste.com]

/guilty of the same thing

SunZhiQian

"Dodge this, @$$h0l3"

SunZhiQian

HexiumVII

phantam

it was originally slated for 360 and ps3, but eventually SCEA announced that it would be made a ps3 exclusive. Then a few weeks later the company announced it to be true

phantam

ryanchild292

ryanchild292

Have they considered cable cars for crossing the uncanny valley or something like that French road bridge in Milau? Or maybe tunnelling under it. Or maybe people just need to get over themselves.

Maxwells_Nylon_Hammer

Vagabum

mrAnderson

drewheyman

Red Right Hand

Thanks for that link, there's some great stuff there.

pr3isdentspence

No worries :)

Have a good one.

pr3isdentspence

EMoShunz

Actually, I'm just having fun being in a flamewar. It's been years!

pr3isdentspence

Check it out: [physbam.stanford.edu]

Also, I actually watched the Heavy Rain trailer, and what impressed me most were actually her eyes. Especially at the end, they were extremely expressive and very believable. The mouth was all kinds of wrong, but if they got the eyes that believable two years ago, I can't wait to see what they have now.

MasterCKO

EMoShunz

EMoShunz

Not really. In 2 years, they could have made significant strides in making the game more realistic (2 years is a LOT of time in the dev world). I agree with PR3ISDENTSPENCE that your remark was half-cocked at best.

MasterCKO

Your logic is impecible:

"is there a demo for the new tech? no. so how could i be referring to watching the new tech? i can't be."

is the same as:

"What I said was factually impossible, therefore that can't be what I said." (And if you follow that to it's logical progression your numbered necklace will starting blinking until your circuits burn out.)

Now what I was saying is that I don't think you read enough of the article, or understood it well enough, to understand that there was an old tech and a new tech.

By the way, you've got a lot of nerve talking about respect when you called me a four-four-dollar-hol-three, C0:CK:$U:CK:3R.

pr3isdentspence

EMoShunz

EMoShunz

Holy crap dude, you've made 34 comments in 6 hours.

I now understand why you don't have the time to read the articles or write unambiguous comments.

Now, are you at work?

Love,
4$$hol3^2

pr3isdentspence

I perceive a lack of imagination around here. :-)

benenglish

You said, "i watched that demo...it's not real time...and it's not crossed 'uncanny valley'
very impressive though."

Let's break that down:

"i watched that demo" = what it reads as
"it's not real time" is not relevant to discussion

and the important bit:

"and it's not crossed 'uncanny valley'
very impressive though." = arguing against the claim WHICH WAS MADE FOR THE NEW TECHNOLOGY not the old one.

Your sentence (and I use that word loosely, since the only punctuation you seem to know is the elipsis) had an implicit reference to the NEW technology. So, you said, "I watched that demo and it doesn't stand up to the claims they are making."

IF you were talking about the old tech and understood that the picture/demo and the article were two different things (which I'm not sure I believe you did), then don't get mad at me for your writing an ambiguous post.

Sincerely,

4$$h0l3

pr3isdentspence

EMoShunz

gaming media adopted the term long ago when games first started trying to hit realism. Where the term started makes no difference, it is used when speaking about games to talk about a very specific problem with rendering realistic human figures. It doesn't refer as much to complete unease as a general sense of "wrong". This almost always comes down to animation, particularly facial animation, and flesh tones due to a lack of subsurface scattering. Other things tend not to have the same effect as long as they are consistent, but because of the way our brain interprets human figures when they start to look more human they come across as less accurate due to the above flaws and others.

It is the same reason artists can get way with poorly drawing animals or even a lot of scenery, but poorly drawn human figures jump out.

juriko

No, no. I remember when people were screeching about the uncanny valley back when "Spirits Within" came out. To me, that still looked like a cartoon, a caricature.

This, however, is the beginning of the true Uncanny Valley. When developers try oh so hard to push realtime graphics toward realism. It's getting too damn close.

I say back off for a generation and stick with the caricatures, they're more lovable than actual human faces anyway. Aren't there graduate theses that say people can become more attached to emoticons than highly realistic faces?

crazycarlt

That was rendered off line with 10,000's of processors.
Then each frame was hand tweaked to look as good as possible.

Even with all that effort you can, for the most part, tell it is CG.

Techguy1138

leadingZer0

Anyway, watch the ad because it's amusingly bad in it's own right (uncanny valley or not)

leadingZer0

I think what these guys are missing in their research is the "subliminal" (which is hard to figure out since it is, of course, subliminal :-). Without that level of not quite visual information, almost anyone will notice that there is something "wrong" and creepy. And gamers in particular will know it's a fake... but we'll play anyway... why do we really care?

huygir

I think that exumed Orville Redenbacher ad is a great example of the hazards of a near miss in GCI:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcn4p213Zg8

leadingZer0

Who cares if it has to do with robotics or video games. This was a PR move designed to get you to talk about their upcoming product. We all know that Sarah Silverman up there doesn't look real ...they didn't cross anything ...but they made you talk about it.

vertigo

Even if you perfectly reproduce the appearance of somebody's face, then model the underlying musculature perfectly, to produce visually perfect movement...

That still gives you the look of a very wooden, uncomfortable actor. It lacks the TIMING of the movements of the different facial muscles, some of which are very subtle, that goes into the formation of an expression, and an emotional projection.

It's a heavy task to create a face that just makes a proper "idiot grin", and "exaggerated anger" of a well sculpted mannikin... yet they refer to stuff like that as "crossing the uncanny valley".

-

They haven't even started on creating facial MOVEMENT and TIMING that CONVINCINGLY projects real anger, sadness, melancholy, happiness, satisfaction, deceptive smile that's not obviously sinister, etc., etc.

How can they model it when most actors can't even break it down themselves? They just do it naturally.

Movies are full of BAD real-life actors... yet CGI has yet to map performances as good as unwatchably BAD junior high play actors, let alone a CGI DeNiro.

dcartist

Applying this theory to 3-d- animation is bullshit, because the initial unsettling condition never really existed.

Pope John Peeps II

Pope John Peeps II

bubuli

farcast

But whatever. Mentioning the words "uncanny valley" gets you about a hundred thousand nerd-hits on the internet, so why not do it?

Pope John Peeps II

While harder to develop for there isn't some massive potential to be unlocked, hidden from developers. The very things that make it hard to develop for prevent it from being a powerhouse. That doesn't address the root of the problem either way, which has little to do with processing.

The Beowolf comparison bears repeating. Even a fully pre rendered 100% controllable animated film regularly entered into moments of uncanny valley, and was most successful when it avoided mimicking movements 100% and instead stuck with more animated movements. Uncanny valley isn't about polygons or lighting, most of it comes down to animation. Unfortunately most animation issues can't just be solved with more processing. While I am sure they have gotten close, and that many of their cut scenes could cross in and out of that boundary I sincerely doubt they have solved anything related to uncanny valley.

juriko

aidan_cage

Re-read the blurb or the article, that image is from E32006, and is NOT the output from the new tech they say they have developed.

1)Read
2)Post

So many people seem to skip step 1.

pr3isdentspence

drewheyman

... but seriously, it's all about the cinematics; not graphics.

ripfire

clarkjw

w00zzy

It's pretty good. I'm definitely curious to see what this studio can do.

chinesedentist

The human face and form is immensely complex, and it doesn't help that it's the single most intimately familiar / recognizeable object to other people. I don't doubt we could push enough polygons to render the shape correctly, but to make it come alive and get all intimate and innate cues to bring it too life is vastly beyond what game artists are capable of yet. Beowolf was still in the uncanny valley and the tools they used are leap years beyond what can be rendered in real time.

No human created human; animation, sculpture, robot, whatever has ever successfully crossed the uncanny valley.

Argyle

Mark 2000

Anyone remember "Chubby Rain" that excellent Bowfinger flick with Kit Ramsey and that famous final line "Gotcha suckas!"

Priceless.

tblain

EMoShunz

Is she sad because she's shooting people? that usually makes her happy.

God made the pretty girls pretty because he likes them more

novacthall

w00zzy

White

drewheyman

This could also be big news for Sony if Quantic Dream makes a follow-up statement to the effect of "... but only on the PS3." We know that the PS3 is a powerhouse relative to the 360 (very hard to program for, but powerful nonetheless). It may be that for this generation of consoles "Non-Uncanny Games" will be reserved for the PS3. If that's the case, the PS3 would have a huge advantage in attracting exclusive titles with A-List actors - and the gamers and profits would follow.

Brock

greeneggsnsam

Mark Wilson

natredde

blachole

EMoShunz