We seem to be at a point where any explosion, slow-motion bullet, microscopic-zoom-in of a red blood cell or whatnot can be done. What are things that still cannot be shown with CGI or special effects today?
>3 dimensions?
A team recently figured out how to do iridescence, even on irregular objects. It’s freaking amazing.
How about a fully realistic artificial person? I think any attempt still falls in the uncanny valley.
Fire is still difficult.
On Game of Thrones, they actually set stuntmen (wearing lots of protective gear) on fire during the battle scenes, rather than CGI the flames.
I imagine a lot of that is probably processing capacity at the moment, until we either get more capacity, or someone comes up with a better way to model it. Similar to the way CGI hair was always wonky until relatively recently.
They’re very close with people, but it’s still usually not quite good enough.
Actually, in an objective sense, they’re a lot better at people than they are at any other animal; we’re just really, really good at seeing the small flaws in people.
People still want their flesh and blood stars with all of the personalities, gossip, and scandal that comes with them. I mean, how could you have the Academy Awards if there were no real people to receive them?
But how would you know if they had succeeded?
Also, CGI is expensive. Sometimes, even if CGI would work, it’s cheaper to go practical.
Voices. For all the visual magic they can weave these days, they still use real people speaking with real voices.
(although I suppose one could quibble that a computer generated voice would not count as CGI, being neither a G nor an I)
Because the studio that pulled it off would never shut up about it.
When they do manage to pull it off, I’ll be looking forward to a bunch of new Bogart movies.
A computer can make a believable, realistic fake person just fine, as long as it doesn’t have to move.
(refresh to get a new image)
“CG” stands for “computer graphics”, but “CGI” stands for “computer generated images”. So faked sound would still be the “CG” in “CGI”.
Although, I’ve heard that the latest Madden games use computer-generated announcer voices, not samples of the actual people, and it sound seamless to me. Though given that my source on that was 13 years old, it’s possible he might have been mistaken (even if they used samples, they did an excellent job of stitching them together).
Not exactly. It’s still samples, just a whole lot more of them. It’s the reason the announcers since Madden 17 have been Brandon Gaudin and Charles Davis and not a better-known team: they had the time to sit in a studio and record several hundred hours of material, which actual NFL broadcast teams would never have the time (or inclination) to do.
Those are pretty good - although if you refresh over and over again, every now and then you encounter a face with defects that look like nightmarish rifts in the space-time continuum. :eek:
Yeah, I got some freaky lazy eyes and some strange deformed creatures around the margins occasionally, but otherwise it’s pretty impressive.
Except that I would argue whether these are fully computer generated. IIRC, these are fusions of multiple photographs to create a new photo.
Stuff with “flow” are a problem. Long hair sweeping around, burbling liquids, the aforementioned fire, etc. More extreme than fire are explosions where there’s the extra added issue of the producers don’t want a realistic looking explosion. A short flash, some smoke/dust and stuff falling over several feet away isn’t glamorous. So lots of flame. A really nice fireball is somehow considered mandatory regardless of situation. And that’s hard to do. A clump of C-4 going off, sans dust, would actually be easier. (Unless it’s blowing something into a million pieces, then those get hard.)