I hope the topic’s in the right place, if not, I’m sure there’ll be a mod around soon.
I’m sure most of you have noticed that in recent movies, there’s been a dramatic increase of special effects, most of the CGI kind. Most of it is utter crap, some of it is OK, and just a tiny bit is utterly spectacular.
However, I was wondering; given sufficient time and funding, is there something that cannot be done? We’ve got superheroes jumping from roof to roof, seamless transitions, they’re resurrecting dead folks to star in The Crow and Superman Returns, and it even seems we’ll even get to see nearly-perfect humans onscreen soon.
So, I was wondering, would there be something that absolutely cannot be done, effects-wise?
About the only thing I can think of is things which humans genuinely aren’t equipped to perceive. A science fiction story might deal with a person able to detect colors beyond those normal folks can experience, for instance. There’s no way you’d be able to do a movie from that person’s point of view, beyond using some surrealistic symbolic tricks. Or the “blind spot” appearance of hyperspace, in Larry Niven’s stories. According to Niven, when you’re in hyperspace and look out a window, you don’t see blackness, you just don’t see anything.
I don’t think we’re anywhere close to believable human beings. Faces especially. They can look good from a distance, as in superheroes swinging from building to building, but not close up.
In principle, any image can be generated with CGI – throw sufficient processing power at sufficiently detailed models, and you get a result that is accurate to the limits of human perception. Of course, the models aren’t there yet (particularly for things where human perception is fine-tuned, like human faces).
The only fundamental barrier is the one Chronos noted, pertaining to things that can be described but not directly perceived.
I think good human being are just around the corner. we’re not far from translating anything drawable onto the motion picture screen.
One thing we can’t do is glass-less 3D without any special screens. Reportedly they wanted to to try and do some razzle-dazzle 3D for the original Superman. But they weren’t ready for it then, or now.
3D has definitely gotten better. those 3D glasses they’re now using atre polarization glasses, but they also incorporate a rotaional polarizer or quarter wave plate, and the 3D technology is better than it used to be. But it still requires special glasses. Even if you go with LCD glasses, you need special glasses. There is another technology, but it requires a special “lenticular” screen. the last I heard, only one theater was equipped to show such films. It’s in Moscow. I’m suprised no one else has tried this.
Holographic movies aren’t up to this – I’ve seen a true holographic movie. It has an extremely narrow field of view.
So good, easily-viewed without special equipment 3D movies are on the list.
Kind of a weird one, but thoughts. You can’t really “show” thoughts in any way, and are limited to doing the typical “hushed voiceover” effect to illustrate a character’s thoughts.
I actually experienced that once. It was when I tried to donate plasma on an empty stomach and my vision “greyed out”. It wasn’t blackness, it was the non-existence of vision, and damned scary.
I agree. Computer-generated skin and especially hair still looks years (at least 5, if not 10 or more) from looking believable in motion. Fine dust and particulates (think a runner sliding into home), smoke and the such still doesn’t look very life-like, either.
In one of Fred Saberhagen’s stories, he described one of the heavy-duty bad guys as having so much power that reality looked as if it stretched towards him. I cannot see how that could be put on screen without it looking like the film was being projected on to a rubber sheet.
(But I think **Changeling Earth ** would make an awesome film anyway.)
Actually, there is at least one passable, and I daresay good, Adam Sandler movie: Punch Drunk Love. He’s the perfect charater for the lead, and I think he does a damn fine job in that movie. (It even gets an 81% approval from Rottentomatoes.com).
Yeah exactly, just what I came in to mention. Facial animation is one of the most difficult things to do believably. We’ve spent our lifetimes consciously and subconsciously studying the look and movement of other humans, especially their faces. It’s incredibly difficult to nail all the subtle intricacies involved, and as Exapno said, we’re still quite a ways off. We’re close enough, however, to have slipped into the purported Uncanny Valley.
Aside from that, I can’t think of any visual effects that some talented artists with the proper technology can’t handle.
You saw into hyperspace while giving blood? Dude, you might want to reconsider where you choose to donate. And check your skin for any unusual scars or “scoop marks.”
I think there might be certain qualities of images that cannot be duplicated with conventional effects technology, not because the human eye is not equipped to percieve them, but rather because of the limitations of the transmission medium itself. For example, film creates an illusion of motion by projecting static images at a fixed frame rate, so perhaps phenomena operating at a different frame rate would not appear identical when filmed as they do to the human eye. Granted, this would be such a minor detail that it probably doesn’t count as an “effect,” unless somebody decides to produce an all-strobe art film at some point. “Flasher! The Story of Harold ‘Doc’ Edgerton.”
Any sort of visual effect that relies on unique optical properties (such as holograms) or a focused light source, are probably out for the same reason, which is why you don’t go blind when the Terminator shines his laser scope at the screen. I’m not saying this is a *bad * thing; just that it isn’t a visual effect that can be currently duplicated on film.
Still can’t do smell (weird experiments with scratch’n’sniff by John Waters aside), which has some distorting effects in movies. Smell is a powerfully evocative force in real life (Coal Tar soap in the supermarket aisle instantly reminds me of pleasant childhood Sunday visits to my grandmother) but movies are forced to simulate smell with reaction shots from the actors that are usually more than a tad contrived. The ultimate logical conclusion of this is the cartoon convention repetoire of nose-holding, gasping and face-melting. Clever in its own way (who doesn’t love the OTT reaction shots to Pepe le Pieu?) but no good for anything more subtle.
Which leads me to a bigger point - a major problem with smell is the absence of a language in which to describe it. We have an analytical language for most visual experiences (subject to what I talk about below) in which we can dissect visual events and reproduce them relatively successfully to someone not there. But there is no such language for smell beyond mere comparison. This is why wine buffs are reduced to “toast”, “sweaty saddle” and “forest floor” (and the more purple flights of wine wankery) as markers for aroma.
So - is part of the problem an absence of language with which to describe precisely what is odd about the movements of CGI characters? I can say, for example, that Jabba the Hut doesn’t seem to exist in the same stage-space as the RL characters in some of the shots in the director’s cut in Star Wars, but that doesn’t translate into instructions that a programmer can do anything with. Or I can say that the reaction to ground impact of the Incredible Hulk is inconsisent with his apparent mass. (All the subtle adaptations that a real, massive body would undergo as it leaps to the ground are not there, giving an impression of cartoonish lightness which clashes with the on-screen cues for mass, such as camera-shake, dust thrown up, etc). But again, this description is all too remote from a language which a CGI programmer can actually adopt and use.
So would a language with greater descriptive power contribute to a solution? Or would the devising of such a language require solving the CGI problem to begin with? Dunno. But I have always struggled with being reduced to critical descriptions of CGI which start “There was just something funny/odd about the way…”, and was wondering if doing any better was a step in the right direction.
I understand your statement but I do not know how valid it is. I worked for a Fragrance Company and I supported the Perfumers and they were happy to talk about their work with a science oriented guy instead of just sales people and marketers.
They work with a well described palette of hundreds of odors. A good perfumer can differentiate over 500 smells. We have machine now that can differentiate over 100 smells. I would say there is a language, it is just one most of us are ignorant of.
We still have trouble making completely realistic-looking large masses of water, I’ve noticed. Probably not impossible, and I’m sure it’ll be done eventually, but it still needs some work.
I doubt we’ll be able to have a scene where Bruce Willis beats someone to death with a photorealistic Blivet, though.
