VOTD: Incredible Full CG Vid Looks Like Real Life

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see the fine line between the virtual world and reality blurring. Can you say a "Matrix" like world. With some fine tuning this would be very hard to distinguish from the real world. Add in the human interface and more processing power and you have a real-time virtual world not much different from the real world.
 
[citation][nom]rentfrow1[/nom]Amazing video. Not to nit pick, but I think the wind turbines rotate in the wrong direction.[/citation]
haha yeah. you would think after all this effort he would catch something as simple as that.
 
Wow! That is really amazing. I'm glad Alex and Jennifer have Hollywood contracts, can't wait to see their work in the theaters!
 
[citation][nom]rajangel[/nom]for those who wonder why games dont have this... take a second and think about it. some cg frames cant take minutes up to hours to produce a single one. that is in movies and films. in a game you produce 60 a second. in crisis most graphic cards cant handle over 30. im sure you can do the math to figure out how much more powerful a 5890 would have to be.[/citation]
The fact that Mario 64 was "revolutionary" in many ways (not all, I know that) 14 years ago relative to say, Crisys released 12 years later, I guess it's quite clear that these sort of graphics will be very much the norm much sooner than you might think. It won't shock me to see that true DX11 games at the zenith of its cycle will be a lot more realistic and stunning than what most people believe to be probable today.
 
[citation][nom]rajangel[/nom]for those who wonder why games dont have this... take a second and think about it. some cg frames cant take minutes up to hours to produce a single one. that is in movies and films. in a game you produce 60 a second. in crisis most graphic cards cant handle over 30. im sure you can do the math to figure out how much more powerful a 5890 would have to be.[/citation]
You're forgetting a key difference: the CG used in the film industry is ray traced, an algorithm that is inherently slower than rendering real-time with your computer's GPU because GPUs accelerate rasterised CG, not raytraced CG. Raytracers therefore run primarily on CPUs in software. A software rendering path will always be slower than a specialized hardware rendering path. If they rendered this movie using rasterization techniques, the time spent rendering each frame would drop significantly.
 
Creating a Static Environment to look lifelike is not difficult, only time consuming. Creating an Active Environment that is lifelike is exponentially more difficult.

Giving weightless cgi objects real life weight/forces is very difficult.

I give props for the guy making a video that very professional, but not all this hype about how 'lifelike' it appears.
 
[citation][nom]Intel_Hydralisk[/nom]So... how long until we see this level of realism in videogames?[/citation]

4 years for pc or 12 years for consoles
 
I have to watch the uncompressed video at home as I almost wept with joy at my desk when watching the low resolution one. :'-)
 
The atmospherics remind me of Clear Sky. The Focal Transitions imo whisper a little James Cameron. This definitely is a huge step from the Silicon Graphics days. I still think that if Crytek, UbiSoft, GSC, Epic, and Bethesda put their best brains together to crack parallel GPU / CPU processing combined with Ray Tracing, I think this kind of PC video game real-time quality could become a reality in less than 5 years with DX12, Hynix next gen GDDR, and Nvidia's lazy-ass finally releasing their next gen line of cards (Tri SLI - droooool) .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.