
Goodbye Uncanny Valley [video] - shawndumas
https://vimeo.com/237568588
======
stillkicking
There's still a huge tell in contemporary CGI, which is pretty obvious when
compared side by side to older, practical effects: smoke and light scattering.
Given the amount of destructive action we typically get on screen, the picture
should quickly devolve into a murky, misty mess that takes ages to settle
down. But of course it doesn't, because the audience needs to be able to see
the spectacle.

If the scene is composited digitally out of differently rendered layers, the
light won't scatter and occlude correctly through the mist. There's a reason
why e.g. the original Blade Runner still looks so timelessly atmospheric
compared to your run-of-the-mill dystopian cyberpunk city of today.

In that sense, we've been in the age of post-real CGI for much longer than the
quest for photorealism suggests. We're not actually seeking photorealism,
we're seeking the hyperstimulus version of it that obeys cartoon physics more
than real physics. Simulating fire, smoke and fluids is one thing, but
simulating realistic combustion, fogging and drainage is quite another.

Then again, you could make exactly the same observation about cars that
explode upon flipping over, or the jumping bus scene in Speed. In real life it
made a tiny hop and then smashed its front wheels. Magicians don't need CGI
either.

~~~
barrkel
Fake physics is the most distracting thing about character CGI in particular.
Any time a character is leaping, landing, swinging on a rope, etc. - it all
just looks incredibly wrong and jarring.

~~~
banku_brougham
For me the most painful and infuriating example of this was The Hobbit
trilogy.

~~~
wott
When they are inside barrels on rapids, Jesus... Anyway the shots are so short
that you cannot understand anything about what is happening. You just have to
wait patiently until the end of the cinematic scene so that the game^Wmovie
starts again.

------
two2two
05:56> as computers graphics get better, we believe all images less

This nugget in the video struck me most. I remember when I began trusting
images less once I understood the capabilities modern photo software provided.
We've now achieved this with most physical forms in motion picture, short of
humans. Which is not to say we won't soon. Once that threshold is crossed,
then what's next? Eventually virtual reality, augmented reality, and finally
reality reality. We'll trust everything we see (and eventually
hear/taste/smell/feel) far less than we do now.

~~~
binarymax
Indeed! I remember this being discussed as early as 1993, in the film "Rising
Sun"
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107969/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107969/)

Another good example is [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bp-and-the-gulf-oil-
spill-misad...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bp-and-the-gulf-oil-spill-
misadventures-in-photoshop/) ...which I remember being a wake-up call to those
who didn't know it had already been going on for a couple decades.

I truly wonder how much of what is presented in the MSM these days is actually
not real and manages to slip by...

~~~
CM30
> I truly wonder how much of what is presented in the MSM these days is
> actually not real and manages to slip by...

Quite a lot presumably. Ever since the idea of a media started, there have
been people trying to hoax it for whatever reason or not:

[http://hoaxes.org/weblog/categories/category/Journalism](http://hoaxes.org/weblog/categories/category/Journalism)

If a story is mainstream enough (or remotely political), hoaxes will probably
get identified at some point or another. If it's in a specialist subject area?
Forget it. Who knows how much questionable stuff slips through when neither
the journalist nor their audience know what's plausible and what isn't?

------
hughes
We have gotten very good at nearly perfectly rendering images that accurately
capture the behavior of light and materials, but I feel like to produce truly
convincing CGI we need to improve the _imperfections_ that we have come to
expect from more traditional media.

As other commenters pointed out here, the opening nature valley scene was
unconvincing. I think this is partly due to the author not having modeled the
limitations that affect physically filming a similar scene.

\- a helicopter or airplane could not plausibly move along the track shown in
the opening shot

\- camera rigs have imperfect tracking control, sometimes biased along certain
axes

\- high res 4k sensors have physical limits and defects. the scene is rendered
as if captured by a totally perfect sensor

Simulating the motion of a helicopter that doesn't even appear in the shot
seems well beyond the effort that most digital artists are willing to go to,
but I think these sort of things are key to producing something truly
convincing.

~~~
pixelbeat__
That's the point. The opening scene is the uncanny valley and supposed to be
not quite realistic

~~~
colordrops
That was my read as well. He even intentionally dropped the frame rate.

------
SubiculumCode
Sure graphics are looking amazing...but I still think we are in the uncanny
valley. Especially when it comes to faces.

~~~
arianvanp
I agree. Rogue one was a great example. I found it very disturbing. Both
Tarkin's and Leia's face

~~~
djrogers
I went in to the movie not knowing that Tarkin was CGI - I assumed he was a
stand-in and makeup - and came away none the wiser. After I was told he was
CG, it was obvious and weird...

Wonder how much of the uncanny valley stuff left is in our heads?

~~~
ddrager
Had the opposite reaction. Went in not knowing, then when I saw Tarkin and
Leia I was kind of thinking, wtf? They digitally rendered their faces? When I
talked to friends afterwards they didn't notice it. This must be pushing some
sort of mental limit of our brains - not everyone recognizes faces/cg the same
as others.

~~~
mark-r
I was blown away by Tarkin, I kept thinking how in the heck did they bring him
back exactly as he was? Leia was another matter, something was not quite right
with her.

~~~
falcolas
It's funny, while both felt pretty plasticky; Leia looked much better to my
eyes than Tarkin. The brevity and minimal movement helped, I think.

------
falcolas
Dear videographers, when you pick a "photorealistic" opening scene, make sure
the first major object you see (the palm tree) doesn't look like its made of
plastic. It also helps if you don't try and mix close up objects on far away
objects (the transition from grass to what appears to be a white-sand delta or
a glacier).

Also, if it is a glacier, snow and running water reflect light very
differently.

Just three points in the first 10 seconds which puts "the battle for photo-
real CGI has been won" on awful shaky ground.

It seems, to me, like photorealism is currently possible for static images,
but the moment you add motion, it all goes to hell.

~~~
khedoros1
> Dear videographers, when you pick a "photorealistic" opening scene

I kind of think that it was supposed to be an "uncanny valley" opening scene.
The rest of the video is quite good; it's hard to imagine that they'd flub the
opening so badly, unless it was on purpose.

~~~
falcolas
In my opinion, none of the CGI they showed was really beyond the uncanny
valley; most scenes which which weren't still photos or landscapes made
predominantly of rock were still quite fake looking. Especially the "beyond"
examples of Tarkin and Obama.

------
serg_chernata
I have to say, the most recent Planet of the Apes was seriously impressive.
It's the closest I've ever been to admitting that something looks
indistinguishable from reality.

However, they are animals and arguably I don't spend nearly as much time
looking at apes as I do at human beings. Still renders of humans may look very
close but anything in motion still looks completely fake.

~~~
dkobran
Totally agree though the concept of the uncanny valley is based on computer
generated or robotic representations of humans specifically -- not other forms
of life or inanimate objects. Meaning, not just realism in general.

------
DougN7
I've discovered something akin to the uncanny valley - 4K video. It looks so
sharp and clear it feels artificial. Not sure how long it will take to get
used to.

~~~
fenwick67
60FPS movies do this to me - everything tends to look like a stage play.

~~~
marzell
Actual movies in 60fps, or movies in ~24fps on a TV that is using
interpolation to produce 60fps output? The interpolated/faked experience is
often known as Soap Opera Effect [1]. I really dislike interpolated video, but
really do enjoy 'real' 60fps video.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_oper...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_opera_effect)

~~~
fenwick67
I mean 60fps movies - like when I went to see The Hobbit in theatres. I like
it too, don't get me wrong, but it takes some getting used to and gives a
different feeling. Like a painting versus a photograph.

But yes motion interpolation is awful.

------
tfha
Overall a really solid video about the modern state of computer graphics, with
a comprehensive tour of the cutting edge realism of light and fluid, the
current tricks and limitations used in the modern cutting edge, and then an
exploration of the artists and formats that strive to be on the cutting edge
of computer graphics while also not aiming for realism.

------
y4mi
Yeah,no.

We're not even close to passing the uncanny valley in movies or games

We might ve passed it in pictures, but that's kinda old news at this point.

------
rdoherty
Related video about why people think CGI sucks or is still in the uncanny
valley:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24)

Basically we consider CGI bad because we only see bad CGI. If it's used
properly and the director/creator understands its limitations we either don't
notice it or use our suspension of disbelief and don't care.

------
terminado
Except half of the modern popular video content discussed in this clip
represents evermore uncanny depths of said surreal valley. Overly glossy
blockbuster movie FX sequences, subversive glitch gif style viral media,
vaporwave, and so on.

So, maybe the title is something like:

    
    
      Warm Hugs For the Uncanny Valley And Other CGI Oddities

------
curiouslyme
When I started watching the video, I thought "yep, this clip is a perfect
example of uncanny valley" and kept waiting for them to switch to a clip that
was actually photorealistic.

Nope, turns out they seem to think the splash video is realistic. The whole
video has tons of obvious flaws and overall feels wrong.

I don't know if I have superman vision or what here...

------
jinushaun
No. The landscape and nature in that video didn't even look real--never mind
people.

~~~
ygra
The pulldown may have helped in that impression, as pretty much every camera
motion was jerky ...

~~~
adwi
For those interested and unfamiliar, “pulldown” here refers to converting
frame rates between different video standards by doubling up or blending
frames at regularly spaced intervals, which can introduce a visual artifact
called judder which is apparent in those clips.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
two_pull_down](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down)

------
lifty
Here is a photo realistic demo video made using Unreal Engine 4.0:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LtFrMAvQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LtFrMAvQ4)

It's quite impressive how close they are getting to photo realistic rendering.
Keep in mind, this is done in real time.

~~~
olegkikin
It's not real time, all the lighting is pre-baked, that's why all the scenes
are completely static.

I find this quite impressive:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biB7-9qtE_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biB7-9qtE_Y)

------
sixQuarks
Some environments pass the uncanny valley in video, namely vehicles,
architecture, nature - but complex things like smoke from a large fire are
still ridiculously non-realistic.

------
ghostcluster
Unfortunately, a lot of this video essay consists of ideological political
speculation from a very narrow perspective. His history of the industry was
very handwavey as well, the requisite prelude before political grandstanding.

~~~
ch4s3
> prelude before political grandstanding

What are you talking about, and did you watch the whole thing? It seemed to
mostly be about the potential future of CGI as art and its place in
contemporary/future culture.

------
samfriedman
I was really blown away by one of the video clips this video uses [0]. It's a
tech demo for a "zones" effect in VR. Really interesting effect that I could
see being a lot of fun in a Sci-Fi game (wormhole travel).

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-8kkH1KPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-8kkH1KPE)

------
frik
We are still not there. Press pause button on a CGI heavy movie like "2012".
The effects work if they are in motion. But looking at them in "pause mode" on
1080p it looks like shit hits the fan. The same for Transformer movies. 90% is
real world material with green screen background CGI effects. There are still
way too many physical effects going on. And many directors went back to do
more physical stunts, because the end CGI-only result was easily spotted and
universally hated by the audience.

Jurassic Park 1993 had only 18 minutes of dinosaur screen footage of - 95% of
them were miniatures, costumes and hydraulic mechanical robots. Only a very
short T-Rex running sequence was rendered with CGI with the predecessor of
OpenGL rendered on Silicon Graphics hardware. The good thing is, even today
the movie (shot in analog) can be viewed in 2k or even 4k. They will have to
re-render "2012" and the Transformer movies for 4k and 8k in near future.

Also the real time rendering is behind, video games still can't render 2005
era movie quality in real time, let alone 2017 era quality.

So a bit pre-mature to call it "goodbye". The progress is great, but there is
a road ahead for sure.

------
peterashford
The author doesn't seem aware that "The Uncanny Valley" refers to the
inability to make simulated humans appear natural, not making CGI in general
look natural. Very annoying seeing someone use a term with a very specific
meaning and not understanding it

~~~
robclewley
I agree. The author's claim on the video that it's "common" now to use the
term more widely is strange to me. I've _never_ heard of it used in the more
wide sense since the term became widespread, and I've worked in computer
science research since the '90s. No citation given ...

------
ttoinou
I have yet to see a movie that tries to mimic what our eyes really see (with
all the weird diffraction effect we have with our pupil and eyebrows, and some
particles moving in the liquid in front of our eyes)

------
brador
Only at a distance. Failure to extend research into vector textures over bit
textures in the 80s now means 3D objects look blurred when close up. A big
deal in VR and AR applications.

------
bitL
Awesome video! Thanks for creating it!

