In another life I'd be doing maths for 3D movies. I went to university in Wellington where Weta are based (Peter Jackson's film companies) and at one point had a look around the digital arm. I seem to recall that they had the SGI machines as desktops and a big unix rendering farm. I just love the way you can use maths to create such magic.
Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, Moana is fantastic. Incredible animation, catchy pop hooks in the music and a brilliant storyline. It's wonderful to see a Disney film with a strong female lead that needs neither male support nor a love interest.
Stunning Video Game Graphics With Voxel Cone Tracing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOWamCtnwTc
Great Video about a very intruiging subject !
Now I'm trying to think of other Disney leads of either sex without a love interest... is there one? Other than those for whom it's not really applicable (ones who are too young, mostly).
Disney even got some flak for "glamming" her up to be like other Disney princesses 
There are plenty more. I think it has more been current society that is recognizing it more.
Those are all quite recent, while the historical Disney films all fall into the traditional template of male and female lead falling for each other. To the extent that Enchanted can assume the audience knows the formula that they're parodying.
There is indeed a recognition and a policy change that stories don't have to be made to fit that formula any more. And it seems that the films are exploring other affectionate relationships, such as the sisters in Frozen. Wreck it Ralph clearly has affection between Ralph and Vanellope, but it's more a parental/big-brother-little-sister thing than a romance. Brave focuses on mother/daughter. And so on.
Up (about a guy escaping being sent to an old people's home .. or something).
Cinematography is the science or art of motion-picture photography by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as film stock.
I'd call it the art of deciding the movement/placement/focus of the camera, regardless of whether it's a physical camera or a software one. A scene from a different perspective is not as powerful, after all; thus the regard for cinematography.
Rob Dressel ... director of cinematography: layout
Adolph Lusinsky ... director of cinematography: lighting
In case others would like to verify, the full credits on IMDB are here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3521164/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_s...
There are two cinematographer credits listed for the movie.
Roger Deakins ... (cinematography consultant)
Mike Sanders ... virtual cinematography
Is this during LoTR or even before? I though SGI was out by the time of LoTR
At one point they bought the building of an ice cream factory in Miramar because it already had a massive electrical feed.
They employ a fair few people in Wellington, my neighbour used to work for Weta as a sysadmin. Everyone was a contractor, doing 10 hour days. Not my scene.
Actually, I seem to recall that there were guys around at the time that were making the monsters for Xena or one of those shows.
Game physics still tends to go "boink", because with impulse/constraint collisions, everything, including large, heavy objects, bounces instantaneously. Stuff flying apart, though, is rare now; most systems drain the energy out of a system when they detect that happening. It's physically wrong, but looks less awful.
I used to work on this stuff. I solved the "boink" problem for articulated rigid body physics in the 1990s, but couldn't make it work in real time on 100MHz CPUs.
Most games are using position based dynamics now (see Nvidia PhysX) so there isn't even a variational principle to arrive at the system from an energy. Just a constraint satisfaction problem with a weak notion of momentum coupled in.
Also, here's an article containing some stills from the movie:
The whole blog of publications is super interesting!
I also helped push this forward to get other divisions to think about open sourcing code more often. http://disney.github.io/
Your computer is just very limited in how much attention to detail it can have, because it has wildly less processing power and has to get its job done in real time.
By contrast, Disney is using a server farm to spend 3 seconds analyzing the mechanics of a tuft of hair wiggling in the breeze for 1 second.
While certainly not directly linked to poor physics simulations of water in computer games I would guess it has played a big role in holding back advancements in this area because how much locally-only non-game mechanic influencing visuals could cause contrast with need to be duplicated on the server physics.
That's 16.7ms to run your WHOLE game engine, you get some fraction of that left over to do rendering.
Ie a game which was hosted on a remote desktop that had direct access to a GPU server farm on a very fast network.
The general term for it is cloud gaming
What you are asking is basically has anyone run a game on a supercomputer/cluster so that the graphics are way better than what could be done locally. The answer is no, nobody has. That would be pretty neat though. It would be super expensive to make with no way to recoup the cost.
For a movie:
> There's a principle I call The Law of Constancy of Pain. Back when we made The Adventures of André & Wally B. in 1983 a typical frame took from several minutes to a few hours to compute. Now computers are literally millions of times more powerful and a typical final render takes from a few minutes to a few hours to compute, averaging somewhere between 2 and 4 hours. Render times have remained flat for over 30 years because that's just how long people are willing to wait for them.
So movie artists are willing to have each frame of a movie take 2-4 hours to render vs 16.7 milliseconds.
I challenge the studios to be imaginative and equally expressive on the latter. Give us the miyazaki equivalent in 3d animated films.
Don't take fthe easy way out by emulating reality. Put true art into it
 "the uncanny valley is the hypothesis that human replicas that appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit feelings of eeriness and revulsion among some observers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
But no-one else seems to be complaining about this so I wonder if it's just me?
Faking physics is a mastery. Trade-offs are unavoidable.